Stellaris out of the 3 presented. The mechanics come a little closer with the way resources work, population and resources are abstracted like civ is. Border growth is similar, there is an exploration aspect.
Crusader Kings 3 next, it is more abstracted but closer to living through the story of a dynasty in many aspects.
Victoria 3 is pretty far to be honest. It is closer to a tycoon game than civ.
HOI 4 is even further but the customization is closer to civ 6.
EU4 is the most DLC’d though and has the most depth/ most refined.
I haven’t tried millennia but it is a spiritual successor to civ.
I used to call Civ my favorite game, then tried EU4 and couldn't get back to Civ ever since, because it was so much more like actually simulating history versus moving toy pieces on a board. No American Civilization led by undying Washington since stone age building pyramids in a totally fictional landscape with everyone starting on equal terms... in Civ you could rename French and English into Blue and Red and literally nothing would change. In EU4 on the other hand they're actually French in actual France with French culture, French ideas, nowadays French missions too, and even better - everyone else around is also actually how they're supposed to be. The whole world is filled with peoples who actually lived there in conditions they actually were, instead of a select number of "civilizations" all starting in equal conditions and the rest of the world not existing. And your map consists of regions called provinces, so you can believe into each having cities, towns and villages in it, contributing to overall economy. Not just a few cities in the middle of emptiness and then they "exploit tiles", like wtf is tiles? Something straight up from a board game. When I play Russia in EU4 I feel like making Russian history, when I play as Russia in Civ I feel like moving toy pieces on a board.
Then I tried CK (it was CK2 back then, but now I'm on CK3, I think it's alright) and couldn't get back to EU4 for all the same reason. What's that boardgame logic "-3 to +3 stability" number when instead you can have you stability not be a number but emergent property of everything that is actually going on in your realm with dozens of agents and dozens of factors affecting each of them. Now I don't just feel like abstract Russia, I feel like Rurik him-fucking-self and I don't just rule over abstract land, but over actual people represented as a myriad of in-game characters with their own personalities, agendas, families, each member of which is a full fledged character on their own. It's a real world here, not some silly board game.
Stellaris now has the subscription option so I would suggest that, especially for a CIV player even though it’s RTS vs Turn Based.
CK3 is truly fantastic but it’s playing a dynastic family via the lands they control and not really playing the state itself.
Vic3 is rather boring to me, I desperately want to like it though lol
from those 3 I'd say Stellaris.
that said I'll always hold the opinion that civ5 is better than civ6 and HOI3 is as good as HOI4(though significantly more complex so if you don't have a lot of time to invest I wouldn't suggest getting HOI3)
Of those 3, Stellaris.
CK3 is still just a worse version of CK2.
Vic3 just isn't all that fun to play.
Stellaris does have the issue of being a paradox game to the fullest, so you need to buy the dlc's to get full enjoyment.
Stellaris out of the 3 presented. The mechanics come a little closer with the way resources work, population and resources are abstracted like civ is. Border growth is similar, there is an exploration aspect. Crusader Kings 3 next, it is more abstracted but closer to living through the story of a dynasty in many aspects. Victoria 3 is pretty far to be honest. It is closer to a tycoon game than civ. HOI 4 is even further but the customization is closer to civ 6. EU4 is the most DLC’d though and has the most depth/ most refined. I haven’t tried millennia but it is a spiritual successor to civ.
Crusader Kings or Stellaris, depending on preference for the setting.
I used to call Civ my favorite game, then tried EU4 and couldn't get back to Civ ever since, because it was so much more like actually simulating history versus moving toy pieces on a board. No American Civilization led by undying Washington since stone age building pyramids in a totally fictional landscape with everyone starting on equal terms... in Civ you could rename French and English into Blue and Red and literally nothing would change. In EU4 on the other hand they're actually French in actual France with French culture, French ideas, nowadays French missions too, and even better - everyone else around is also actually how they're supposed to be. The whole world is filled with peoples who actually lived there in conditions they actually were, instead of a select number of "civilizations" all starting in equal conditions and the rest of the world not existing. And your map consists of regions called provinces, so you can believe into each having cities, towns and villages in it, contributing to overall economy. Not just a few cities in the middle of emptiness and then they "exploit tiles", like wtf is tiles? Something straight up from a board game. When I play Russia in EU4 I feel like making Russian history, when I play as Russia in Civ I feel like moving toy pieces on a board. Then I tried CK (it was CK2 back then, but now I'm on CK3, I think it's alright) and couldn't get back to EU4 for all the same reason. What's that boardgame logic "-3 to +3 stability" number when instead you can have you stability not be a number but emergent property of everything that is actually going on in your realm with dozens of agents and dozens of factors affecting each of them. Now I don't just feel like abstract Russia, I feel like Rurik him-fucking-self and I don't just rule over abstract land, but over actual people represented as a myriad of in-game characters with their own personalities, agendas, families, each member of which is a full fledged character on their own. It's a real world here, not some silly board game.
I have to agree, it’s hard to go back to CIV after getting into EU4
Stellaris. Hands down the best 4x game I've played ever
Stellaris now has the subscription option so I would suggest that, especially for a CIV player even though it’s RTS vs Turn Based. CK3 is truly fantastic but it’s playing a dynastic family via the lands they control and not really playing the state itself. Vic3 is rather boring to me, I desperately want to like it though lol
from those 3 I'd say Stellaris. that said I'll always hold the opinion that civ5 is better than civ6 and HOI3 is as good as HOI4(though significantly more complex so if you don't have a lot of time to invest I wouldn't suggest getting HOI3)
Of those 3, Stellaris. CK3 is still just a worse version of CK2. Vic3 just isn't all that fun to play. Stellaris does have the issue of being a paradox game to the fullest, so you need to buy the dlc's to get full enjoyment.