It's greatest two weaknesses are that you need to buy the DLC's to get the most out of the game and secondly the AI is horrendous at the one unit per tile combat mechanics. It's easy to get into and is more of a casual friendly strategy entree. I have a ton of hours in both and enjoy both games for very different reasons.Ĭiv5 is what I call a "bad game" with addictive gameplay mechanics. For EU4, you don't really need the DLCs, they're quite optional. They add a lot to the game and greatly improve it. The two major expansions (Gods & Kings and Brave New World), at least. On a last point, if you're going to pick up Civ5, you'll need the DLCs.
You'll have a few years of "downtime" at times, when you do few things besides waiting.Īt the end of the day, both are great, and it's really down to which genre you want more. It's a much more complex game than Civilization, and it's not as friendly to get into, but it's very satisfying to play, especially if you happen to enjoy history and geography (as EU is set on actual historical time setting and real world map, as opposed to Civ).Īs a side note, despite EU4 being real-time and Civ5 being turn-based, I feel that EU is more "slow paced" than Civ.
You'll be faced with decisions that have a lasting impact on your game.
EU4 is probably the most "gamey" entry in the EU series so far, and it has pretty good gameplay, indeed. It's sort of an "Alternative Story Simulator". There are no set objectives, there's no "victory". That's the main beauty of the Civilization series for me - they are very easy to pick up and get started, but are still quite deep and take a long while to truly master.Įuropa Universalis has a different style.
It has mechanics that are simple to grasp, but that lead to very deep strategical and tactical decisions. It has a boardgame feel (but with much more depth than most boardgames). I love both games, so let me give a rundown from my point of view:Ĭivilization is more "gamey".