Debunking the Historical Accuracy Myth [Archive]

Alastair II

12-27-2002, 08:20

In many of the forums about MTW, there seems to be a general feeling that the game is quite historically accurate, but needs a little tweaking. One example of this is people talking about "retaining" historical accuracy. In my view, there is little to no such accuracy to be found, nor would it be a good thing.

First, historically, there were none of these disciplined formations the commander could set at will. A closer approximation would be large mobs of peasants colliding. In other words, there was a total lack of strategy. Worse, the commander had very little actual control over his forces; he, in many cases, could do little more than tell his troops which army to fight. Even at Agincourt, which featured relatively disciplined troops, the situation was no more complex than longbowmen protected by stakes shooting down knights. Henry V made few tactical decisions during the battle, even though he commanded it.
However, IMO, these disciplined formations are necessary for any semblance of tactical competition, which is the pride and glory of the TW series. Thus, historical accuracy has neither been achieved nor is to be desired.

Another unrealism (and a good one&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif is army sizes. In real life, armies could reach sizes of 100,000 men (e.g. Battle of Nicopolis in 1396), three orders of magnitude larger than our current situation. Implementing this, for the sake of "retaining" historical accuracy, would be both technically unfeasible and ridiculous tactically, as we would have oodles of trouble just deploying, let alone managing a battle.

Finally, the current campaign (which is lauded as the most realistic of all the parts of the game) is totally ridiculous in the way that provinces are won and lost with one battle. There's the super-zoomed-out strategic view, and then the zoomed-in tactical view, with nothing in between. In real war, there is a great deal of maneuvering before and after a battle, and battle is joined because both sides think it is necessary (and hopefully can gain something from it). There are no time limits, and there is no designated "attacker" and "defender." One or the other side gains the initiative, and is then said to be "attacking." This failure of the campaign game to include any operational level of combat I find a little more objectionable than the other two major unrealisms, but I realize that to include one wouldn't yield much cash, and so would be unfeasible.

I hope the reader realizes now that to claim historical accuracy as the motivation for a requested change is ridiculous.

Al Qasim Hussein

12-27-2002, 21:37

On the contrary, requesting historical accuracy as grounds for a change is very valid. After all, units roughly correlate to their respective time periods (ROUGHLY, everyone&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. There are historical figures that appear in their respective areas of the game. The factions, and their starting positions in each, are pretty accurate.

But why rehash the accuracies when you could look on tons of posts and see them? The real issue you have here is the interface. Obviously CA is not going to be able to slap each of us in some plate mail, throw us on a charger, and teleport us to the Battle of Hastings. You are playing a computer game, and unfortunately the user interface is going to reflect that. The beauty of the game is in the accuracies that they were able to transmit onto your PC. Play Civilization 3 and you'll see some by god inaccuracy

Finally, I would like to point out that there are no absolutes in this world. And if you think there are, that's fine. But in the world of criticism you may take nothing as absolute, otherwise there can be no constructive criticism, only windbaggy bitching. Therefore claiming that those of us who request historical accuracy are ridiculous insults us and quite possibly those who would like to ponder the ideas we bring up.

Zauba'a

12-27-2002, 21:44

Alastair II, you seem to be under the impression that Medieval: Total War is NOT a game. So, I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you -- THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE, IT IS A GAME.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

_Martyr_

12-28-2002, 02:01

Yeah man its easy as hell to pick out all the flaws in the game, but come on, its a bloody great game, not perfect, but no one claims it is
I would like to see what you would do differently If you are going to moan, at least give us some suggestions

When people say 'historic accuracy' they dont mean that the game goes into every detail, they are saying that you can fight the right types of troops against each other at the right periods Heck, where do you stop, if you go into details I think that this type of game is one of the hardest types of game to create an interface for, and given the complexity I think it is a good interface system

Papewaio

12-28-2002, 02:17

Quote[/b] (Alastair II @ Dec. 27 2002,01:20)]Even at Agincourt, which featured relatively disciplined troops, the situation was no more complex than longbowmen protected by stakes shooting down knights. Henry V made few tactical decisions during the battle, even though he commanded it.
Agincourt from what I gather was a little more then line up the stakes and shoot the knights. It was a well selected field that narrowed the field of fire hence increasing the intensity of the killing zone.

The stakes where set out in V formations and the formations of the army was based around these to channel the surviving nights into killing zones (somewhat like Soly's killing gauntlets off a bridge).

There is a saying that no plan survives contact with the enemy which is somewhat of a half truth. And depending on the level of training of the warriors the units varied from mobs to heavy infantry capable of moving in unison based on flag, horn or other signal.

----

When I play STW I don't assume that when I go from unit to unit that it is the generals orders on walkie talkie. I assume that the units have some intelligence and officers to do sensible orders based on what is around them. Also the speed of play in TW is faster and deadlier then real life in a lot of instances. So relativly the speed of communications has to be considered faster.

----

I would also say that we have to deal with the systems that we are running these games on. They can only do so much before they cannot handle the events on them.

Knight_Yellow

12-28-2002, 04:39

yip gotta agree if it was historicaly accurate then the game would suck.
war isnt fun not real war anyway. well in sum other topic i think VIKING said "the way provinces are won is totaly stupid" (not exact qoute) ermm wat do u know about medieval times cos that is the way it happened.
battles where aranged and very orderly whomever won the battle then goes on to take that province not like nowadays where an army is scattered and land is fought for piece by piece.
if u actualy read about wat u so blindly think is true then ud realise that this is pretty acurate but does not sacrafice gameplay for accuracy witch is fine by me.

also the vikings sucked they conquered nothing. they where raiders thats all. if vikings had of faced a real army the great viking myths would be vry different. im not saying they werent good at wat they did but sadly mr VIKING u think the vikings where great big massive army units WRONG.

Alastair II

12-28-2002, 05:25

Chronologically:
Hussein: I don't see how your post supports your point that requesting changes based on historical accuracy is good. I also fail to see where I said that those who ask for historical accuracy are ridiculous. I used the word ridiculous in two places, and both of them are talking about the game, not about people. Also, I am not bitching, as you put it, because I thought it was clear that I like the inaccuracies.

Zauba'a:
Are you sure you replied to the right post? Where did I imply that I thought it wasn't a game (and a damn good one)?

Martyr:
Maybe you wouldn't be thinking I was moaning if you had read my post: "...no accuracy to be found, nor would it be a good thing." I intended my post to point out the fallacy in people talking about retaining historical accuracy when there is very little. I did not intend to moan, and if it came off that way, I apologize.

Papewaio:
In the quote you yourself referenced, I said that Henry made few decisions during the battle. I am well aware that Henry was skillful in his preparation for the battle.

Yellow Knight:
I DID agree that it would suck if it were accurate. It says in the bolded quote.

Lehesu

12-28-2002, 06:09

Ooooh Getting a little toasty here Please relax and sheath your blades, gentlemen. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Postino

12-28-2002, 06:18

Alastair: go and buy "The Art of War" by Niccolo Machevelli, you will enjoy it.

it is true that there is little true historic accuracy in MTW. the greatest accuracy is in the dates of factions and leaders, the types of units and, in some cases, the periods of arms development. even this was subject to "conveinence".

for a small example, taken from Machevelli's "Art of War"(@ 1510) a reguartly recruited batillion would be comprimised of @ 1/3 pikemen, 1/8 light armmed men(skirmishers), and the rest being sword and sheild men. this would be @ 450 men. this is one "unit". at the same time this one "unit" in a this game would be completely unweildly and hard to map to an interface.

the main thing is: in japan "batillions" were not built this way, and (i think) "units" were very similarily comprimised as to the depection in STW. thus you have an eningine and an interface that works very well for tactical combat 'en masse' which the developers donot want to get rid of just for historical accuracy.

_Martyr_

12-29-2002, 15:14

Knight_Yellow:

I think you under-estimate the Vikings

Secondly, your point about the "arranged battles" is not true, although this happened, it was by no means a standard form of warfare

Lord_Lenny

12-30-2002, 08:26

I was under the impression that the vast majority of Medieval Battles were basically two huge mobs of men running at each other with perhaps some judicious cavalry flanking/charging and archery support. There didn't seem to be to much emphasis on Tactics.

Also the arranged or 'pitched' battles were more of a Napoleonic era thing (but then again i may be mistaken on this point, and indeed on my other point, if i am please feel free to correct me)

Richard the Slayer

12-31-2002, 02:53

Quote[/b] (Alastair II @ Dec. 27 2002,01:20)]In many of the forums about MTW, there seems to be a general feeling that the game is quite historically accurate, but needs a little tweaking. One example of this is people talking about "retaining" historical accuracy. In my view, there is little to no such accuracy to be found, nor would it be a good thing.

First, historically, there were none of these disciplined formations the commander could set at will. A closer approximation would be large mobs of peasants colliding. In other words, there was a total lack of strategy. Worse, the commander had very little actual control over his forces; he, in many cases, could do little more than tell his troops which army to fight. Even at Agincourt, which featured relatively disciplined troops, the situation was no more complex than longbowmen protected by stakes shooting down knights. Henry V made few tactical decisions during the battle, even though he commanded it.
However, IMO, these disciplined formations are necessary for any semblance of tactical competition, which is the pride and glory of the TW series. Thus, historical accuracy has neither been achieved nor is to be desired.

Another unrealism (and a good one&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif is army sizes. In real life, armies could reach sizes of 100,000 men (e.g. Battle of Nicopolis in 1396), three orders of magnitude larger than our current situation. Implementing this, for the sake of "retaining" historical accuracy, would be both technically unfeasible and ridiculous tactically, as we would have oodles of trouble just deploying, let alone managing a battle.

Finally, the current campaign (which is lauded as the most realistic of all the parts of the game) is totally ridiculous in the way that provinces are won and lost with one battle. There's the super-zoomed-out strategic view, and then the zoomed-in tactical view, with nothing in between. In real war, there is a great deal of maneuvering before and after a battle, and battle is joined because both sides think it is necessary (and hopefully can gain something from it). There are no time limits, and there is no designated "attacker" and "defender." One or the other side gains the initiative, and is then said to be "attacking." This failure of the campaign game to include any operational level of combat I find a little more objectionable than the other two major unrealisms, but I realize that to include one wouldn't yield much cash, and so would be unfeasible.

I hope the reader realizes now that to claim historical accuracy as the motivation for a requested change is ridiculous.
I'm afraid your quite wrong on several accounts. The old age thesis that medieval conflict was devoid of any military strategy is actually an old thesis developed in the first half of the 20th century.

The publics fascination with chivalry and knights helped out this theory that medieval battles were nothing more that clashes of undisciplined mobs.

In fact, many leading historians now conclude that indeed the medieval period was much more than undisciplined combat. For example, Henry the V campaign in Normandy during Agincourt was full of every kind of precuation this great king had to take againt heavy odds.

In fact, if you read up on modern books on the period it can grow quite complicated. I suggest you read a book which I wrote a paper on in my college history class titled "Arms and Armies in the Middle Ages: The English Experience."

Alastair II

12-31-2002, 03:25

Richard, while I do believe your statement that the preparations could grow quite complicated, I do not believe that Henry V did much in the way of directing the battle during the battle (line 7 of topic post). Also, I did say (and still believe) that large mobs of peasants would be a closer approximation than we have now, but would not be a very accurate one, since, as you say, it was more than undisciplined combat. I simply think that the amount of control we currently have is so unrealistic that to talk about retaining realism is simply wrong, there being so little realism to retain. I will try to find the book you speak of (and, for that matter, Machiavelli's Art of War) as soon as I have time (read: after the AP tests).

Lenny, while you are right that the Napoleonic era did see many pitched battles, the idea that such a battle would determine control of the surrounding area is not correct. In the era that preceded Napoleon, battles were to establish dominance over disputed territories, which were often thousands of miles from the battlefield. Napoleon introduced the idea of a battle in Clausewitz's sense, which is that of total destruction of the enemy army. While this was never fully achieved, Napoleon did deprive Prussia of an army for quite a number of years.

fenir

12-31-2002, 06:38

Actually the Byzantine/Roman Empire generals during the games time frame, did study the martial art of war.

The noblilty studied it as a rule, just as they studied history and language and mathematics.
They also produce lots of books on the subject. And alot of it is still used today.

So it depends upon which faction, and time period, you are talking about.

fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Sir Dipthong

01-03-2003, 14:58

Alistair has a fair point, given that the 'historical accuracy' angle has been used to sell the game and has been repeated by many reviewers who haven't bothered to give the game a thorough try out.

Arguing about whether the battles are/are not accurate is not the whole story. The battles may be one area that *does* have some historical background.
It's the gross inacurracies in just about every other area of the game that drove me to removing it.

What about sieges? How many really went on for 8+ years? Castles without moats, no tunneling under the walls, no boiling oil, no civilians etc. One castle per province - very inaccurate.

Or the crazy movement rates, at 1 year per province, it takes several years to move from the south of England to Scotland. In reality, Harold marched from south to northern England in 8 days or so. Several years for an emissary to find someone to negotiate a cease fire with.

How many times did the Papacy really get wiped out and reappear a few years later. Or the English? The French? Or indeed any of the major factions. These happen dozens of times in the game.

Espionage: Were there really so many assassination attempts per year? (usually 4+, I noticed). Gangs of 20+ spies roaming Europe causing revolts? Every province filled with Princesses, Bishops, Emissaries and everything but the kitchen sink by 1200?

Diplomacy: Cease fire or Alliance? Surely there were a good deal more options than this? Money for example, or giving up a province or two should have been implemented.

Crusades: I never saw one that went remotely like anything history.

Trade? Come on The trade model is even worse than the crusades.

Last but not least. Did Medieval Europe really have a Princess Bermuda Triangle? In my games, dozens of princesses disappear without trace, never seen again. I admit my history is not brilliant, but I'm sure I'd have heard of this.

I agree that the pre-battle (and post-battle...) maneuvering is a serious omission, too. It would have been a lot more enjoyable than the sub-Civ 1 'diplomacy' currently on offer.

It's not just that the much-hyped historical element is a myth, more that many of the above points upset the gameplay, too.

Of course if the game *was* historically accurate, then it would be dull as everything would follow history exactly

Kraxis

01-03-2003, 17:38

So either we should have Warcraft 3 or a totally slaved game???

Since there is a limit to the computers, there has been made some compromises. But when we talk about direct combat, then the game is very accurate, with some notable differences to make the game playable.
Don't you think it is accurate that when soldiers attack from the flank they often win (see Cannae). Don't you think it is accurate that the knights are unruly and powerful chargers?

Nelson

01-03-2003, 18:06

Historical accuracy in a game shouldn’t and mustn’t confer historical inevitability across the board. The alternate historical outcomes possible ought to reflect what rationally “might have been”. Anyone can argue about the possibility of any faction in M:TW conquering all of Europe, granted, but the game has to enter the equation somewhere. That doesn’t mean that we should expect nothing in the way of realism or accuracy.

The campaign has not been “lauded as the most realistic of all the parts of the game”, at least not here in the Org. The battles have the most realism despite units that move like the Prussian Army. What I’m hearing from Alastair II is that the game is hardly accurate at all because it doesn’t offer an operational level, is very general about strategy and features lock step soldiers. This argument is a fine example of perfection becoming the enemy of what is better or good enough. If it can’t be very accurate, chuck accuracy altogether.

The Total War series owes its success to the veracity of its treatment of tactical combat along with its melding of strategy. Comparing what TW does with other games reveals a remarkable achievement in moving toward realism and accuracy. Is TW Nirvana for wargamers? No. It’s the best we have without doubt. Could it be better? Hell yes Is CA moving in our direction? I think so. Who’s to say that one day a game won’t let us sit on a horse in first person with an entire virtual legion to our front facing 50,000 Germans, one man equaling one man, with a staff to transmit orders standing by? If we are to ever get there, we must never stop pursuing accuracy. It is NOT ridiculous to expect accuracy to motivate change. Such “ridiculous” motivation made Shogun and Medieval the splendid games they are.

Total War represents the current state of the art. CA currently has the best shot of any devs out there to get us grognards closer to where we would like to be.

Lehesu

01-03-2003, 18:53

*Groan*
I had thought this thread was banished to the netherhells.

Nelson

01-03-2003, 20:15

Lehesu, you have posted twice now in a thread with a topic about which you apparently have nothing to say.

Your groans are fine IF you have an opinion to share as well. All I can infer is that the topic bores you and that you are willing to disregard about a dozen other patrons (who ARE conversing) in the interests of expressing as much.

If you have something to say then say it.

Magyar Khan

01-03-2003, 20:16

i agree with teh topiccreator

gameplay must be prefferred over historical realism

Lehesu

01-03-2003, 20:45

I have a problem with this thread because conversation got rather heated over what I think is a mere matter of preference. It's sort of like sparking a debate over which religion is better. It really has very little point other than griping. The fact of the matter is that Medieval IS a game and it IS designed for gamer enjoyment and it WILL continue to do so. Other complaints that it is not realistic enough are pointless in the face of gaming issues. A game is about money and enjoyment, two points that CA has hit upon very well. Any complaints about the game and how it is designed are pointless as their is NO other game that functions QUITE like this one. Go ahead and gripe but know that, as a game, certain things must be the same so that people may enjoy the game. If the balance is distorted between gameplay/functionality and historical accuracy, than the game will not sell and WILL die off. Would you that complain of Medieval rather have it die off because it fails to bring in money? It really is your preference as to whether or not you prefer historical accuracy over gameplay but I must ask you all to see if you can find a more ENJOYABLE game that is as super accurate as you wish. I personally like the current balance and think that, although some changes can be made for both historical and gameplay issues, the types of sweeping changes, such as lack of formations, will only lead to a very unsatisfying game. Those who seek complete realism; will you find solace in the fact that the only thing that is real is your life? A game is meant for enjoyment, if your enjoyment comes from accuracy, fine. But if you are trying to recreate life with games, be ready to be dissapointed. Play a game, it's super historically accurate but it's not fun? The game has failed, then.

Coucy

01-03-2003, 22:09

Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ Jan. 03 2003,13:16)]i agree with teh topiccreator

gameplay must be prefferred over historical realism
Yeah, but if you notice, the topic creator seems to be going a step further than that. He's not just saying that gameplay should take preference over realism (I position I do kinda agree with; playablility is important as this is after all a computer game), he seems to be claiming that game realism is a completely illegitimate consideration IN ALL CASES, and all talk of such by historically knowledgable people of making suggestions for improvements and mods here should terminate forthwith: "I hope the reader realizes now that to claim historical accuracy as the motivation for a requested change is ridiculous."

There is an unspoken fallacy in this claim. And that is, that there is some sort of "playability vs. realism" design philosophy in eternal conflict, a zero-sum game between the two if you will. Well, I got news for ya: It's not true.

Its entirely possible that making the game more historical WONT make it less playable. Some historical improvements to the game could well have NO impact on playability. I could even see some historical changes making the game even MORE playable, a win-win situation. In other words, these concepts are by no means always in conflict, and to try to claim otherwise is rather foolish, IMO.

That being the case, I intend to completely ignore the topic creator, and I shall continue to advocate changes based on history. And I urge others to do so as well.

Once made, these suggestions can and I'm sure will be discussed and balanced against playability considerations (assuming of course, like I said, that any such considerations EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE).

Lehesu

01-03-2003, 22:23

That is well and fine, but my main problem in historical accuracy is the balancing problem it can cause for games. For example, the Danes were, historically, not a very strong civ, in the terms the game would call strong. However, in order to enhance playability, the danes do get the ability to make Knights and other things that make playing them more enjoyable. I'm not arguing against historical accuracy; I myself love history and read a lot of literature about it. However, I really do believe that games such as M:TW tread a fine line between playability and historical accuracy and believe that that balance should be maintained.

khurjan

01-03-2003, 23:29

my two pennies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

i first of all appluade constructive criticsm of a game as it can be used to improve the game or drive its sequel to greater heights of perfection....right now alot of strategy games do have a missing gap between strategic and tactical...there has been attempts to bridge it i.e Legions by slitherine tried to bridge the gap but problems were huge i.e AI wouldnt transmit good through all three layers of thinking, secondly the financial resources needed were huge thirdly gameplay was threatening to become unwieldy...how do i know i worked on that game....

secondly military theories...even i who works as military historian for us army cant agree with my fellow historians in army let alone civilian historians on what warfare meant in those ages...this cos there was so much variation from simple blocky serf armies to highly disciplined byzantine and osmanli armies....so to say that warfare was just two bands of people rushing at each other is wrong but on other hand to say it was highly sophisticated is wrong too in truth it fell inbetween those two stools.....one reason for differance in tactics or armies was simple resources involved.
i can go on as i got so much to say but i would love questions from you guys too.
its great we got this thread going but lets not get heated or personal about this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Foreign Devil

01-04-2003, 00:39

Quote[/b] (Richard the Slayer @ Dec. 30 2002,19:53)]In fact, if you read up on modern books on the period it can grow quite complicated. I suggest you read a book which I wrote a paper on in my college history class titled "Arms and Armies in the Middle Ages: The English Experience."
I actually bought this book a few days ago. Haven't been able to put it down since- its the perfect read for someone who likes this game. I give it 9 thumbs up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Its actually called "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience". It's probably the one he meant. Oh, and its written by Micheal Prestwich.

khurjan

01-04-2003, 00:55

Quote[/b] (Foreign_Devil @ Jan. 03 2003,09:39)]
Quote[/b] (Richard the Slayer @ Dec. 30 2002,19:53)]In fact, if you read up on modern books on the period it can grow quite complicated. I suggest you read a book which I wrote a paper on in my college history class titled "Arms and Armies in the Middle Ages: The English Experience."
I actually bought this book a few days ago. Haven't been able to put it down since- its the perfect read for someone who likes this game. I give it 9 thumbs up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Its actually called "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience". It's probably the one he meant. Oh, and its written by Micheal Prestwich.
yup i got that book and several others...as atm i am writing a thesis on rebirth of heavy infantry as a factor in western european battles durring middle ages http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

Michael the Great

01-04-2003, 01:45

Quote[/b] (Coucy @ Jan. 03 2003,15:09)]
Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ Jan. 03 2003,13:16)]i agree with teh topiccreator

gameplay must be prefferred over historical realism
Yeah, but if you notice, the topic creator seems to be going a step further than that. He's not just saying that gameplay should take preference over realism (I position I do kinda agree with; playablility is important as this is after all a computer game), he seems to be claiming that game realism is a completely illegitimate consideration IN ALL CASES, and all talk of such by historically knowledgable people of making suggestions for improvements and mods here should terminate forthwith: "I hope the reader realizes now that to claim historical accuracy as the motivation for a requested change is ridiculous."

There is an unspoken fallacy in this claim. And that is, that there is some sort of "playability vs. realism" design philosophy in eternal conflict, a zero-sum game between the two if you will. Well, I got news for ya: It's not true.

Its entirely possible that making the game more historical WONT make it less playable. Some historical improvements to the game could well have NO impact on playability. I could even see some historical changes making the game even MORE playable, a win-win situation. In other words, these concepts are by no means always in conflict, and to try to claim otherwise is rather foolish, IMO.

That being the case, I intend to completely ignore the topic creator, and I shall continue to advocate changes based on history. And I urge others to do so as well.

Once made, these suggestions can and I'm sure will be discussed and balanced against playability considerations (assuming of course, like I said, that any such considerations EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE).
Took thy words out of me mouth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Really,why are all of u thinking that Napoleon was the only one using organised tactics and strategy..these are existing as long as war is existing..ahem http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Kraxis

01-04-2003, 02:36

Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ Jan. 03 2003,15:23)]For example, the Danes were, historically, not a very strong civ, in the terms the game would call strong. However, in order to enhance playability, the danes do get the ability to make Knights and other things that make playing them more enjoyable.
Danes being strong in the game???
They are arguably the weakest of them all... And they are even a Major Faction unlike the equally weak Aragon.
And knights... where on earth have you gotten the idea that there weren't any knights in Denmark in that period? Denmark was a Feudal Catholic country heavily influenced by France and the HRE, a lot of their ideas were adopted into the Danish society. So that is very much both enjoyable and historically correct. In fact Gothic Knights should be allowed to the Danes as well, as the knights were an important part of the army long after guns and heavy crossbows. I have seen some of the armour in one of our arms-museums (with crossbowbolt dents).
So here we have in instance where historical incorrectness has lowered the enjoyment of the game.

Lehesu

01-04-2003, 02:55

Yes, the Danes are weak But think of how weak they would have been without any significant changes I apologize in generalizing; the Vikings DID have Knights but enjoyed significantly less zeal and renown as a fighting order. The Vikings, beside their raiding stint, had relatively little influence on a realm worried about the muslim powers and so fielded more of a niche army than a lot of the European powers. Also, I seriously doubt that the Danes had an impressive amount of MOUNTED Knights there. They were mainly a sea power, if anything, and it would be very unreasonable for them to devote as much resource to Knights as other Empires did during the period. I think the Danes had all of two orders, the Elephant and something else.

khurjan

01-04-2003, 06:53

true true what you said unless you discount the normans but they were frenchified by than

jLan

01-04-2003, 07:24

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Dec. 27 2002,21:39)]also the vikings sucked they conquered nothing. they where raiders thats all. if vikings had of faced a real army the great viking myths would be vry different. im not saying they werent good at wat they did but sadly mr VIKING u think the vikings where great big massive army units WRONG.
Excuse me?
The vikings held most of Ireland. A Viking King sat on the English throne (Canute). The Vikings held Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Greenland. They actually also had a major influence in eastern Europe as well. For instance; the Varangian Guard was influenced by Viking warriors.
They also landed quite a large army on the French shore and forced the French king to give them Normandie (thus the name).

The Vikings were also the first Europeans to find North America. A lot of archeologic evidence, primarily in New Foundland, supports this.

There was even a sort of Viking crusade once, all the way down to Jordan I believe... I cannot remember which King it was under, but I remember reading about it...

So please remember this: think & investigate, then speak.

Lehesu

01-04-2003, 17:00

Yes, but would it be correct to say that the Danes were a huge power during the Medieval time period? Comparable to France and Germany? If anything, the Vikings only really set the stage for the Medieval time period rather than directly contributing. I acknowledge than the Vikings did play an important part in history, but not in the specific Medieval period.

Kraxis

01-04-2003, 17:13

Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ Jan. 03 2003,19:55)]Yes, the Danes are weak But think of how weak they would have been without any significant changes I apologize in generalizing; the Vikings DID have Knights but enjoyed significantly less zeal and renown as a fighting order. The Vikings, beside their raiding stint, had relatively little influence on a realm worried about the muslim powers and so fielded more of a niche army than a lot of the European powers. Also, I seriously doubt that the Danes had an impressive amount of MOUNTED Knights there. They were mainly a sea power, if anything, and it would be very unreasonable for them to devote as much resource to Knights as other Empires did during the period. I think the Danes had all of two orders, the Elephant and something else.
Ok, time for a little lecture I think.

From the get go of the game I have disliked the idea of the Danish unique unit are Vikings. It is simply too late for this. By the time of Canute the Great vikings were beginning to vanish in Denmark, it was becoming a true Feudal Catholic society. By the time of the start of the game I understand if the Danes have a few Viking units but after that they should simply vanish. Danish knights participated in the first three Crusades, meaning that the society was very much like the others. Paganism and the vikings were more or less gone by the late 11th century, the start of the game. Knights ruled the land.
So all points about vikings are simply out of the timeframe.

About the seapower. While it is true that the Danes were good sailors, they had lost the flair for the sea when the vikings turned into feudal warriors. So the Danish society had plenty of traders and the king maintained a tax in the Danish straits, but that was more or less it until the 16th century when true naval power was brought on by the creation of the lineships. If you are saying that the Danes should concentrate more on ships than knights when they become big, it would be the same as saying the French and HRE should stay rather weak at sea despite they have plenty of tradeports and shores. It is a decision by us, the players, if the factions should go a different way than what it did in history.
Actually the the Hansa defeated the Danish navy as many times as it was defeated itself, making the HRE quite powerful at sea itself.

While the number of knights in Denmark might never have been an equal of either the HRE or France there were just as many per perpulace. That means the game is rather right. The Danes don't have many knights in the game, counting the Royal ones out of the equation.
There wasn't any large knightly orders in Denmark, but the Teutonics recruited a significant number of Danish men and knights. The Order of the Elephant is from the 15th century.

Lehesu

01-04-2003, 19:37

Yes, I agree that Vikings are not a real prominent civilization and that it IS the choice of the players whether or not they go by sea or not but the position of the Danes in the game fairly screams sea power, unless you want to go one on one with the HRE. The true point of why the French and German's never had a real strong Medieval navy is because there was no purpose, as Great Britain was already established as a sea power. The crux of the issue is whether or not the Danes provided a significant military force to be on par with the other Catholic power houses during the time, as the Danes are not allowed Crusades in the game. I am not disputing the fact that the Danish Knights were not the equal of every other Knight walking the Catholic alley. I am just saying that their numbers, combined with the larger number of it's neighbors, would seem to indicate that the Danes were rather a weak Medieval realm. No sea power, as you noted, coupled with a much smaller feudal system than it's neighbors would point that the Danes were hardly a powerhouse in the world.

Foreign Devil

01-04-2003, 23:06

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 04 2003,10:13)]From the get go of the game I have disliked the idea of the Danish unique unit are Vikings. It is simply too late for this. By the time of Canute the Great vikings were beginning to vanish in Denmark, it was becoming a true Feudal Catholic society. By the time of the start of the game I understand if the Danes have a few Viking units but after that they should simply vanish. Danish knights participated in the first three Crusades, meaning that the society was very much like the others. Paganism and the vikings were more or less gone by the late 11th century, the start of the game. Knights ruled the land.
So all points about vikings are simply out of the timeframe.
From a purely historical perspective, you are probably right. But from a gameplay perspective, it fits that the danes should have vikings. Access to this unit right from the get-go is sort of a counterbalance for thier weak starting position. It allows them to expand while thier neighbors are still using inferior units. My Danish armies are usually composed of vikings and royal knights until I tech up to feudal seargents. Oh, and highland clansmen and kurns. Ireland and Scotland Oh yeah