The Instigator
UrbanEagle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ethopia619
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Civilization 4 is the best strategy game.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ethopia619
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,660 times Debate No: 13813
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

UrbanEagle

Pro

Greetings and I thank whom ever excepts.

This is a nice break from hard core pollitics and becuase its pretty much oppinionated I ask that all voters leave the "Most reliable source" catagory tied becuase after all this debate will consist of logic and oppinion.

Contention 1- The Civ. 4 is the best startegy game becuase it is turn based. After making a serries of moves a player then "ends his turn" and then all of the units are reffreshed and then can move again or take new orders. This turn based set up forces players to think carefully before using up a precious turn.

Contention 2- Civ. 4 has a lot of little things going on in addition to the main goal. In Civ. 4 besides merely waging war a player still needs to worry about his civilizations happiness, productivity, research level, culture, size, welath, and government type. Civ. 4 has so many more little features than other "strategy" games like Starcraft.

Contention 3-In Civ. 4 there are many ways to win. In many strategy games the only way to win is to wipe out all of your foes but in Civ. 4 there are many others.

Space Race- Be the first to complete the rocket and get to the moon.

Score- Have the highest score

Domination- Destroy all other players

Time- Be the oldest empire when the game ends

Become world leader- Construct the united nations and then be elected world leader

Have the largest empire- own the most land
ethopia619

Con

Hello Pro!

First of all, I will like to say is that this is a pretty good topic. I hate debating about politics all the time. I would like to ask my opponent if I could state Civilization V is better.

Counter Arguments

(Well, none actually. All of what you said is basically true.)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arguments

1) Civilization V is way better than Civilization 4 includes most or almost all of your contentions and it also has AI-controlled leaders, which has a unique personality, determined by a combination of "flavors."

2) City warfare has been revamped. Whereas cities in previous versions of Civ relied entirely on garrisoned units for defense. Therefore, Civ V is the ultimate version of Civ. Civ V cities could defend themselves. Captured cities can be annexed, razed, or transformed into puppet states.

3) Civ V has more units and simpler transportation devices. There is even a balance between ranged and melee units, therefore, this is even harder.

4) City-States can be conquered outright, or befriended, via bribery or services.

5) Social Policies replace the "Civics" government system of Civilization IV.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sources

1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) gameaxis.com/civilization-v-possibly-the-best-strategy-game-not-called-starcraft-ii/ - Singapore

3) www.gamecriticsawards.com/nominees.html
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments

I thank my opponent for started this fun debate. I await his response. Good luck to you, Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
UrbanEagle

Pro

I thank my opponent for such a timely response.

It is fine that you have chosen Civ. 5 infact I think it will add to the fun of this debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. My opponent has said that Civ. 5 has additional "flavor" I interpret "flavor" as being in game culture. As far as in game culture goes I blive Civ. 4 is till triumphant. In Civ. 4 a player can research certain technology leading to the discovery of ceartain religons. Religons add culture and can also lead to tension between other civilizations. In civ. 5 religons were removed completely thus chopping out a large aspect of in game culture or "flavor" as my opponent reffers to it as.

2. Civ. 4 is more realistic- The fact that a city no longer needs garison units to deffned itself may be more convieniant but is less realistic. In real life cities just can't fight back without any sort of an army. In addition like I stated earlier Civ. 5 has no religons while the real world obviously does.

I thank my opponent and urge you to vote PRO.
ethopia619

Con

Greetings UrbanEagle,

Counter Arguments

1) In response to counter argument 1, my opponent has stated, "Civ. 4 is till triumphant." However, Civ. V cities can form peace treaties. Whereas Civ. 4 cannot.

2) My opponent has stated that Civ. 4 is more realistic. This is false because nations or cities can have a peace treaty, whereas Civ. 4 cities and nations cannot. You could also capture a Settler and command him to b a regular worker.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arguments

1) I would like to define strategy by:
"Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations."

2) Gametrailers.com gave Civ V a 9.4 out of 10.

3) Civ. V has many more stats, victory conditions, and units than Civ. 4.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sources

1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIVILIZATION-V-FRONT-OF-BOX.jpg

3) www.civilization5.com/
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments

I thank my opponent for this debate and the quick response. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
UrbanEagle

Pro

I thank my opponent for what has been a great debate.

My opponents first contention was that Civ. 5 has "peace treaties" and Civ. 4 does not. This is untrue Civ. 4 has "Open Boarders" agreements wich are the equvillant to "Peace Treaties." In addition in Civ. 4 one can also make "Deffensive Pacts" and "Trade Agreements." In Civ. 4 interaction with other Nations is more important than in Civ. 5

My opponent also said how Civ. 5 was more realistic. He gave the example of how one can convert a settler unite into a worker. I ask how this makes a game nore realistic. I argue that being able to "convert" a unite into another is infact less realistic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd also like to point out that my opponent did not respond to my point about religons. Civ. 4 allows one to found Buddihism, Hinduisim, Judaism, Confuciansim, Taoism, Christianity, and Islam. All these religons give a civilization culture points and effect how your thought of by other nations. All of this was cut from Civ. 5

My opponent also did not respond to my arguemnt about how a city can fight back against garrison units with out any sort of an army.

My opponent deffined strategy as: "Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations."

Civ. 4 meets this deffinition perfectly one needs to mind his/her civilizations culture, research, and military and be able to use them all in unison inorder to create the better civilization.

I proved that Civ. 4 is more startegic by proving that it is more realistic. Civ. 4 has religon Civ. 5 does not, the real world has religon so in this case Civ. 4 is more realistic. In Civ. 5 a city without an army can, in real life a city without an army cannot deffend itself, Civ. 4 is more realistic. (Also, the fatc that cities can deffend them selves without an army makes the game LESS strategic becuase one needs to worry less about military.)

I thank my opponent once again and urge you all to vote PRO.
ethopia619

Con

Thank you for the wonderful debate, UrbanEagle!

Allow me to rest my points:
Counter Arguments

1) In response to counter argument 2, my opponent, perhaps, does not know how a settler could turn into a worker. I'll tell you. If a settler went into your house and camped there, with the law supporting slavery, you could turn him into a worker by forcing him. How is this not realistic? You can convert a settler into a worker.

2) I'm sorry about not responding to your point about religions. It was a fact, just like how you did not respond to my point about better stats and units.

3) You stated that we should use logic in the debate, so I will use it to argue with your second argument. How can a city fight back against garrison units without an army? Plant a bunch of land bombs and mines and your done. Logic.

4) Civ. V also meets this definition perfectly. Science, check. Art, check. Combining and employing, check. Everything in the definition, check. Therefore, Civ 5 also meets the definition.

5) Strategy does not mean realistic in certain cases. For example: Warcraft III. Warcraft III is still a strategy game even though it is make believe and is not realistic. Another example is Starcraft II.

6) My opponent has not refuted much of my arguments, whereas I have at least tried to refute his arguments, and I have also refuted many, almost all, of my opponent's arguments.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Voter's votes (Just My Idea)

Agree with before the debate: UrbanEagle
Agree with after the debate: UrbanEagle
Conduct: Ethopia619
Spelling and Grammar: Ethopia619
Made more convincing arguments: UrbanEagle
More reliable sources: Ethopia619
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments

I give thanks to my opponent for this outstanding debate. I also give thanks to the voters. Thank you. Vote Con. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dmetal 6 years ago
Dmetal
SC2 pwns all rts! I can't even play age of empires or civ anymore.
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Civ 5 and Civ 4 are both good, but I don't know which to buy, so I bought both.
Posted by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
...I love Civ 5.
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Civ 5 was a huge disappointment for me. I have played all the civ games and this one had the most potential but failed. I love the combat system, but the city building is so easy now. Buying squares and the lack of a method to draw on the map makes multiplayer less fun. Civ 4 beyond the sword is, by and far, the best of the series.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 6 years ago
TheSquadBoss
multiplayer on civ. 4 is long but pretty fun.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
I'd argue Starcraft 2 myself =P, but Civ 4 is definitely an awesome game. The only downside to it is I just don't think it's a game you can play multiplayer on, the games would just be too long.
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Oops! Forgot to put my sources for round 3.
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Sure!
Posted by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
Ah, it's okay. I clicked "accept debate" and then it redirected me and it said ethiopia619 on con. And I thought to myself, "That's not my username..." Oh well. Beat em' for me! >:D
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Sorry XStrikeX! I thought that no one would take this so I just took it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
UrbanEagleethopia619Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Deku 6 years ago
Deku
UrbanEagleethopia619Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
UrbanEagleethopia619Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06