PDA

View Full Version : YOU Are te leader...



RisingSun
05-10-2003, 01:33
OK. Just to warn you, this will be a rant.Now lets get started.

This post is mainly directed at a few people who complain about things in Rome: Total War for being ahistorical. For example, one person complained that lorca segmentata was not in use at the time Rome starts, yet units have it. So? Just because it happened that way in history, doesnt mean YOU will make it that way. YOU are the leader Perhaps you will pour more resources into creating beter armors There is no plausible reason why thiscould not happen. Its not like im saying you could build a flying saucer if you try hard enough. And then "The praetorians weren't around until so and so a year". Maybe one of the generals YOU appoint will make them earlier Likei said, YOU make te decisions, which means you dont haveto make the same ones thaleaders in history did I'm really sorry i this post seems harsh, but im just trying to show you that complaning about tiny things like that isnt accurate. Now if you want to complain about the gladiators, thats fine, because no right-thinking general would use disloyal slaves, but dont say stuff about lorica segmentata and such not being around, beause YOU control the rate of armor development. Again, I'm very sorry again if the post seems harsh, i just wanted to point somehing out. Thank you for your time.

-RisingSun

Lehesu
05-10-2003, 02:06
Quite a few brash words from just a Senior Patron with a couple of posts under his belt. Refreshing, actually...

Heraclius
05-10-2003, 02:18
young whippersnapper...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

actually you make a good point there, rising sun.

RisingSun
05-10-2003, 02:38
Yes, i was in a bit of a fervor there, i apologize if i was too harsh again. Its just that idea was on my chest since i joined,but i could only post inthe entrance hall. The actua reason i joined was for the colosseum. I wanted to post to talk about if Spartan hoplites would be represented differently from regular ons, which of course they are. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But, unless it was a mistake, it seems Greek will be non-playable. Mike de Plater groups them under minor factions with Dacians. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Monk
05-10-2003, 04:04
Yes, it did seem a bit harsh but, your point is a good one. nice job http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

RisingSun
05-10-2003, 04:19
Thanks for the positive remarks I was afraid it was gonna be flameville, but you guys were quite accomodating http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson
05-10-2003, 06:17
Oh god I can't stand it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The descriptions ARE historical - they are not describing what we can do in the game they are describing what those units were historicaly

As one of the foremost "historians" (even if I do say so myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) I KNOW the game results will be different in hte game, just as they are in MTW, and I have no problem with htat at all.

I resent inaccurate starting points.

Nelson
05-10-2003, 07:24
Rising Sun, your rationale for what is admittedly a slight error on the armor appearance puts you on a very slippery slope regarding what the game attempts to do. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Using your logic, would it not be OK for the swords to appear the longer than the gladius? Or for the cavalry to have stirrups? Or for Greeks not to use the phalanx and instead adopt the manipular legion? Do you see where the direction of your argument could lead? Before long the game could owe more to fiction than to fact. The game tries to be historically relevant. It uses history as a foundation. Games donít have to do this but this is what Total War does. The wargame sim aspect of the battles make it successful. CA will say ďItís a game not a simĒ so as to placate gamers who equate sims with complexity and to rebut critical fans who notice things like armor styles. Nevertheless, simulation is the soul of Total War and prevents it from being just another RTS.

To my way of thinking, CA went to the trouble to do the art and could have just as easily not used the lorica segmentata model at all and gone with the lorica hamata. They want the legionaries to look more unique (and cool) as opposed to all the other mail wearing troops is my guess. No big deal at all. But it is a little deal. If we want the game to reflect how things looked based upon what we know about the period, we should cite these issues when they crop up. CA stated the years. They didnít say ďThe Roman eraĒ. They picked a specific time frame. The game is rather like a stage for us to play on and we want the props to be as correct as possible because making them so enhances the fun. For the players that donít know or care about such things this is a non-issue. Total War appeals to many because of CAís attention to detail. In Medieval, the royal bodyguards change appearance with the era. They didnít have to. CA could have passed on that little tweak. Being accurate with graphics never hurts whereas gross errors (and the lorica segmentata a few decades early is HARDLY a gross error) could injure the reputation of the brand.

For every rivet counting simulation wargamer type there is someone who would include sea monsters and goddesses. No one has ever complained that a game about history is too historically correct.

History doesnít get in the way. It shows the way.

Nowake
05-10-2003, 13:57
Oh, let him be, he'll come to reason in time ...

Lehesu
05-10-2003, 16:25
Experience comes with age. Er, posting age. Regardless, I have no problem with the designer's use of artistic license in their games. Since Total War pretty much has a monopoly on this style of game, they can do pretty much whatever they want, and I feel that the things they have done are pretty good, even if the blurr the lines of history a bit here and there.

RisingSun
05-10-2003, 18:46
I dont have a lot of time right now, so ill make this brief. Like i was saying, im talking about people who complain about the tiniest things. And there is no way the Legionnares will start with lorica segmenata, because you wont start with the capability to build them, im sure. You see there is no way to say that "so and so didnt invent the stirups until x year" because in your campaign, so and so might not exist his would-be father might have been killed in one of your battles. No, wrong starting points is a different story, because you have no influence on the game before the starting date. All im saying is that there are some thigs worth complaining about, but some can be attributed to what you do in your rule. nd for the phalanx, like i said, it was used before the start of the game, and so it should start that way. But say, the Greeks switch over from hoplite production to more of a pikeman-based army one hundred years too soon, it might be because you invaded them, forcing upon them new circumstances I have togo, so ill cntinue this later.

Galestrum
05-11-2003, 21:49
lets elt them have spaceships too, afterall they could have them if YOU the leader built up a space program http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif I think Hark said it rightly, give us a historical starting point and let the game go from there. And we better have Roman legions at the start, otherwise Rome wont have any armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Heraclius
05-12-2003, 01:57
nice to see you back, Galestrum. Where have you been hiding out? I hope that court case thing went well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

RisingSun
05-12-2003, 22:34
Thats, what i said in my last post. Anything that is there at the start of the game should be accurate, but after that, you can decide when lorica segmentata appears and so on. And if you'll read my first post, you will see that i addressed the problem of space ships. muahahahaha http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Hakonarson
05-12-2003, 23:24
It's not what I and otehrs took from your post tho RS.

For example the description of the Praetorians as wearing Lorica Segmentata is innaccurate on 2 levels - first ly they never wore it during the period of RTW.

Now as you say this can be changed in teh course of the game by uparmouring and developing a bit further than rome did historically - no-one has any problem with that - that is the nature of the game.

Secondly tho - segmentata was irrelevant to them being Praetorians - it was worn by "ordinary" legionaries too. And if you can up-armour Praetorians then you can (or should be able to) uparmour "line" legions.

so why bother describing Praetorians as wearing it in the first place?

RisingSun
05-13-2003, 21:09
Why not? Theres no point in no describing them as wearing it.

Hakonarson
05-13-2003, 22:15
Huh? Can you explain that to me please, because you seem to be saying that there's no point in describing them as not weilding M-16's too - since after all that's jsut as historical a startign point as them wearing segmentata

BDC
05-18-2003, 20:12
Well maybe someone in Rome was messing about with stuff and managed to create gunpowder... Anything is possible. Although very very unlikely. Sticking to history is probably best, although if slightly inaccurate armour means that the devs can focus on other areas so be it.

RisingSun
05-18-2003, 22:33
Bingo BDC gets it Because of a turn of events you have caused, perhaps by killing (or not) somebody, maybe somebody will discover steel or gunpowder. And what im saying is there is no point to go that into detail in descriptions.

Losfalos
05-20-2003, 03:16
Fact is

All games which vaguely look like they are trying to be historically accurate should have a government warning on the front :-

WARNING: USE OF THIS GAME WILL DISTORT YOUR FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN HISTORY (AND IS A HEALTH HAZARD)

you never know, 3 mio yrs from now something picks up a RTW CD and thinks - whoa the length of those swords in the year 200 BC shows great metallurgical advances already

or even - whoa those portraits are sooo ugly

Hagbard la Suede
05-24-2003, 21:54
Yes,this game is all about how You will lead your faction.For example,romans defeated the tribes in west europe.
THEY SURE AS HELL WONT WHEN IM IN CHARGE
FORWARD PICTII

Efrem Da King
05-25-2003, 09:45
How come someone with 16 posts gets to be above me in rankings

Oh and don't mention all those things I did.

Catiline
05-25-2003, 09:48
Not the place for htat discussion Efrem. Indeed, we won't mention all the things you did...

Efrem Da King
05-26-2003, 07:13
It was a joke http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Nowake
05-26-2003, 08:14
Man, you must have really crossed the line http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Efrem Da King
05-28-2003, 05:27
I didn't really do much.........


But getting banned from .org is like a a sorta coming of age clebration for us goats.

Nikitas
05-31-2003, 22:57
I generally agree with RisingSun's arguements, but the problem is that when we take control of Rome or any other other faction we do that with a modern perspective and some historical knowledge.

For example, we know that stirrups make for a better cavalry. However, that doesn't mean that we should play like we do, because the leaders whose roles we are assuming did not.

FesterShinetop
05-31-2003, 23:10
LOL Efrem another one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

On topic: people please don't forget that the game isn't even finished yet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

If there are things wrong in the demo (GIVE IT NOW), then you can complain. All we have seen so far are some screen shots and some short movies.

(Still agree with RS though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )