The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Empire Total War is better than Napoleon Total War (the computer games)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
STALIN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,589 times Debate No: 40240
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

STALIN

Pro

4 rounds, 72 hours time, 5,000 characters.

Round 1 acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

Napoleon Total War is definitely a worse game than Empire Total War for several reasons.

-You can only play as four countries in Napoleon Total War.

-The rebellions are too large.

-The map is limited to only Europe.

-The AI does little. For example, I play as Prussia and I'm at war with France. Austria, Britain, and Russia don't do anything. Its basically a 1v1.
1Historygenius

Con

Thank you, I will counter you now.

Refutations

"-You can only play as four countries in Napoleon Total War."

That's a lie and my opponent knows it if he played the game once. The countries that can be played:

France (Tutorial, Italy, Egypt, Europe, Waterloo, Peninsular War)
Britain (coalition, Peninsular War)
Austria (coalition)
Russia (coalition)
Prussia (coalition)
Spain (Peninsular War)

Non-campaign:
The Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Ottoman Empire, etc.

"-The rebellions are too large."

As they should be. Do you think the American Revolution or the French Revolution were small? They were not. This makes it realistic. Revolutions were that organized and dangerous back then. Revolutions were always fairly large and they occur at natural times when wars are being lost and the taxes is too high.

"-The map is limited to only Europe."

No its not, there are maps with Spain, Egypt, and Italy. Actually, I don't think the campaign map is that bad when you consider it is only about the Napoleonic Age. In addition, it helps noobs who need assistance. The Empire Total War map is too large for new players. I'll admit it was overwhelmed as many other players were.

-The AI does little. For example, I play as Prussia and I'm at war with France. Austria, Britain, and Russia don't do anything. Its basically a 1v1."

Keep in mind that Napoleon crushed his enemies during his wars against the European powers. It is no surprise that they would do nothing but defend themselves. Also, while France might be distracted with Austria, you can build up and strike them from Prussia.

Arguments

1. More scenario battles in NTW.

2. Most units look the same in ETW, in NTW they look so different for their nations.

3. Different generals in NTW, not the same generic general in ETW.
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

Note to voters:
NTW = Napoleon Total War
ETW = Empire Total War

Forgive me
"That's a lie and my opponent knows it if he played the game once. "

There is no need to be so rude. I meant to say that there are 5 different playable countries, France, Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. When I said there were only four countries i was only thinking about the Coalition countries. Spain however is not a playable country, you can only play in battles against the AI or against other players. There is no campaign for Spain. That is unless we played different versions of Napoleon Total War.
http://totalwar.wikia.com...

There are 11 playable countries in ETW:
Austria
France
Spain
Ottoman Empire
Mahratta Confederation
Netherlands
Prussia
Russia
The Republic of Poland
Sweden
Great Britain

You can build a global empire in ETW. You can only build a European empire in NTW.

"As they should be. Do you think the American Revolution or the French Revolution were small?"

The rebellions should not be so large. I mean one city can basically spawns an entire army and sometimes that army has cavalry and artillery. The problem with the Egyptian campaign is that there are too many rebellions. When I played the Campaign, I had more trouble dealing with the rebellions than I did defeating the Mamelukes and Ottomans. The Rebellions were so annoying that in the end I simply had take over the cities which represented the "victory conditions". In order to ensure that a rebellion does not start you need to leave 5 battalions in a city, even then a rebellion is still possible.

Stalin: "-The map is limited to only Europe."

1Historygenius: "No its not, there are maps with Spain, Egypt, and Italy."

Spain and Italy are both in Europe. Egypt is only included in Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign.

Stalin: "-The AI does little. For example, I play as Prussia and I'm at war with France. Austria, Britain, and Russia don't do anything. Its basically a 1v1."

1Historygenius: "Keep in mind that Napoleon crushed his enemies during his wars against the European powers. It is no surprise that they would do nothing but defend themselves. Also, while France might be distracted with Austria, you can build up and strike them from Prussia."

However when I was playing Napoleon's army had not even come close to Vienna. And there was nothing for Austria to defend against since France was only attacking me. In addition to France, Spain was sending entire armies at me. The only reason that I won is because I had invaded all of the German countries surrounding Prussia early in the game and received money from those countries. There was only one instance when Austria did something. Russia did nothing except fight with the Ottomans. Britain did not step foot on mainland Europe.

REFUTATIONS:

"More scenario battles in NTW."

True, however in Empire Total War, there are many more locations where you can fight since the map is not limited to only Europe. You can fight in different environments.

"Most units look the same in ETW, in NTW they look so different for their nations."

In NTW the only difference in the units is the color, same as in ETW. Perhaps the graphics might be somewhat better, but I would disagree about how the units look.

"Different generals in NTW, not the same generic general in ETW."

How generals look is minor.

Conclusion: Your first argument is true. However I would say that argument 2 and 3 are all about the difference in graphics per game.
1Historygenius

Con

Arguments

I do apologize if I came off as rude to you, but it was an "ah ha" moment in a sense. Sorry.

"There is no need to be so rude. I meant to say that there are 5 different playable countries, France, Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. When I said there were only four countries i was only thinking about the Coalition countries. Spain however is not a playable country, you can only play in battles against the AI or against other players. There is no campaign for Spain. That is unless we played different versions of Napoleon Total War."

Anyone can play Spain in the Peninsular War campaign.

http://wiki.totalwar.com...

In total, I find that you can play those seven nations (the Ottoman Empire can also be played in the Egyptian campaign) in a campaign, but all the others are playable in multiplayer battles, meaning that there are 12 nations you can play in Napoleon Total War. (Earlier I mentioned several, I forgot Portugal).

"You can build a global empire in ETW. You can only build a European empire in NTW."

I have no idea if this is a new argument or a refutation. If it is a new argument, then my opponent dropped his argument that ETW's larger map is better. If it is a refutation then, my refutation that NTW is easier still stands. New players, or ones that want less of a complex game can pick NTW over the more complex ETW. In addition, NTW has a longer weather period than ETW does.


"The rebellions should not be so large. I mean one city can basically spawns an entire army and sometimes that army has cavalry and artillery. The problem with the Egyptian campaign is that there are too many rebellions. When I played the Campaign, I had more trouble dealing with the rebellions than I did defeating the Mamelukes and Ottomans. The Rebellions were so annoying that in the end I simply had take over the cities which represented the "victory conditions". In order to ensure that a rebellion does not start you need to leave 5 battalions in a city, even then a rebellion is still possible."

You are trying to make a game more easy over being more realitistic. In Egypt, the French had to deal with a highly hostline environment so they needed to keep garrisons at all cities. You must play as the French did in their Egyptian campaign.

"Spain and Italy are both in Europe. Egypt is only included in Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign."

Incorrect. Italy and Spain both have their own campaign maps. I mentioned the Peninsular campaign earlier, which only takes place in Spain and Portugal. The first campaign you will play in NTW is Napoleon's campaign in Italy, which enlarges Italy with more territories and is not part of Europe.

http://totalwar.wikia.com...

Finally on the coalition doing nothing:

1. You were clearly a larger threat so the French wanted to deal with you first.
2. Austria was scared that France would be too powerful when they invaded.
3. Russia was busy in a war with the Ottomans as you say.
4. Britain focuses on the naval war.

Arguments

"True, however in Empire Total War, there are many more locations where you can fight since the map is not limited to only Europe. You can fight in different environments."

No you can't with the scenarios. There are three land battles in ETW, two in Europe and one in the U.S. and then there are two naval battles. In NTW's scenaios, there are ten land battles and two naval battles.

"In NTW the only difference in the units is the color, same as in ETW. Perhaps the graphics might be somewhat better, but I would disagree about how the units look."

I am legitimately shocked at what my opponent is saying and am questioning if he even played both games. Look at ETW Prussian and British infantry vs. NTW Prussian and British infantry:

ETW

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

NTW

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

There are major differences in the unit designs.

The different generals is important because it allows more realism.

Conclusion

My opponent concedes that I won the first arguments, I countered all other refutation and have held my own arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

I have no idea if this is a new argument or a refutation. If it is a new argument, then my opponent dropped his argument that ETW's larger map is better. If it is a refutation then, my refutation that NTW is easier still stands. New players, or ones that want less of a complex game can pick NTW over the more complex ETW. In addition, NTW has a longer weather period than ETW does."

ETW has a larger map. In other words there are more places in which to expand, explore, and conquer. This however does not make the game harder, it just makes it more fun. Weather period is minor.

"You are trying to make a game more easy over being more realitistic. In Egypt, the French had to deal with a highly hostile environment so they needed to keep garrisons at all cities. You must play as the French did in their Egyptian campaign."

However how do rebels get hold of artillery? All of the artillery should be with your army. The rebels sometimes even had line infantry. The real rebellions were mostly peasant hordes, armed militia. However your dealing with more of an army, not a rebellion in NTW. When playing the Egyptian Campaign, it is about as hard to defeat a rebel army as it is to defeat a Mameluke army. And there are so many rebellions that in the end you spend less time fighting the enemy. When I played the Egyptian campaign It took me a few times to beat, even on easiest because of the unreasonable size and number of rebellions. In the end I just had to forget about conquering and holding any significant amount of territory and just go through and quickly take all the victory conditions. My point is that why not just have an entire country called "rebels" in Egypt. The rebellions are very annoying since they can just take cities while my army is fighting the Mamelukes.

"You are trying to make a game more easy over being more realitistic."

The Egyptian campaign is not as realistic as you make it seem. How is it that it is possible to build French line infantry in Egypt? Napoleon had 40,000 men and that was it. Yet you can train French soldiers in Egypt.

"Incorrect. Italy and Spain both have their own campaign maps. I mentioned the Peninsular campaign earlier, which only takes place in Spain and Portugal. The first campaign you will play in NTW is Napoleon's campaign in Italy, which enlarges Italy with more territories and is not part of Europe."

What I meant was that Spain and Italy are both in Europe, only Egypt is in Africa. And in Napoleon's European Campaign Turkey and the middle east are completely off limits.

"Finally on the coalition doing nothing:"
I would agree with the first one. However you talk all about NTW being "realistic". First of all, I never declared war on France, France declared war on me. I did not even want to fight France and did nothing to threaten France. And the historical inaccuracy is that Napoleon focused on defeating me first. In real life, Napoleon fought and defeated Austria first which is what you do when playing as France in the European Campaign. "Austria was scared that France would be too powerful when they invaded." Doesn't make sense. If both me and Austria had invaded France, then France would surely have been defeated. "Russia was busy in a war with the Ottomans as you say." Another reason why NTW is unrealistic. Russia can't be fighting the Ottomans all games; in real life Russia played perhaps the most important role in defeating Napoleon. "Britain focuses on the naval war." And in real life Britain took over Copenhagen and invaded Spain.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(1807)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Why does Britain only focus on the naval war in NTW? And in real life Spain never sent soldiers to fight Prussia. NTW is completely unrealistic. ETW, although it may not be entirely unrealistic also at least gets the main ideas of the 1700's down. The goal of ETW is to build an empire, colonize, and explore. The goal of NTW on the other hand is much more limited to building a European empire.

Your arguments are basically that NTW has more historical battles and that NTW has somewhat better graphics than ETW.

I would like to point out that there are several episodes which you can play in ETW which follow the colonization of the Americas, the French and Indian war, and the American Revolution.

Graphics do not necessarily make a game better. As you pointed out the difference between NTE and ETW infantry. However graphics do not make the game any better. And you can only really how the infantry looks when you bother to zoom in.

Conclusion: ETW gives players a sense of a global empire. NTW gives the players a sense of an unrealistic war between Napoleon and Europe. Clearly Con has weak arguments and that is why you should all vote PRO
1Historygenius

Con

Refutations

"ETW has a larger map. In other words there are more places in which to expand, explore, and conquer. This however does not make the game harder, it just makes it more fun. Weather period is minor."


Obviously, but that makes it more complex for newer players who might want something more simple or those who want a quick game.

"However how do rebels get hold of artillery? All of the artillery should be with your army. The rebels sometimes even had line infantry. The real rebellions were mostly peasant hordes, armed militia. However your dealing with more of an army, not a rebellion in NTW. When playing the Egyptian Campaign, it is about as hard to defeat a rebel army as it is to defeat a Mameluke army. And there are so many rebellions that in the end you spend less time fighting the enemy. When I played the Egyptian campaign It took me a few times to beat, even on easiest because of the unreasonable size and number of rebellions. In the end I just had to forget about conquering and holding any significant amount of territory and just go through and quickly take all the victory conditions. My point is that why not just have an entire country called "rebels" in Egypt. The rebellions are very annoying since they can just take cities while my army is fighting the Mamelukes."


Historically, rebellions have had artillery and some professional infantry. When the American Revolution occured, the rebels had some infantry join them and professional officers like George Washington and Charles Lee. The artillery was taken in forts by American troops led by Benedict Arnold. In the French Revolution, the poor people were joined by several French soldiers who were among the poor. These soldiers naturally had artillery with them. Both artillery and infantry were common on both sides, just more for the government. You also don't want to make rebellions too easy.

"The Egyptian campaign is not as realistic as you make it seem. How is it that it is possible to build French line infantry in Egypt? Napoleon had 40,000 men and that was it. Yet you can train French soldiers in Egypt."

New French recruits would be sent to Egypt. You then have to train them to create a unit.

Arguments

"What I meant was that Spain and Italy are both in Europe, only Egypt is in Africa. And in Napoleon's European Campaign Turkey and the middle east are completely off limits."

Firm disagreement. The Ottoman Empire controls Turkey in the European campaign. While Spain and Italy are both in Europe, the fact that they have separate campaign maps offers an interesting new look to some countries.

On the Coalition, you don't want it to be too real. Otherwise you are simply just repeating history. That is boring, so they take some alternate turns. By the way, the AI was worse in ETW with countries doing nothing. NTW is a lot better with activeness among allies.

"I would like to point out that there are several episodes which you can play in ETW which follow the colonization of the Americas, the French and Indian war, and the American Revolution."

Yes, that was the main story and it was horribly boring. The NTW campaign allowed someone to emotionally tie to a main character (Napoleon) with his secretary as the narrator. In ETW, the story is basically narrated by George Washington and focuses solely on one area in the campaign map: North America.

The NTW campaign takes place in several exotic and sexy locations like Egypt.

"Graphics do not necessarily make a game better. As you pointed out the difference between NTE and ETW infantry. However graphics do not make the game any better. And you can only really how the infantry looks when you bother to zoom in."

I don't want it look like I'm playing Mario. The difference in infantry allows people to feel like their there: the uniforms of the men, the music playing as they march, the officers shouting orders. It is awesome! Graphics help with realism.

Conclusion

My arguments have held well and I have refuted all my opponent's arguments. Realism > Easy

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Conclave 3 years ago
Conclave
This debate is one sided cause it never talks about multiplayer aspect. For multipalyer, NTW is better hands down. More variety in units for each nation, better combat mechanics, more polished graphics and more balanced gameplay.

You cannot argue a thing for ETW when it comes to multiplayer, which is all that matters for me.
Posted by sleuth 3 years ago
sleuth
My steam name is either 16kadams or kealad1 if anyone wants to play any total war game with me.
Posted by sleuth 3 years ago
sleuth
ETW > NTW, in my opinion
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
@Subutai I disagree with you on the importance of the noob argument. Wouldn't you say playing France in NTW is easier than it is in ETW because of less territories management and money? If there was someone new to the TW series, I would give them NTW.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Whatever...
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
It was not that straightforward as a simply yes or no.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
We said it in the comments section. Man, does nobody ever read my comments?
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
You two never said it was a draw unless you said in the foreign language.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Well, in each battalion I have like 80 or 120 soldiers. The total number of each army is under 2,000 in each battle. I mean in the Battle of Waterloo there were 120,000 French soldiers.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Also, it would be cool if the armies in Napo Total War and Empire Total War were not scaled down."

Well they're still limited by the computer, have you set your unit size to maximum?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
STALIN1HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro and Con were even. Spelling and Grammar are the same. I felt Pro had the better sources, with most of Con's sources being pictures in his album. Pro's arguments were better. ETW has way more nations, and much more land in it's free-for-all campaign. Con's argument on graphics isn't important.. gameplay is, and Pro proved ETW had more of that.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
STALIN1HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire argument was predicated on the hardness of NTW compared to ETW and the size of the map. Con's arguments were a little more diverse, but I did find his noob argument to be irrelevant. In a nutshell, I found con's argument of historical realism to outweigh pro's argument of easiness. For example, rebellions can indeed be quite large in scale and strength.