View Full Version : Gameply vs. History
There is a lot of discussion surrounding historical accuracy and what units should and shouldn't be in RTW. I think that CA is faced with a problem, historical accuracy versus unit diversity and its influence ongameplay. You cannot completely reconcile the two.
Units in the pre-gunpowder era were of a tight group centered around, melee, spear, cavalry, and missile. If each faction is to hypothetically have roughly 20-25 buildable units, with factional or regional exlusivity like Longbowmen for England or Swabian Swordsmen in Swabia- both from MTW- then at a certain point you have to fudge the facts a little bit, because they're just aren't enough units out there that are well supported by the historical record.
For instance Gallic Foresters probably aren't historically accurate in the sense that we objectively know that they existed, but it is believable that a unit like that could have existed and might well have really existed and we just don't know because of gaps in the historical record. They mix missile and spear, fight well in forests, and they are specific to the Gauls.
They make the game more diverse. If you stick to what we know about the period you might actually have very few units compared to MTW and that would not make for much of a game because you would have no incentive to tech up your provinces or it would take a very long time to get to a new unit, think of the span between Early Royal Knights and Chivalric Knights for almost all units in RTW. Would it be much fun to go for dozens and dozens of turns of building an fighting battles before you get a new unit?
You would also have very boring battles because the same small universe of units would fight one another over and over again. Look at the Greeks, since at least the time that the Greeks became a literate people, well before the Roman Republic, their army was predominantly made up of the Phalanx, with supporting peltasts and cavalry. They had one primary roleplayer for hundreds of years. By adding units that are believable within what we know of the time period you create more and more potential outcomes for battles and more tech paths to follow in individual provinces.
That said, CA needs to create a believability test for units. Based on documentary evidence what is a reasonable unit? Documentary evidence is sketchy at best when describing northern and central European units. We don't have a contemporary equivalent of the Osprey Series of books for the Roman Era. Therefore when creating units CA must decide whether or not they are reasonably expanding upon the historical record.
The believablity test might consist of this string of thought. Based on the technology, terrain, population density, social roles in a group and propensity for organized warfare would this unit fit with faction X or province Y?
Gallic Forresters, again, are a prime example. They fit very well. They are fit Gallic terrain, their technology is equal to what the Gauls had, and they fill a probable social role, gathering food for the group leader That social role can then be seen to correspond with a military role in a time of war. The Gauls did not have as high a population density as the Romans, so cross specialization is reasonable, especially in something as closely related as hunting and war-fighting.
Perhaps the Gallic Foresters might even be tied to a building, let's call it "Gallic Hunting Lodge", that produces the units and everytime a unit is produced there is an incremental increase in agricultural production in that province where the unit is located, they gather food, if a unit is destroyed, disbanded, or move there is an identical decrease in agricultural output for the province that they are in. It fits with what we know of the Gauls, therefore it is reasonable to see it in the game.
War dogs on the other hand fail the believability test because it is not likely that any group would have the resources to train something as unpredictable as a pack of dogs, what if a Legion from another region joined the army and the dogs didn't recognize them? It is more believable that a faction would take those same resources and time to create a unit that is more in line with the spear, melee, missile, cavalry paradigm and can be easily replicated and maintained. It would take far too many specialized resources to create the dogs in relation to their benefit. They might, in terms of real resources used, cost more per unit than a legionnaire but be less effective and have fewer side abilities, like road building. Besides dogs tend more towards scavenging in the wild and don't operate in packs big enough to be effective on a battlefield. Therefore in terms of cost/benefit analysis based on Republican era technology and the probable usefulness compared to a cheaper unit, the War Dogs fail the believability test.
If you look at a unit and can say that based on what we know of the time period that unit might well have existed or if on first glance you don't know for sure if it was created by CA, then that is a believable unit. If you can apply well defined objective criteria and say that based upon that you might believe that unit existed, that is believable. If something subjectively created meets objective criteria it is a good unit, but if it takes a long leap of faith and the abandonment of the objective criteria then it is not believable and should not be in the game.
If CA tries to apply these standards then the split between accuracy and gameplay- while trending towards gameplay will- not be too noticable to historical purists and might well be overshadowed by a strong AI and superior gameplay.
Konnichiwa,
Dogs were used in war.
A dog can be multi purpose: hunting, guarding, fighting, pulling. Tearing a wild boar apart or a soldier, it doesn't matter for the dog.
Quote[/b] ]..region joined the army and the dogs didn't recognize them
Don't worry: dog will know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But the handler could always chose to fight alongside the dog instead of releashing it.
War dogs are the same thing as Gallic Foresters at worst.
Hunters use dogs.
Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ Oct. 17 2003,16:35)]Konnichiwa,
Dogs were used in war.
A dog can be multi purpose: hunting, guarding, fighting, pulling. Tearing a wild boar apart or a soldier, it doesn't matter for the dog.
Quote[/b] ]..region joined the army and the dogs didn't recognize them
Don't worry: dog will know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But the handler could always chose to fight alongside the dog instead of releashing it.
War dogs are the same thing as Gallic Foresters at worst.
Hunters use dogs.
Perhaps I am picking on the poor brutes too much. However, in the picture of them (http://www.totalwar.com/community/rp16.htm) there are a great many apparently in one unit, which is not as believable as a dog with a hunter.
The war dogs would be much more likely to pass the believability test if it appeared that there were only one or two dogs per handler, because yes dogs often did fight alongside their masters, and dogs did guard Roman camps, but it is not believable that you could create a large unit, as depicted, of "war dogs". They are only believable as a companion unit.
There seems 3 units of 'handlers' in the background. About 15 men each. 2 of them have released the dogs. It looks as if each handler has some 2-4 dogs.
The odd things I see is that the handlers seem to think: 'I released my dog, I'm done, he'll destroy Rome'. Where's their sword? Are they just going to stand there?
The other odd thing is that you see units, just like in STW and MTW. Not pikes and poles mixed with swords. I guess that you could see the same number of dogs in 'reality', but not concentrated like that. Uniform units suits the Roman, but not feudal or barbaric armies (some have a spear, others an axe or a sword).
I do have doubts about the usefulness of that en masse release the dogs tactic.
Orda Khan
10-18-2003, 19:28
These wardogs were a very ferocious aspect, a few of these released in one area could cause havoc
.....Orda
Konnichiwa,
I agree with the uniform aspect, Tosa. I mean, those barbarians will never be a bunch of rag-tags if they look and fight as one. CA's changes are less significant than we expected in this aspect.
The point of the original post was not about the dogs per se, but how to make a variety of units that are all believable. One good point is not making all weapons uniform in the barbarian units.
Konnichiwa,
I understood your point Dhepee san. STW had the same problem. Yari ashigaru and teppo squads pass the 'smelltest' without much, if any, problems. Nodachi units less so, while that weapon is certainly authentic.
I do understand the problem for the coders too. There are so many soldiers on the field that you'ld have to pack them in squads. I guess that there are gameplay issues too. But it should be possible to get gameplay, authenticity and eyecandy a bit closer. That wardog unit can certainly be made smaller, and thus more believable if the handlers did something else than just releasing the dogs.
I'ld prefer to make a Gallic Foresters unit using a couple of dogs. There was a nice teaser in the Shogun demo: Nick Faces. You could make several kinds of samurai faces with only a limited number of parts. A similar thing could be used here - and there are some games that use this: different colors for pants, different 'hats', scars, facial hair, tiny things that makes each man just a bit different. Instead of using a blue pants and a red pants unit, you get 2 mixed red/blue pants units. It shouldn't matter for the video memory, the same resources are used, but the clone idea is gone. MTW men in one unit are of diffferent tallness, works too - give some Forresters 1 dog, others 2 or none.
Jacque Schtrapp
10-20-2003, 18:23
Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Oct. 18 2003,13:28)]These wardogs were a very ferocious aspect, a few of these released in one area could cause havoc
.....Orda
I agree. One of the most vulnerable aspects of a Roman soldier would be the legs. A very likely target for a charging dog. I assume i would be very bad at fending off the handlers with a mastiff sinking its fangs in my knee. As long as we are not being attacked by entire "dog armies", I think 15 or 20 dogs per army is pretty damn realistic. I also find it interesting that no one is protesting the prominent role elephants appear to be playing. Being a more fantastic creature it is obvious why their war history was recorded in more detail, but IMO dogs participated in ancient warfare at least as much as elephants.
Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ Oct. 20 2003,11:12)]You could make several kinds of samurai faces with only a limited number of parts. A similar thing could be used here - and there are some games that use this: different colors for pants, different 'hats', scars, facial hair, tiny things that makes each man just a bit different. Instead of using a blue pants and a red pants unit, you get 2 mixed red/blue pants units. It shouldn't matter for the video memory, the same resources are used, but the clone idea is gone. MTW men in one unit are of diffferent tallness, works too - give some Forresters 1 dog, others 2 or none.
That sounds a lot like my favorite game of all time, Age of Rifles. It had a unit editor feature where you could create units' heads and headgear, torsom and legs. There were about 50 different variations for each part so you had a lot of visual difference, you could then assign them any kind of weapon from African spear, swords, lances, smoothbore muskets to maxim guns. The game had a surprisingly powerful campaign/battle editor for the time that it came out, mid-90's. It would be nice if RTW was that easily modded.
I see what you are saying about making the dog handlers actually part of the battle or adding hunting dogs to gallic foresters. I wonder if the problem, and its one that is discussed in the dungeon, is that it isn't possible for a unit to have two or more discreet individuals with discreet actions, i.e. dogs attacking roman legs and handlers overpowering the romans at the same time. The ability for mulitple discreet individuals and actions would add a vast amount to the battle portion of the game. It would allow. For instance, a front rank of the Phanlanx to fight with short swords, after their spears broke, while the back ranks continue to thrust over their shoulders with spears. It would definitely make units more realistic.
Quote[/b] ] Dhepee
I wonder if the problem, and its one that is discussed in the dungeon, is that it isn't possible for a unit to have two or more discreet individuals with discreet actions, i.e. dogs attacking roman legs and handlers overpowering the romans at the same time.
That may indeed be a problem, it would be very nice. But it still may be possible to create (the illusion of) this.
Take a missile unit for example. Do not let it skirmish and order it to fire a unit. When the missile unit is attacked, some will engage in hth combat, others will still shoot.
So, it may be impossible for 1 dog-handler duo in a unit to perform a simultanous attack, but there will be several dog-handler duos in one unit. Just like the missiles do: some duos will do a dogattack, others a man attack (this unit could have only 50% of the normal fatigue?).
There's of course still the problem with being killed: 1 dies both die?
Would it be possible to make a dog like an arrow? A unit has 60*28 arrows, when one man dies the others have more ammo. A killed dog is just a fired arrow, a killed man means that the other men have more arrows, dogs in this case. Last man dies -> released dog unit.
Red Peasant
10-20-2003, 20:43
I would always fancy my chances against a dog if I was armed with a razor sharp gladius and a large shield....but if all I had was a spear then I would be very nervous of it getting within my striking range
...brown-trouser/kilt time I think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Oct. 20 2003,14:43)]I would always fancy my chances against a dog if I was armed with a razor sharp gladius and a large shield....but if all I had was a spear then I would be very nervous of it getting within my striking range
...brown-trouser/kilt time I think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
He'll probably kill you twice if you hurt him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Mithrandir
10-20-2003, 22:17
Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ Oct. 20 2003,14:28)]There's of course still the problem with being killed: 1 dies both die?
Would it be possible to make a dog like an arrow? A unit has 60*28 arrows, when one man dies the others have more ammo. A killed dog is just a fired arrow, a killed man means that the other men have more arrows, dogs in this case. Last man dies -> released dog unit.
and the last man would have 60 dogs ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
Konnichiwa,
The unit isn't 60 men, but yes such things could happen at times.
The dog doesn't have to be leashed then, just stick around with the unit a bit. But this is when thinking about the MTW unit possibilities (?). RTW may be more flexible.
shingenmitch2
10-22-2003, 15:15
Premise of this post is correct -- there are issues in reconciling units vs. creating a game. However the lack of diversity of units red-herring issue
"Boring... I hate playing chess cause its the same six damn units every time..."
or "that game of GO is dull... same stone every time..."
Note two of the best games of all-time played for hundreds of years... A good game comes from game balance and the need to use strategy and inginuity with what you got not lots of neat units.
--------
Orda---
war dogs... as a full-out, pitched battle combat unit?
All i have to say is i better not get flanked by this friggin unit.
hellenes
10-22-2003, 15:34
I have only one small question on the subject:
What on earth the appearance of the unit has to do with gameplay?
any replies would be sincerely appreceated.
Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Oct. 22 2003,09:34)]I have only one small question on the subject:
What on earth the appearance of the unit has to do with gameplay?
any replies would be sincerely appreceated.
Konnichiwa,
One thought generates the other.
This discussion started with the believability of the dogunit. The screenshot suggests that the handlers are nothing more than dogreleasers. You could reduce the number of dogs without making a 'bad' unit, when the handlers become an active part. So it's in the first place an 'attempt' to narrow the differences between authenticity and gameplay.
I agree that the graphic aspects seem to overshadow gameplay in some titles (more polygons -> better game), but proper appearance can certainly contribute to gameplay.
I do not suggest to sacrifice gameplay/balance in favour of looks, I do suggest that a different (equally performing?) system, could improve the looks without changing gameplay (don't have to reduce the number of men and don't have to dumb down the AI because graphics consume too much).
hellenes
10-23-2003, 01:57
Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ Oct. 22 2003,18:54)][quote=hellenes,Oct. 22 2003,09:34]I do not suggest to sacrifice gameplay/balance in favour of looks, I do suggest that a different (equally performing?) system, could improve the looks without changing gameplay (don't have to reduce the number of men and don't have to dumb down the AI because graphics consume too much).
But what i meant was :has the appearance the way that the polygons are structed not their quality, anything to do with the behaviour of the units and the way that the game is being played?What i suspect that the CA devs cant admit is the true word behind the "gameplay" mask which is IMHO MARKETING EYE-CANDYExamples are plenty from the vikings horns and sherwood foresters in VI to defencive ONLY Jihads in MTW...The horizontal crests on greek hoplites helmets the crests on legionnares helmets the whole egyptian time travellers issue the "barbarian" (name wich btw comes from the greek Varvaros=the one that cannot speek GREEK including ROMANS!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif conans the list goes further but the question remains is this all important for REAL GAMEPALY? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Dwimmerlaik
10-23-2003, 03:29
Depends on what you mean by "real"....is it just the combat stats and performance in SP/MP or does it include an element of historicity (to coin a word if I may) which for me is part and parcel of gameplay especially when it comes to the TW series. It's the premise the series was built on, and it's what got me hooked waaaay back in the days of the first Shoggy demo.
It may be a fine philosophical point for some, but "real gameplay" has quite a range of definition. I'd much rather see the devs err on the side of accuracy wherever possible thank you very much.
Else we'll have whole rebel armies full of attack dog units..I mean, really... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I will play it next year. If I smile.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ....good. If I..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ....very good. And if I.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif ....well, I can reture it or wait for mods. Until then, and just before the game is released, I couldn't care less what CA does to it.
Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Oct. 22 2003,19:57)]But what i meant was :has the appearance the way that the polygons are structed not their quality, anything to do with the behaviour of the units and the way that the game is being played?
Konnichiwa,
Drawing a horse underneath fast moving knights in MTW should be an example.
It would be possible to delete the horse while having the speed and anti cav bonus (a fast running knight): 'you don't see a horse, but there is one'. There would probably not be such units in this game if this were true. In other words, I think that units (also) exist based on what can be representated in an acceptable way.
Acceptable is based on what one expects from the game, taking just two of the 'extremes': gameplay vs looks. A 'tiny'change may make both happy.
The two big M's are often represented as something bad: but would there be a game if this was not taken into account?
The original idea that I came up with was not about the dogs specifically, I just used them as an example. The over riding issue, to me anyway, was how CA was testing a unit that they created for believability. At what point does a unit that is not in the historical record become too far off base to be included in the game, keeping in mind that balance of gameplay vs. historical accuracy.
For example CA creates two units:
First Unit:
Celtic Scouts:
They are not specifically referenced in the historical record. They area a small unit that uses a light bow and arrow, with limited ammo, and a light sword of medium length. They have the ability to look into an enemy army in whatever province they are in, like emmissaries in MTW, alwasy giving you intelligence in the pre-battle screen assuming that it works roughly like MTW's. On the battlefield they are not easily spotted, an enemy would see a regular unit before they saw the Celtic Scouts. This might well be believable, the Celts might well have had men who were specifically tasked to scout out the enemy, they might have travelled lightly. They might have used a missile weapon to discourage the enemy from pursuing them, but they wouldn't weigh themselves down with ammo because they are primarily a light fast moving unit, they also have a light melee weapon to use if their backs are on the wall. It is believable but not real, they would probably enhance gameplay without making the game to "hollywood"
The Second Unit:
Gothic Flame Throwers:
They are members of the Visigoths. They are able to use a "flame pot" to project fire at the enemy greatly reducing morale, they have a much longer range than the users of so called "greek fire" or naptha. As a secondary weapon, for melee, they use a two handed axe. This is an example of an unit that is not believable. Its abilities don't fit with the time period, their weapon is cool from a fantasy point of view but is horribly inaccurate. The ability to carry a "flame pot" and a two handed axe is unlikely, due to the presumed weight of both. This is a unit that might "look good" on the battlefield and "spice" things up a little bit but it would also make the game seem utterly unrealistic.
Of course the game might at times seem unrealistic but the question is how much is a single unit or building adding or detracting from realism. There are going to be made up units, like Celtic Scouts, but if they are seamless enough then they won't contribute to an overall feeling that the game is some far flown piece of fantasy set within the context of Ancient Rome, rather it will seem like a pretty accurate depiction of Ancient Rome that keeps in mind that gameplay and realism must reach a balance for the game to succeed.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.