I'm perplexed on the rumored inclusion of Machiavelli's "the Prince" as something of a guide document to C:TW like Sun Tzu's Art of War for S:TW.
Wasn't the Crusades (at the least the most famous events of it) finished long before "the Prince" was published? I think if "the Prince" is going to linked to a Totalwar game, the game has to be about the Intra-Italian states war on the 15th century itself or any European states wars AFTER Prince was published. It's blatantly ANACHRONISTIC and some tactics described in the Prince can't be applied in Crusaders battlegrounds, because other than the fact historically the Prince hasn't been written yet, it's not specifically written for fields of war in Crusaders.
I got a feeling that these CA guys happens to like a lot classic books on tactics and strategy. They like Sun Tzu's and Musashi's - so they created a game based upon Medieval Asian Warfare. Perfect idea and execution. Then one guy in the back said "Hey, how 'bout Machiavelli's Prince for our next game. I read it once in High School and it has a lot of divide and conquer stuff. I think it's very applicable and totally appropriate on this game we're making. And imagine if people looking at the game box and say: Hey this game has the Prince included in it. Cool, Makiavelli " And so it happens.
What do you think guys? I'm in no way unenthusiastic about the game. Making a Crusades game is very original and I believe CA will make a stellar game. However, I just believe connecting the Prince and Crusades is a bit off.
Bookmarks