Moros
07-18-2012, 17:43
The official CA statements
There have been many worries about rtw 2 not going to be historically accurate at all and very romano-centric, but of course except for RTW we didn't have any reason to assume it wasn't going to be. Some, though little, more information has been leaked on the upcoming new total war game but it does give us a better view on the matter. I'm going to focus mostly on units for this as we have seen little else to analyse.
First of we might want to think back to the first interviews in which they did claim that history inspired them as it was "stranger than fiction". The example given was indeed the infamous flaming pigs. But they referred to the use of sources and were actually debating their possible inclusion, though with mostly a different usage apparently. This seemed promising to me.
Now the Jack Lusted who is the main unit designer and thus the man to listen to when it comes to this topic, said the following on using accurate history:
It is more useful to talk in terms of historical authenticity than historical accuracy, which never survives past the player getting involved anyway. There are a lot of things we do which aren’t accurate because it is a game, battles lasting minutes not hours or days for example. So any game can’t be historically accurate, but we are aiming for it to be more historically authentic than ever.
This refers to the look and feel of the various nations and peoples in the games, from the way they are dressed to the equipment they use on the battlefield to the mechanics on the campaign map. So the armour, tunic, helmets, shields and so on will be based on historical examples. The unit rosters will be based on the kind of units that were fielded and the societies of different cultures.
There will be units which were historically rare but we make more of because they are interesting and different. As in the past few Total War games they will not be appearing in every army but they will be there to add flavour.
He also leaked that units though often differed in arms, especially the barbarians, it was not going to be possible to include different type of weapons within a single unit. Mainly because of gameplay reasons, but also because it would be difficult to assign unit stats.
On the matter of romano-centrism he wrote:
There is obviously far more information available on Rome than on other factions and cultures in this era, but that does not mean we are neglecting them. A lot of research has gone into the unit rosters for non-roman factions and into the campaign map to represent them well.
Analysing a new screenshot
Now very recently two additional screens were leaked. One in which we can see a close up of fight on the walls of Carthage as Romans storm from a siege tower and fight an iberian 'mercenary' (mercenary in historical, not game play terms, note mercenaries are in!) unit. The Romans appear to be Principes and there appears to be a unit of Sacred Baal infantry or a similar heavy native Carthaginian unit as well:
6334
One thing that is noticeable is the arrows sticking in the shields of the assaulting roman units. This looks great and I wonder if it'll have actual effect in game. Missile weapons often were of use to make shields unwieldable or more difficult to wield, rather then to kill men of in the masses. This was especially true in the Western part of the ancient world where the bow was highly inferior compared to their eastern counterparts. Now the Roman unit itself except for the overly present red faction colour, looks decently historical at first sight. Though I personally feel that units don't need to have their faction colour represented in their skins, one can't call it pretty, but it's understandable to be present again as it might be useful for newer players especially.
The roman unit
Now, it needs to be determined for sure that it is indeed principes we see here? if we want to go on. This 'older' screen has two men on the front from a unit attested to be principes by Jack Lusted himself:
6342
The detail in this one also allow for even better analysis, but to me clearly are the same units. Now at TWC it was seen to ba having a big historical error by a few fans. First as it was pointed out as a unit of triarii (the heaviest infantry unit of the traditional Roman armies). But when said both were principes other issues were pointed at. First the issue of a principes wearing an Italo-Corinthian helmet (or apulo-Corinthian), which evolved out of the Korinthian helmet that was popular with the Hellenes before our start date and is famous as part being part of the iconic image of the Spartan hoplite. Now this evolved Corinthian helmet was richly adorned and likely expensive, thus generally associated with the Triarii (the richest of the infantry) and the Equites ("knights", a class of very rich Romans who serves as cavalry on the battlefield), was seen as being an historical error. On this critique Lusted posted a short reply:
Roman soldiers in the time period of the Third Punic were self supplied, it is unlikely that the Italo-corinthian helmet was restricted to just the Triarii. A variety of helmets will be shown in pre-marian Roman units.
This is in itself true. We mustn't forget that untill the first century BC, the Romans fielded militia troops of which the ancient Roman historians wrote that they were divided in different units by wealth. Now as the principes are only one step down from the triarii it isn't that out of place to see some within the unit. Though it is hard to say from the info we have, but they might be a bit too common in the unit than logic would dictate. However it isn't out of line and in se not historically wrong. The variety of equipment used by these militias however isn't reflected in their body armour, they all wear mail armour or lorica hamata. Which is historically not much of a problem either and rather logical in game terms, especially when it comes to unit stats and performance. The only issue that might be mentioned is that the pila (the throwing spears they hold) are based on a design used only later in history as was pin pointed by Prometheus. However to me that is only a minor detail that most wouldn't have even noticed and doesn't make much difference. The shields and their decorations look great and reasonable to me as well. :yes:
6335
Italo-Corinthian helmet
Now back to the first screenshot. It looks as they also wear chalcidian or more likely italo-chalcidian helmets as well. Which would means another historically correct and sourced helmet for them as well. It is adorned by two feathers, one on each side, which can be seen in wall painting as well.
6333
Italo-attic helmet, though without the feathers
The Iberian mercenary unit
We also see a unit of Iberians in there. The fact they are easily to be be labelled as such testifies they actually have a strong historical basis and look, especially as there were a variety of different people living in the peninsula at the time. Which was rather different for units in the Rome total war I faction erroneously called Spain, with the bull (you can add the s word here if you like) warriors as a prime example:
6323632463256326
A few unit info card of RTW's units from the Spain faction
Now on the matter of the Bull warriors CA said themselves they made them completely up as they didn't know what to add. Now it seems to be quite different. The Iberian warriors look like Iberians, not just any of the many different peoples from Spain but exactly the ones, which lay in Carthage influence sphere. They can be recognised by their use of the famous and dreaded falcata swords, which are similar to the perhaps even better known Greek Kopis. These single edged swords have a tip with added weight and curved form for additional armour piercing effect, and undoubtedly it would work well against unarmoured foes as well. The sword is typical and from the correct area of Iberia, it for one wasn't used by more Western and Northern tribes such as the Celtiberians (focused around the ancient stronhold of Numantia) or Lusitanians (Who lived in what today is modern Portugal). The rest of the equipment comes clearly from other historically correct archaeological sources. The shields they wield, called scuta by the Romans due to their likeness to their own, were large oval shields not that different as well from the more widespread thyreos type. Not just the shape is correct but the decorations are as well and are definitely based on archaeological evidence. Most likely the unit will be called scutarii in game after the shield, not unlike the RTW I unit. Due to the lack of detail as it is rather zoomed out, it's difficult to tell exactly what types of helmets they are all wearing. But one iconic type is clearly identifiable and thus again historically based and sourced.
6327
Detail from the famous Lliria vase.
6328
Ossuna warrior armed as well with the scuta, wearing the helmet we can clearly see in the unit
Compare this rather historical unit that clearly is based on sources to the old RTW I unit and one immediately sees and enormous increase in historical correctness:
6329
RTW I's scutarii
The Carthagenian unit
Then the third unit we can clearly see is a heavily armoured Carthagenian one. I suspect it to be the Sacred band unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Carthage) looking as they appear to be wearing bronze cuirasses, fancy helmets, shinprotectors and carry aspides (the round shields most famously know for their usage by the Greek hoplites). It is difficult to say much about them as details are hard to make out in this screenshot and one of them is mostly visible. However what one can clearly see though is one of their shield decorations, which tell us something as well. But first let us compare the guy with the RTW I unit:
63306331
They clearly have much in common. Both wear bronze cuirasses, leg protectors and crested helmets. However this time the helmet isn't an outdated Korinthian helmet (see above as well), but one which doesn't cover the face. It's hard to say what type it is, if it is one. However the symbol on the shield shows us that RTW II is greatly increased in historical accuracy. It is the symbol of tanit the patron godess of Carthage and the symbol can be seen below. This is a remarkable improvement over the bland shield from RTW.
6332
Conclusion
The units certainly have more roots in history and more sources are clearly used this time. While RTW I seems mostly based on some Roman ancient historians, archaeological sources this time were part as well. There definitely is more research gone into unit design and it shows. I'm actually a bit excited about this, as to me personally it's a huge improvement. So I can only say good job CA and Jack Lusted!
So what do you guys think?
There have been many worries about rtw 2 not going to be historically accurate at all and very romano-centric, but of course except for RTW we didn't have any reason to assume it wasn't going to be. Some, though little, more information has been leaked on the upcoming new total war game but it does give us a better view on the matter. I'm going to focus mostly on units for this as we have seen little else to analyse.
First of we might want to think back to the first interviews in which they did claim that history inspired them as it was "stranger than fiction". The example given was indeed the infamous flaming pigs. But they referred to the use of sources and were actually debating their possible inclusion, though with mostly a different usage apparently. This seemed promising to me.
Now the Jack Lusted who is the main unit designer and thus the man to listen to when it comes to this topic, said the following on using accurate history:
It is more useful to talk in terms of historical authenticity than historical accuracy, which never survives past the player getting involved anyway. There are a lot of things we do which aren’t accurate because it is a game, battles lasting minutes not hours or days for example. So any game can’t be historically accurate, but we are aiming for it to be more historically authentic than ever.
This refers to the look and feel of the various nations and peoples in the games, from the way they are dressed to the equipment they use on the battlefield to the mechanics on the campaign map. So the armour, tunic, helmets, shields and so on will be based on historical examples. The unit rosters will be based on the kind of units that were fielded and the societies of different cultures.
There will be units which were historically rare but we make more of because they are interesting and different. As in the past few Total War games they will not be appearing in every army but they will be there to add flavour.
He also leaked that units though often differed in arms, especially the barbarians, it was not going to be possible to include different type of weapons within a single unit. Mainly because of gameplay reasons, but also because it would be difficult to assign unit stats.
On the matter of romano-centrism he wrote:
There is obviously far more information available on Rome than on other factions and cultures in this era, but that does not mean we are neglecting them. A lot of research has gone into the unit rosters for non-roman factions and into the campaign map to represent them well.
Analysing a new screenshot
Now very recently two additional screens were leaked. One in which we can see a close up of fight on the walls of Carthage as Romans storm from a siege tower and fight an iberian 'mercenary' (mercenary in historical, not game play terms, note mercenaries are in!) unit. The Romans appear to be Principes and there appears to be a unit of Sacred Baal infantry or a similar heavy native Carthaginian unit as well:
6334
One thing that is noticeable is the arrows sticking in the shields of the assaulting roman units. This looks great and I wonder if it'll have actual effect in game. Missile weapons often were of use to make shields unwieldable or more difficult to wield, rather then to kill men of in the masses. This was especially true in the Western part of the ancient world where the bow was highly inferior compared to their eastern counterparts. Now the Roman unit itself except for the overly present red faction colour, looks decently historical at first sight. Though I personally feel that units don't need to have their faction colour represented in their skins, one can't call it pretty, but it's understandable to be present again as it might be useful for newer players especially.
The roman unit
Now, it needs to be determined for sure that it is indeed principes we see here? if we want to go on. This 'older' screen has two men on the front from a unit attested to be principes by Jack Lusted himself:
6342
The detail in this one also allow for even better analysis, but to me clearly are the same units. Now at TWC it was seen to ba having a big historical error by a few fans. First as it was pointed out as a unit of triarii (the heaviest infantry unit of the traditional Roman armies). But when said both were principes other issues were pointed at. First the issue of a principes wearing an Italo-Corinthian helmet (or apulo-Corinthian), which evolved out of the Korinthian helmet that was popular with the Hellenes before our start date and is famous as part being part of the iconic image of the Spartan hoplite. Now this evolved Corinthian helmet was richly adorned and likely expensive, thus generally associated with the Triarii (the richest of the infantry) and the Equites ("knights", a class of very rich Romans who serves as cavalry on the battlefield), was seen as being an historical error. On this critique Lusted posted a short reply:
Roman soldiers in the time period of the Third Punic were self supplied, it is unlikely that the Italo-corinthian helmet was restricted to just the Triarii. A variety of helmets will be shown in pre-marian Roman units.
This is in itself true. We mustn't forget that untill the first century BC, the Romans fielded militia troops of which the ancient Roman historians wrote that they were divided in different units by wealth. Now as the principes are only one step down from the triarii it isn't that out of place to see some within the unit. Though it is hard to say from the info we have, but they might be a bit too common in the unit than logic would dictate. However it isn't out of line and in se not historically wrong. The variety of equipment used by these militias however isn't reflected in their body armour, they all wear mail armour or lorica hamata. Which is historically not much of a problem either and rather logical in game terms, especially when it comes to unit stats and performance. The only issue that might be mentioned is that the pila (the throwing spears they hold) are based on a design used only later in history as was pin pointed by Prometheus. However to me that is only a minor detail that most wouldn't have even noticed and doesn't make much difference. The shields and their decorations look great and reasonable to me as well. :yes:
6335
Italo-Corinthian helmet
Now back to the first screenshot. It looks as they also wear chalcidian or more likely italo-chalcidian helmets as well. Which would means another historically correct and sourced helmet for them as well. It is adorned by two feathers, one on each side, which can be seen in wall painting as well.
6333
Italo-attic helmet, though without the feathers
The Iberian mercenary unit
We also see a unit of Iberians in there. The fact they are easily to be be labelled as such testifies they actually have a strong historical basis and look, especially as there were a variety of different people living in the peninsula at the time. Which was rather different for units in the Rome total war I faction erroneously called Spain, with the bull (you can add the s word here if you like) warriors as a prime example:
6323632463256326
A few unit info card of RTW's units from the Spain faction
Now on the matter of the Bull warriors CA said themselves they made them completely up as they didn't know what to add. Now it seems to be quite different. The Iberian warriors look like Iberians, not just any of the many different peoples from Spain but exactly the ones, which lay in Carthage influence sphere. They can be recognised by their use of the famous and dreaded falcata swords, which are similar to the perhaps even better known Greek Kopis. These single edged swords have a tip with added weight and curved form for additional armour piercing effect, and undoubtedly it would work well against unarmoured foes as well. The sword is typical and from the correct area of Iberia, it for one wasn't used by more Western and Northern tribes such as the Celtiberians (focused around the ancient stronhold of Numantia) or Lusitanians (Who lived in what today is modern Portugal). The rest of the equipment comes clearly from other historically correct archaeological sources. The shields they wield, called scuta by the Romans due to their likeness to their own, were large oval shields not that different as well from the more widespread thyreos type. Not just the shape is correct but the decorations are as well and are definitely based on archaeological evidence. Most likely the unit will be called scutarii in game after the shield, not unlike the RTW I unit. Due to the lack of detail as it is rather zoomed out, it's difficult to tell exactly what types of helmets they are all wearing. But one iconic type is clearly identifiable and thus again historically based and sourced.
6327
Detail from the famous Lliria vase.
6328
Ossuna warrior armed as well with the scuta, wearing the helmet we can clearly see in the unit
Compare this rather historical unit that clearly is based on sources to the old RTW I unit and one immediately sees and enormous increase in historical correctness:
6329
RTW I's scutarii
The Carthagenian unit
Then the third unit we can clearly see is a heavily armoured Carthagenian one. I suspect it to be the Sacred band unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Carthage) looking as they appear to be wearing bronze cuirasses, fancy helmets, shinprotectors and carry aspides (the round shields most famously know for their usage by the Greek hoplites). It is difficult to say much about them as details are hard to make out in this screenshot and one of them is mostly visible. However what one can clearly see though is one of their shield decorations, which tell us something as well. But first let us compare the guy with the RTW I unit:
63306331
They clearly have much in common. Both wear bronze cuirasses, leg protectors and crested helmets. However this time the helmet isn't an outdated Korinthian helmet (see above as well), but one which doesn't cover the face. It's hard to say what type it is, if it is one. However the symbol on the shield shows us that RTW II is greatly increased in historical accuracy. It is the symbol of tanit the patron godess of Carthage and the symbol can be seen below. This is a remarkable improvement over the bland shield from RTW.
6332
Conclusion
The units certainly have more roots in history and more sources are clearly used this time. While RTW I seems mostly based on some Roman ancient historians, archaeological sources this time were part as well. There definitely is more research gone into unit design and it shows. I'm actually a bit excited about this, as to me personally it's a huge improvement. So I can only say good job CA and Jack Lusted!
So what do you guys think?