The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

The Total War series of games are better than the Age of Empires series

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,716 times Debate No: 16182
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




1st round is for acceptance. My opponent can create rules and list defntions in his 1st speech. Ill do it in my second one.


I invite you to create the rules :)

Definition of GAME [1]
a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play (2) : the equipment for a game

Debate Round No. 1


First off, thank you for accepting this debate, and good luck!

Rules are as follows:
1. Evidence is not required unless the specifics of a question are asked for, i.e. "When does the SPQR recieve Hastani?"
2. Spelling and grammatical errors are excused, for I know I will most likely make a few.
3. I ask that the voters vote not on personal preference, but what this debate states.

Pro will be arguing that the Total War series of games are better than the Age of Empires series. Con will be arguing that the Age of Empires series of games are better than the Total War series of games.

Now on to my points...

1. Summery of Both Games
The Total War series of games are a turn-based strategy game in which one chooses a faction, maintains an economy, trains units, declares war, and proceeds to conquer the entire map in a game that can last months. The Age of Empires series of games are a real time strategy (RTS) style of game, meaning that while you are running your faction, the opposing side is running theirs at the same time. AoE requires one to acquire resources, construct buildings, train units, and attack the enemy's base while your opponent is doing the same. Games last usually for about 45 minutes.

2. Strategy
The TW series requires one to have a more strategic approach than the AoE series. In the TW games, wars are fought on the battlefield, with you being able to command your troops. You have to outflank, out do, and out smart your opponent in order to win the battle, and in the long run, the war. In AoE, one can win a battle by amassing large numbers of cheap, low level units, and spam the enemy's base into submission. This action does not require much thought, and thus is less strategic.

3. Economy
The TW series requires one to levy taxes, sack cities, build agoras, and maintain a small army in order to have a decent economy. In AoE, one can send 5 resource gatherers to acquire wood, and they will automatically do their job without you being present. It is more difficult, and more entertaining, to maintain an economy in the TW series than in the AoE series.

4. Storyline
In AoE, the story is played out on a variety of different maps, with little correlation and outragous coincidences. For example, in AoE: Warchiefs, one is required to fight Gen. Custer, and find a hidden stash of treasure. In TW, the story is played out on the actual campaign map, and their is no set way of accomplishing your goals. The TW series also are historically rooted, while AoE differs from history. It is up to you to win the game, not the game designers forcing you to achieve certain goals and pass certain levels.

5. Factions
In AoE, there are only a few factions to choose from. For example, you have the Ottoman Empire, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Germans, the Russians, the Portugese, and the British in AoE 3. In Medieval Total War 2, you can choose from the Scottish, the English, the French, the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Genoa, the Kingdom of Sicly, Spain, Russia, Poland, Hungary, the Turks, Egypt, the Moors, th Byzantine Empire, and the Danes. There is much more of a variety of factions on the TW games.

6. Units
In the AoE series, all factions follow the same unit structure throughout the game. In Warchiefs, all faction have an archer, a longer range unit (most of the time a rifleman or musketeer), artillery, ranged cavalry, melee cavalry, and a few unique units. In the TW series, all faction have a different units set that is used for a variety or strategies. The French are cavalry based, with crossbows and pikmen. The Romans in Rome Total War are infantry based with ranged units and light cavalry. The Egyptians have naptha throwers and Mamaluks. Every faction in the TW series is suited for a certain style of combat, while in AoE all the unit sets are essentially the same.

7. Additional Story lines
In AoE Warchiefs, the expansion to AoE 3, there are 3 new factions to play as and a whole new storyline. In Medieval 2 Total War, the expanions set has over 15 new facions to play as, 4 new maps, and 4 new periods of history. These campaigns are the British Campaign, the Teutonic Knights campaign, the Amerias campaign, and (my personal favorite) the Crusades campaign. This offers a lot more diversity and styles of game play then in AoE expansions.

These are only a few of the many reason why the TW series is better than the AoE series. I hope the voters see these facts, and I urge them to vote Pro!


Good Luck to you too !

I will use this round to produce my own arguments and some rebuttal to contradict and nullify the evidence you present against the AOE series.

1. Strategy

Who says that AOE is not strategic ? AOE is also fought on a battlefield, you are able to command your troops. You have to outflank, out do, and out smart your opponent in order to win the battle too. AOE is a conglomeration of military ingenuity and tactical agility. You must be able to situate you troops in such a way that they will use their surroundings and abilities to overpower the opponent's military for example, Creating an ambush. Using weak yet plentiful units to attract the foe's troops then directing a squadron of Hussar to the heart of the formation and Royal Dragoons to raid villagers and thus weaken economic growth, something you can't do on TW.

. You say that TW is more strategic than AOE but this is completely based on opinion rather than fact. You arguments against AOE here are utterly fallacious. You claim that in AOE one can win a battle by amazing large numbers of cheap units( Please specify which) . This is not true, not even to a minute degree is this correct. In AOE if your opponent decides to foolishly attack you with 1 type of cheap unit ( archers of any kind ) You can easily use the trample and grapeshot tactics against them. This consist on producing heavy cavalry, and flanking them tactical before they can properly defend themselves.( this would end the battle in 15 sec.) . You can even counter with light artillery. This will rip to pieces any infantry within radius.

2. Economics
In AOE economics are more challenging and amusing the TW. Part of this is due to the fact that since one can control a wide variety of factions in the game. Each faction has its own unique technology and privileges in the maps, this allows for more enjoyable and more didactic fun for ll user.

AOE economic structure is also superior because in AOE you have direct control of each building block of your nation's economy(Villager and peasants). You have to have almost perfect equilibrium between economic research and growth. You have to manage your market's 0upgrades and trade system to prevent an economic downfall. You must also wisely use you cards sent to you by your mother nation to your advantage and your team's benefit. You can do this by building religious institutions or by creating arsenals all of this economic diversity and more is possible only thought AOE

3. Storyline

"For example, in AoE: Warchiefs, one is required to fight Gen. Custer, and find a hidden stash of treasure"Sadly, I really fail to see how this might have " little correlation and outrageous coincidences". In fact natives were in frequent conflict with the General Custer and histocrial events such as the battle of Little Bighorn support this claim.

4. Factions
Your argument for the factions is solely based on quantity, and if you are going to do that then you might as well mention the fact that AOE2 also has 15+ factions, all with very unique attributes think one should criticise a faction of the game on quality as oppose to quantity. In AOE there may be less factions available but, each delivers very different experiences that appeal to player all across the the military and economic spectrum. Unlike TW , AOE does not offer repetitive and dull factions.
  • Spanish — The Spanish have good hand infantry and cavalry available, and are flexible early in the game due to their faster Home City shipments. The Spanish explorer can train War Dogs since the Discovery Age, when soldiers are not trainable. Their unique units are the Rodelero, Lancer and Missionary. Their best units are the Espada Rodelero, Garrochista Lancer, the War Dog and Tercio Pikeman.
  • British — The British build Manors, which are 35% more expensive than normal houses, but spawn one free settler each upon construction, instead of the usual houses; this speeds up early game construction and gathering. Their military is more focused on the later game, with a stronger economy in the early game. Their unique units are the Longbowman, which boast the longest range in the game, and the Rocket, also boasting quite a far range. Their best units are the Redcoat Musketeer and King's Life Guard Hussar.
  • French — The French train Coureurs des bois, stronger villagers which may eventually double as infantry. This civilization can have many shipments related to Natives, and so it is the strongest at forging native alliances. The French train the strongest cavalry unit of the game, the Cuirassier (at the cost of 3 population space). Their unique units are the Cuirassier and the Coureur des Bois. Their best units are the Gendarme Cuirassier and Voltigeur Skirmisher.
  • Portuguese — The Portuguese receive a free covered wagon on each age advancement, which can build a town center. This civilization has extra exploring facilities, such as the option of shipping additional explorers and the "spyglass" ability which can reveal unexplored territory. They have a balanced military, which is supplemented by a strong navy. Their unique units are the Cassador and the Organ Gun. Their best units are the Jinete Dragoon and Guerreiro Musketeer.

And much more....

5. Units
In your units argument I don't really see what exaclky it is that you are arguing because you are wrong. Each faction is set for a very different economic and military style.

Take AOE 3's military for example ;

: The spanish are very strong militaristicly, the pretty much cover all aspects of warfare, from land units to naval ones.

: The british are exemplery infantry unit producers, for example they have the strongest Redcoats in the game.

The french have very durable and the most powerfull calvary units and native warriors.

The ottoman posse a very unique army, they have Mameluks and Spahi and Abus cannons all of which are extremely durable and flexible on the battle ground.

The portuguese are extrordinary with Naval warfare, they have a powerfull armada that is almost evenly matched with that of the british and spanish.
: The dutch have very strong relation with mercenaries due to the fact that their army is small and weak.But this does not mean they dont have an enjoyable paying style, they do. They are my favorite nation, with some gold, the can summon Royal Swiss Guards, Black Nights, Scottish Highlanders and Sweedish King's Life Ruyters.

: The russian have a very infantry and calvary, but incredebly potent artillery.

: Finally the Germans! These guys are ridiculously good at producing anti-calcary units. They have War Wagons, Dopplesoners and Uhlan. It is very interesting seing these guys going up agaist the french.

But this is not even a tiny speck of the military the AOE series offers, there is every thing from War Elephants to Camel Rifflemen and Pegasous.

6.Additional Story lines

In your final argumnet you forget about the AOE Asian Dynasties[2] and AOE napoleonic Era [3] and AOE Online[4] which are all expansions of the original AOE 3. In total there are 22 new factions that one can command and over 60 new units at players disposal.

Next round I will be producing my own proof of why the AOE series is"better" than TW.
Thank You :)

I think I have provide enough argumnets on why

>>>>>>>>>>Vote CON<<<<<<<<<

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2


1. Strategy
I never said that AoE was not strategic, I simply said that it was less strategic. In the TW series, there is much more manuevering and positioning of one's troops to create the perfect senario of attack. In AoE, there is not much movemet other than military movement, and this means it has less options to prepare attacks from. In TW, you can create ambushes that are even better than in AoE. You can have an army hide in the mountains or the woods, and when you place them there they will lie down and hide. They will remain undetected until an army, quite literally, stumbles upon them, causing a battle to ensue. In AoE, if the enemy sends a cavalry scout out and they see your ambush, the enemy can take measures to prevent themslves from being ambushed. You cannot hide an ambush in AoE.

When I meant low level cheap units, I was referring to mass riflemen/musketeers. In multiplayer battles, many players choose to do this because it is economical and (most of the time) efficint. In TW multiplayer, nobody settles on one unit. And you bring up a good point with the cannon vs infantry. In TW, there is no rock/paper/sissors format like there is in AoE. In AoE games, infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats artillery artillery beats infantry. In TW games, attack damage on a unit is the same, depending on armor and oter defense stats. A flaming catapult shot will take the same amount of health from cavalry as it will infantry.

2. Economics
Yes, one does have direct control over ones economy, but the economies in AoE are much less realistic than the ones in TW. In AoE, your opponent can take out your settlers/peasents and destroy your economy. In TW, the only way to destroy an economy is to seige and take many cities. No only does this make it more challenging and fun, but its much more realistic in history.

3. Storylines
Yes yes, the natives dd frequently fight Gen. Custer. Everybody knows that. I was referring to the having to find pirate gold in the Western United States at the time of Custer. Really, there are no cases in history where Custer and pirate gold had any correlation to each other.

4. Factions
The details, number, and diversity of factions on Total War Games is unmatched by any other. Below is a link to faction information in Medieval 2 Total War (click on the link below each faction to see the unit details)

5. Units
Same reason as stated above, click link below each faction on the link above to view the diversity and detail of each unit.

6 Additional Storylines
Ok, when can incude all of the aditional storylines that you listed, but the fact remains that TW has better storylins (as you can create your own) than AoE games. With TW, one doesnt need to conform to a set wayof thinking to win the game. There are all kinds of ways to win a campaign, while on AoE one must achieve certain goals and levels to get passed the campaign.

I look forward to your original arguments, though I believe that I hve proven why TW is better the AoE


A. Major fallacy, flawed argument because in AOE 3 you can create stealthy ambushes as well and you can also hide battalions in the mountains or the woods. "In AoE, if the enemy sends a cavalry scout out and they see your ambush..." This is impossible unless one of these two things happen. A. You use no stealthy units to conduct your ambush. B. The enemy stumble upon the stealthy units. In AOE Warchiefs many native and European units become invisible to the enemy when they are upgraded or if they have this special skill, ex. Forest Prowler, Skull Warrior, Eagle Warrior, Musketeer.

Once again this is incorrect. "I was referring to mass riflemen/musketeers" Even if you referred to riflemen or muketeers.This makes no difference, you could easily counter this with tactically placed outpost and wall fortifications, not necessarily troops(although you could do so as well). "In TW, there is no rock/paper/scissors format like there is in AoE" This is not true. AOE has a diverse set of units in each game, which brake the "rules". For example units that can kill cavalry with ease and blow up any of the 30 different building in the game to smithereens with little effort are defenceless against light infantry. And some units that are extremely powerful against both cavalry and infantry but weak when face to face with artillery or warships there are units that are stealthy ( cannot be seen) that specialize on killing mercenaries and explorers this Rock Paper Scissor notion is false.

[1] All native civilizations have a unit that can use stealth (this cannot be activated when enemy units are nearby). For the Europeans, there is a Home City card that ships 20 spies (available even to early Home Cities) or they can be trained at the Church. They share the stealth ability, as do other miscellaneous units (ninja, native scouts, etc.). When certain enemy soldiers are near the invisible unit, it becomes revealed and vulnerable to attack. Furthermore, stealth units become visible when they attack

2. Economics.

This argument also no true. Killing your settlers and villagers will indeed have an impact on you economy but you also need to take out buildings and fortification to impede economic progress and to eventually choke the opponents economic development. Some buildings needed to end someone's economy are: Mills, Town Centers, Banks , Factories, Market and Outposts.

I fail to see how the killing of population and destruction of towns in AOE is unrealistic way to deteriorate an economy. It is clear that people are the columns and building blocks of a stable economy.

3. Storyline

I really do not understand what it is that you speak of. This argument shows how little you know of the actual game and storyline. In the plot Gen. Custer NEVER fights for this so called pirate gold. He fights to secure huge amount of gold in the Black Hills of Dakota against the Lakota and Siuox. This is historically coherent. The Black Hill are know for their rich gold deposits and the conflicts that these created between Natives and Americans.

4. Factions

Once again, it is not about quantity but about quality. Even though TW has many factions they are not nearly as complex and lovable as the AOE ones.The AOE ones provide a stable and unique platform that suits all type of players. From the aggresive and violent to the defensive and reserved.

5. Units

The AOE series has produced hundreds of equally unique and desireable units as factions. These detailed and didactic units are part of the reason why the AOE series has sold over 1.3 million copies worldwide.

6.Additional Storylines

The final fallacy that I will point out in this debate is the "as you can create your own) than AoE games" "argument".This is false, in AOE one can create edited scenarios to suit one's special desires and needs.
Also, the "... fact remains that TW has better storylins..." statement is solely baced on opinon. Both games have exeptional stories.


You covered almost all the topic I would of touched on but i'll try to create two more.


Aoe gives you more bang for your buck. At prices as low as $7 for Gold editions it a pretty good deal considering you get 4 AOE games, all with unique attributes. TW is somewhere around $20 for one game !

When AOE 3 first came out the Gold Pack was only 49.99 $ at GameStop ( which included 2 games). TW only has one game and it cost 59.99 $.

Because of its availability to the masses and its fun and friendly marketing AOE managed to sell over 1.3 Million copies !


TW drags a bit and there are some small, rough edges in the tactical battles. The userface is also complex and unfriendly. AOE is more physicaly appealing and easier to interact with. Furthermore, the online battles are superb, they are quick to find and incredebly fun to play with, concidering the fact that one has the option of "cheats". This enable the player to summon anything from cannons shooting pigs to Monter trucks and giant George Washington sculptures.Online you can also create fun mini games within the confines of the game. For example Tower Defence or Fort Wars or even Cat anf Mouse.

Thank you :)

Debate Round No. 3


I only have a few minutes to post this, and I excuse myself for all of the topics I do not specifically cover.

Ambushes are more easily discovered in AoE, and only a few units can be hidden. In TW, all units can create an ambush.

The economics of TW are more realistic than AoE. As a faction leader, the destruction of economics are more like those in TW than in AoE.

Excuse me for what I said. I meant to say that in the same game one can seek pirate gold and fight Custer, creating a situation where the player is involved in several unrelated storylines.

The factions in TW have more quality than AoE. More diversity and unit abilities. About the same number of copies of TW games have been sold.

Sure, AoE has diverse units, more there is more diversity in TW. About the same number of copies of TW games have been sold.

Additional Storylines
Yes, they both have exceptional storylines, but the campaigns on TW are more diverse and have completley different gameplay from the others. AoE have diversity, true, but the same type of gameplay.

My Gold Edition of Rome Total War was $20 at gamestop, while at the same gamestop my gold edition of AoE was $40.

I didn't expect for this to come up, but ok. Cheats make the games less fair and more one sided. And while I did like the Tower Defence games, TW online was much more fun, intresting, an fair to me.

This is my last speech, and here I go. Basically, Total War games offer more diversity, fairness, and relavence to each other than those of the Age of Empires series. For all the facts listed before, I strongly affirm that the Total War series of games are better than the Age of Empires series, and thus urge the voters to VOTE PRO!


Thank you for having a fun and civil debate with me, it was fun.

I understand you circumstnces but I too have a very limited time. 8:54 PM ET.


Even though ambushes are a miniscule part of the stategy that goes on in AOE I will still disprove your statement "Ambushes are more easily discovered in AoE, and only a few units can be hidden" How are the more easily discoverd how does it differ from TW. Very little units ?In AOE almost all units, exept calvary can ambush "prey"; they can do this if the ability and skill is bestowed upon them by the motherland/ homecities. AOE also offers a panel which geives palyers the ability to create military formations on troops.


Once again how are the destruction of economics more realistic than the ones in AOE. I have cleary dispoved past arguments on this topic. AOE's economic system is "better" because it gives the player an opportunity to directly have control over the economic stability of a nation. You control every single citizen in you city unlike TW.In AOE you can aslo choose to control larges pieces oif the economy by balancing factories banks and homecity upgrades. In TW you control large states and you never get that micro-economic and macro-economic feeling you get on AOE.


Again with this storyline argument. Why can't you just accept that AOE has an exelllent well tailored plot.
"one can seek pirate gold and fight Custer, creating a situation where the player is involved in several unrelated storylines" Maybe you would produce a valid point if you understood that
the PIRATE GOLD plot is from, AOE 3 and that the GEN. CUSTER plot is from AOE 3 Warchiefs, a completely different approach to the game. The first game is set in the 1500s and the second in the 1800s. Big difference, I fail to se how this may confuce players and this is unrelated.


Again how are they more diverse ? *cricket...Cricket..* I stated why each unit is more diverse than TW in the second round. Plus, AOE provides players with a higly detailed "glossary" within the game that describes each of the unit great depth and describes their special attributes. Some of these DIVERSE units include Shades( which are magical creatures craeted in HADES) Mummies, Phoenix,Leviathan. How more divese can you get ? The AOE units are way superior, they ecompass all aspects of warfare, from historical to mythical ones.

Just admit AOE sold more copies :)

Additional Storylines

Again -___- how are they more diverse ? AOE can school TW at everything , but especially diversity.
TW only provides historical storylines BORING. AOE provides consumers with BOTH Historical/fiction and Mythical/non-fiction storylines. Ex. AOE 3, AOE2, AOE 1, AOM and AOE W.


"My Gold Edition of Rome Total War was $20 at gamestop, while at the same gamestop my gold edition of AoE was $40." Maybe this because the AOE 3 is 1 year older than TWR, it is usual for this price difference. Plus, in 1 year AOE has a game with way... better graphics.Search any image of TW R and you can see it is obvious that the price diffrence is justifiable.



I will like to point out that the opponent did not even attempt to defend TW online userface.
"Cheats make the games less fair and more one sided" Cheats are OPTIONAL if you want to have lots of fun you can challenge some one to a " cheats on" battle but the game does not count towards your win percentage. Cheats would only be unfair if there was no control over them.

Thank you ! I think I coverd all topics and disproved many false notions :) 9:22 PM ET

>>>>VOTE CON <<<<

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Silver_Falcon 5 years ago
Yep, Total War is war strategy (turn-based) and battle tactics (real-time). When talking about maneuvers, I think Pro should rather mention troops moral and how the flanking affects the flanked unit -> the flanking is not just that you slip past heavy infantry to squishy archers, but unit that have to worry about its flank fight less effectively.
Or how spreading formation makes units more resistant to archery, but vulnerable to cavalry charge (or any kind of melee).
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
"pointed to trivial differences" Cheats create a giant difference in gameplay.
Posted by HandsofManos 5 years ago
Strategy is the overall objectives of a group, ie subdue this region, secure that resource, conquer this land, etc. Tactics on the other hand are what happens in a battle, from IMT, individual movement tactics, such as rushing and taking cover, to large force sized movements, such as flanking. I won't vote on this because I am to biased towards pro.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
If I could vote I'd say both sides had bad arguments. Con should avoid ad populum and pointed to trivial differences such as cheats. Pro didn't provide a lot of detail as to why the TW system of build-and-destroy is better than gather-build-destroy. All I got was ambushes and unit variety. I wasn't convinced by ambushes because it was never explained why having ambushes more easily discoverable was a bad thing - seems pretty realistic to me. Unit variety was probably just enough to win the arguments vote for pro, even though it was never explained why more units is better I would be willing to award that on the basis of the principle of charity.

Personally I think both are epic, but if I had to choose I'd say AoE.
Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
Here are the link... the ones in the debate don't work 0_o


Posted by FreeThinker35 5 years ago
Just realized the font size.... Sorry
Posted by Brenavia 5 years ago
Thank you for pointing this out. Ill change my argument of "Strategy" to Tactics in my next speech
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
Prois confusing strategy and tactics. Total war simulates battle tactics. AoE simulates battle strategy.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by liljohnny818 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I would've voted AFF before the debate but Con has convinced me otherwise. I felt AFF made a lot of claims without a real factual basis whereas Con did.
Vote Placed by Xenith967 5 years ago
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 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: Total war from every age will always beat Age of Empires because most AOE games are too long and drawn out where total war games always made it an average amount of time to complete.