The Instigator
Con (against)
13 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Civilization V is better than or equal to Civilization IV.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,649 times Debate No: 17578
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I invite anyone to provide evidence that Civ V is at least as good as or better than Civilization IV.

They should make their argument in the first round and I will refute it.


Okay, haven't been on for a couple of months, so this shall be a break. Anyone miss me? Only joking. So, let's begin! Thank you Darknes' for starting this debate. Anyway, let's go on:

Civilization 5 vs. Civilization 4.

Civilization 5 is better or equal to Civilization 4 because of the fact that Civilization 5 include almost all the features of Civilization 4 plus some improvements that better off the game. City warfare has been revamped. Other Civilization games depend on garrisoned units, which is not very helpful actually. Cities can attack and defend, which is perfectly awesome. There is balance between ranged and melee units, which, of course, balances the game and makes it even harder. Civilization 5 has more units, so that basically means that you may have more improved units. Civilization 5 also has AI-controlled leaders, which is always fun to play with. Therefore, Civilization 5 is the ultimate version of Civilization 4. That should be for now and now it's your turn Darknes'.


Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent (for an easy victory).

Now to start; I agree about most of the things you said, but those fall far short of making up for the atrociously bad game design. The three things I did not agree with are: that Civ V include almost all the features of Civ IV plus some improvements, and that the game is balanced. I will refute these later, but most of the problems of Civ V come from things that they have left out of the original game.

His third point on which I disagree is that 'Civilization 5 also has AI-controlled leaders, which is always fun to play with.' He ignores that the fact that the Civ V AI is terrible. Quoting Sulla, "They get mad at you for expanding. They get mad at you for settling near them (or not - sometimes they say this when you aren't even remotely close!) They get mad at you when THEY settle next to YOU. They get mad at you for building wonders. They get mad at you for having a large army. They get mad at you for having a small army. They get mad at you for going to war. They get mad at you for not going to war to support them, and then they get mad at you again when you do join them in their conflicts. They get mad at you for trying to win the game, and in fact the AI is specifically programmed to dogpile the human player when he/she gets close to victory, in the old Civ1/2 BS manner. Wow. With friends like that, who needs enemies?" Heh... well, this is pretty accurate, based on my own experience of the game. The fact that the developers made it so that you did not even KNOW about what you did to upset them made it even worse, making the AI attack you for no apparent reason. Fortunately, they changed it so that players can see.

In addition, the AI seems to be an extremely bad strategist, as an example, making vulnerable and expensive units like catapults sail up to you by themselves, only to be destroyed in one turn. It seems to have no clue at calculating its success rate in operations. The higher difficulties do not improve this but compensate by outnumbering you five to one. Seriously, is it that hard to program an AI to not walk blindly to the enemy to be massacred?

This alone could allow me to win the debate, but there is far more. It is virtually impossible to form lasting friendships with the AI. In Civ IV you could create allies because you had similar civics or religion, or if you had helped them at some point. Not true with Civ V. There is hardly any incentive to diplomacy, other than delaying all-out war, and the ridiculous "research agreement", which a broken game mechanic, often giving you something very strong or weak out of sheer chance. In Civ V, it is almost inevitable that each and every AI will turn on you at some point. All the civs seem to be constantly fighting with each other. When I used to play, I would often play on an island map to make it more difficult for them to wage war, since they seem to be utterly clueless about the ocean. Plus, Pro has yet to make any arguments that AI are "always" fun to play with.

But if you only want to focus on conquest, well, that's almost as fun as the diplomacy. When you capture a city, you have two bad choices: annex the city, which adds it to your civ, also with a lot of maintenence cost and unhappiness, or puppet it, giving you only slight bonuses and a small happiness penalty. The only way to get rid of the permenant massive unhappiness penalty from annexing cities is to build a courthouse, which costs WAY too much money and takes too much time to build. Razing them means no benefit from going to war in the first place. If you still want to conquer the world, you have to capture all the enemy capitals, and you cannot raze them. But WHY can't you raze them? What's the point of it, other than upsetting people who want a one city conquest or have too much unhappiness at that point?

So if you want to try diplomacy, good luck dealing with the schizophenic AI. On the other hand, if you want to go to war and rule the world, forget about any more golden ages. Fun, huh? But the conquest option gets much worse: the 1UPT(one unit-per-tile) system is horrible. However, I will leave that point for now. Another major problem with Civ is the happiness system, which is designed to limit large empire and stop ICS (city spamming). It absolutely doesn't work. Just get Meritocracy, Theocracy, Forbidden Palace, put up a few colosseums, keep the city sizes small, and happy spamming! In fact, you can play an ICS game without taking any social policies at all:

Now we come to one of the biggest problems of this game: maintenance cost. Each building adds maintenance and they all add up. If you want to create a large city with many buildings, that will cost you. If you want to make a specialized city with all the building for culture or science, anything above that will cost you. It all adds up, remember? You can easily cripple your empire by building too many building. Most of the experienced players, including myself, win by NOT building most of the buildings, which is ridiculous in an empire-building game. However, in Civ IV, the cities themselves cost gold, and the building were free. This made each city and investment; if you spammed cities, or put them in the wrong locations, you would go bankrupt very quickly.

This brings me to my final point: 1UPT system. It. Does. Not. Work. At all. Units get clogged and traffic jams are the norm in later gamplay. This is not helped by roads, as roads cost gold for some reason in Civ V. If we have more than one road connecting each city to the capital, we overspend and lose gold. Do you know how fustrating it is to be constantly out of postion because you can't manuever your units? Warfare in Civ V is a complete mess. In extreme cases, it results in the "Carpet of Doom", in which every single tile is occupied by a unit. And anyone who thinks warfare in Civ IV is just creating a single massive stack of units needs to see this:

Does that sound like a better game to you? The other decisions such as taking out religions which you could create and spread, or not allowing unhappy or conquered cities to revolt and form another empire, simply oversimplify the game and take away some badly needed realism. As for Civ V being "balanced", well, 'Japanese units fight at full strength regardless of their current strength, Japanese swordsmen are substantially more powerful than musketmen and dominate the **** out of cities, and the Japanese fighter is bordering on unstoppable until jet fighters.
By contrast, the Aztecs get a marginally more powerful warrior that heals 2 hit points on killing a unit, 3 culture every time they kill something, and a building that increases food by 15% and gives +2 to lake tiles, which are so rare they are almost nonexistent.' - IamTheWhiteGuy

In the end, Civ V is a mediocre wargame with a few builder and diplomatic elements added. It is pretty much broken at this point, and this isn't even all I have to say. Unfortunately, I am running out of characters, so I will have to end it here. So with that over with, I do not think that there is anything more to be said. Good luck to my opponent.




ethopia619 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by shawouin 7 years ago
I can't say CIV5 is better then CIV4, I haven't played CIV4 since CIV5 came out, but I disagree with Darknes, especially on 1UPT.

I think no strategy game have a decent AI when you play at higher level. I remember CIV4 AI doing some stupid stuff too. With the july patch, a lot of CIV5 AI problems have been resolved, and some balance issues. The first version of CIV5 was bad, but now it's a lot more enjoyable.

ICS is increasingly difficult to do with the patch, but it is not the only successful strategy to win, some others are better.

I found the carpet of doom much better then the stack of death from CIV 4. It's like all those old school strategy game like Panzer general, logistic is almost as important as the battle. You can't just smash in with your 30 units, you have to plan ahead. You have to make different choice when going to war; which unit will be at the front? Which one could come to reinforce the front when the other go back to heal? Should I put an elite unit or a less effective unit up front? I didn't had all these choices in CIV4. There is less unit, so each one are more important, they are less expandable.

The gold and building maintenance add a new management view to the game, you have to choose, like many other kind of strategy games. I think your production is more limited then CIV4, so you have to get the most out of it. Spamming building isn't a type of play I like, because you don't need any building strategy, you just gotta catch them all. In CIV4 you went bankrupt by not planning WHERE you build your city, in CIV5 you went bankrupt by not planning what you build IN your city. Therefore, you can build profitable small cities in tundra and other rough terrains.
Posted by Darknes 7 years ago
I made a mistake; cities revolt and form new empires only in the Rhye's and Fall mod, although they can still go on strike.
Posted by Darknes 7 years ago
@ waylon.fairbanks
You're joking, right? I made this BECAUSE literally EVERY OTHER debate was religious or philosophical (I despise philosophy). Seriously, go to the home page right now. Do you see any video game debates?
Posted by KristophKP 7 years ago
@ waylon

Though I agree with your point, the insult was unnecessary.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 7 years ago
I liked a couple years ago before there were all these pathetic video game debates. Let's talk religion or politics or philosophy, not virginity.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
You could just be PRO that CIV V is worse than CIV IV.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
lol, good luck this time with the new resolution.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfei
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, leaving him unable to refute Con's rebuttal. Pro had sources and gains points for conduct due to Pro's forfeit.