New unit at the com

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm very disappointed. With a name like this you'd expect something a bit more interesting. Still, Aymar's bound to be pleased. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[The_Emperor]

Did you expect them to look like Jack Sparrow or something? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Dead Moroz]

Nice anchor tattooed on his belly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

[Spino]

Ye gods, another shirtless unit? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Looks ok I guess. A bit underwhelming as I was expecting something a bit more colorful. Like the tattoos though.

But 'Superior'?? They ranked these guys as Superior??? They're bloody pirates They should have a decent Charge with a fair Attack rating, terrible Defense rating and mediocre Morale. Pirates were never known for their bravery in open battle, that's one of the reasons why they're pirates and not real soldiers or sailors What do you expect from people who prey on unarmed merchant vessels and raid defenseless towns; it's a life of hit and run for a pirate me hearties

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ June 04 2004,08:41)]I'm very disappointed. With a name like this you'd expect something a bit more interesting. Still, Aymar's bound to be pleased. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
And what is that supposed to mean? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Hehe,

I know nothing of the Cilician pirates, so I can't comment at all on the outfit or "harpoon?" -- a javelin by any other name I suppose.

I would, however, agree with Spino about the description. Troops like pirates or most mercenaries in general were of poor morale. They'll slaughter you with out mercy if they get the upper hand, but if things aren't going so well, they'll rarely stick around.

[hundurinn]

What is going on in the CA hq. I'm starting to think there are some people in high places that like topless men more than women. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif I guess this unit looks alright but I was expecting some men in at least clothes if not armor.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

No offence intended Aymar. Just that i know you like your historical accuracy and this unit was a bit of wasted effort, i don't think many people are going to like it and not to mention it's crap http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ June 04 2004,11:25)]No offence intended Aymar. Just that i know you like your historical accuracy and this unit was a bit of wasted effort, i don't think many people are going to like it and not to mention it's crap http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
None taken. Well, like shingenmitch2 said, since I don't have any info on Cilician pirates I can't really comment. As for if I like it or not, I guess it is not that bad. Nothing stellar I have to agree though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Spino]

Geez, I missed the harpoon detail What the hell is he going to use that for? Elephant hunting? What's wrong with a nice sword or bow?

Apparently there was fellow named Jason who was a Cilician pirate of Jewish ancestry. He had nice a bow that he used to poke holes in uppity merchant sailors and passengers who protested their new fledgling careers as Roman slaves. No word on whether he actually used his harpoon but you can be sure it was circumcized... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Harpoon indeed Now we can recreate tales of Ahabicus and his relentless pursuit of Mobyius Dickus across the Aegean... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ June 04 2004,12:35)]Apparently there was fellow named Jason who was a Cilician pirate of Jewish ancestry. He had nice a bow that he used to poke holes in uppity merchant sailors and passengers who protested their new fledgling careers as Roman slaves. No word on whether he actually used his harpoon but you can be sure it was circumcized... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Harpoon indeed Now we can recreate tales of Ahabicus and his relentless pursuit of Mobyius Dickus across the Aegean... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ June 04 2004,08:57)]

Quote[/b] ]But 'Superior'?? They ranked these guys as Superior??? They're bloody pirates They should have a decent Charge with a fair Attack rating, terrible Defense rating and mediocre Morale. Pirates were never known for their bravery in open battle, that's one of the reasons why they're pirates and not real soldiers or sailors What do you expect from people who prey on unarmed merchant vessels and raid defenseless towns; it's a life of hit and run for a pirate me hearties

I didn't think the Superior rating was that bad, since according to the description they are skirmishers. I don't think they'll be able to hold their own alone against heavy infantry & the like.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ June 04 2004,20:35)]Geez, I missed the harpoon detail What the hell is he going to use that for? Elephant hunting? What's wrong with a nice sword or bow?

Apparently there was fellow named Jason who was a Cilician pirate of Jewish ancestry. He had nice a bow that he used to poke holes in uppity merchant sailors and passengers who protested their new fledgling careers as Roman slaves. No word on whether he actually used his harpoon but you can be sure it was circumcized... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Harpoon indeed Now we can recreate tales of Ahabicus and his relentless pursuit of Mobyius Dickus across the Aegean... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
I hope he won't extend his pursuit on the renowned roman general and friend of Pontius Pilatus, Biggus Dickus, right?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Ellesthyan]

What the...

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

HARPOONS????

A bunch of http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-freak.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-freak.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-freak.gif over there at CA...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you need to be Morgrym the Mighty to throw a Harpoon that heavy any distance at all? It looks like it was made for whaling, as somebody mentioned.

[Longshanks]

I found this image (Greek?) of pirates. It's not far off from the unit depicted, as they are also shirtless & in kilts. Could the Cilician pirates have had a similar appearance? Does anyone know?

http://www.aschulze.net/pirates/images/greece.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

IIRC, the Lusitanians of Iberia used, among several type of blades for their javelins and spears, a short spear with a hooked blade very similar to an harpoon. So, it might not be that far-fetched...

[Ragss]

Cool, they sound kinda like the Almughavers (err...Argonese mercenary javs). Wouldnt be suprised if these "harpoons" have less range like that one irish unit with throwing spears...

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ June 04 2004,20:35)]Apparently there was fellow named Jason who was a Cilician pirate of Jewish ancestry. He had nice a bow that he used to poke holes in uppity merchant sailors and passengers who protested their new fledgling careers as Roman slaves. No word on whether he actually used his harpoon but you can be sure it was circumcized... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
It seems CA has not read accounts on Caesar's captivity. Those pirates he described as worthless drunks. Superior? To whom ffs? And they were no fishermen you know; why harpoons?

[Devastatin Dave]

The more new units CA introduces, the less I want to pay the full price for this game. I might wait for the price to go down. I would hate to upgrade my PC for a game full of hoolywood shit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Maybe they'll have Brad Pit CGI'd as a Greek general. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Oleander Ardens]

The only depiction of their gear I found is rather outdated:

Herodotuswrinting in the 5th century BC:
"The wore greaves and corslets; they carried bows of cornel wood, cane arrows without feathers, and javelins. They had goatskin slung round their shoulders, and hats stuck round with feathers. They also carried daggers and rip-hooks."

I'm looking for more

OA

[Herodotus]

In 'Caesar' Cauleen McCollough describes the Cilician Pirates as not only drunks but as a bunch of dandys. They parade around in expensive clothing (purple would have been a very appropriate colour) and live a life of luxury in their hidden inlets. They prey on the weak and are poor in combat as they hardly ever get any real experience. In short they are just bullies who are only confident when they outnumber their enemy many times over.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Oleander Ardens @ June 06 2004,04:41)]The only depiction of their gear I found is rather outdated:

Herodotuswrinting in the 5th century BC:
"The wore greaves and corslets; they carried bows of cornel wood, cane arrows without feathers, and javelins. They had goatskin slung round their shoulders, and hats stuck round with feathers. They also carried daggers and rip-hooks."

I'm looking for more

OA
So, Historically, another sh*** unit... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Oleander Ardens]

No I personally think that from what I know this unit is fairly accurate. It is one unit of the different Cilician units which come to my mind - only the name of the javelin and the "superior" bother me...

OA

[Colovion]

Quote[/b] (Devastatin Dave @ June 05 2004,22:14)]The more new units CA introduces, the less I want to pay the full price for this game. I might wait for the price to go down. I would hate to upgrade my PC for a game full of hoolywood shit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Maybe they'll have Brad Pit CGI'd as a Greek general. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Yeah - I was really into buying R:TW - buying a whole new computer..... but now I'm not so sure and will probably wait a week or two after it's released to see if it's worth it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif

[Ragss]

If you guys want historical accuracy, read a book. The game is for having fun, and gameplay FAR out values historical accuracy.

[Trax]

History books aren´t interactive like games, if they were I would never touch any computer game ever.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 06 2004,17:23)]If you guys want historical accuracy, read a book. The game is for having fun, and gameplay FAR out values historical accuracy.
Why do you keep having that ridiculous notion that making a game ahistorical makes it more fun? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif Gameplay issues have far more to due with balance of stats than units. That's easy to do. Not in the case of the 3d units.

Historical accuracy is not in ANY way antagonic with Gameplay.

In fact, by TW's previous examples, historical accuracy was the reason for their sucess. No game had the flair and daring in the way historical accuracy was portraid, like STW and MTW.

[Devastatin Dave]

I would prefer a more historically accurate game. I know that there is going to be some "creative liscense", but some of the units in here are just too unbelievable. Like I said, I'll wait for most of you suckers to buy it, and see the reviews from you guys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Ragss]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 06 2004,19:44)]
Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 06 2004,17:23)]If you guys want historical accuracy, read a book. The game is for having fun, and gameplay FAR out values historical accuracy.
Why do you keep having that ridiculous notion that making a game ahistorical makes it more fun? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif Gameplay issues have far more to due with balance of stats than units. That's easy to do. Not in the case of the 3d units.

Historical accuracy is not in ANY way antagonic with Gameplay.

In fact, by TW's previous examples, historical accuracy was the reason for their sucess. No game had the flair and daring in the way historical accuracy was portraid, like STW and MTW.
But it is antagonic with gameplay to the biggest market, the ones who know shit all about this era. It is antagonic to gameplay when the Greeks and Egyptians have nearly the same army. It is antagonic to gameplay when a faction of barbarians only has 5 units becuase historiclly thats how it was.

And you say that balancing the units stats is no problem, then why are you guys complaining that these pirates are superior?


CA would much rather have 50 twelve yearolds say "WHOH THEY THROW HARPOONS" than one history buff say "Hmmmm, yes, indeed, these units look right proper with their boring looks, numerous similarites to a dozen other units, and general lack of creativity"


And if MTW was so historically accurate, than why is Medmod so incredibly different? The only unit that keeps the same name for the Byz is the katanks (dunno about ver guards), and intead of being unstopable tanks, they are medicore fighters with bows. That is, im assuming, if medmod is the more historical of the two.

[Ellesthyan]

Raggs, the Ptolomaic army is in fact quite different than the other Successors. Besides that, the Total War line is famed for its historical accuracy. It's one of the main reasons that it is doing so well.

Historical units are not boring. End of story. Is the medmod boring?

[Ragss]

Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ June 07 2004,03:24)]Raggs, the Ptolomaic army is in fact quite different than the other Successors. Besides that, the Total War line is famed for its historical accuracy. It's one of the main reasons that it is doing so well.

Historical units are not boring. End of story. Is the medmod boring?
The campaign in medmod is awesome, but the battles get pretty boring...especially as the Italians as almost your entire army is spears.

Unless, and I highly doubt this, the majority of buyers of MTW bought it for historical accuracy, you are wrong on that. I can be almost certain that the majority of buyers read a review and saw some screenshots and said "Holly crap, thousands of units and tactics actually matter".


And werent some of you complaigning that this army should be largly comprised of Greek style units?

[Ellesthyan]

Citaat[/b] ]The campaign in medmod is awesome, but the battles get pretty boring...especially as the Italians as almost your entire army is spears.

Unless, and I highly doubt this, the majority of buyers of MTW bought it for historical accuracy, you are wrong on that. I can be almost certain that the majority of buyers read a review and saw some screenshots and said "Holly crap, thousands of units and tactics actually matter".


And werent some of you complaigning that this army should be largly comprised of Greek style units?

Well, we disagree on the battles in medmod then. But that's a matter of opinion.

You've put words in my mouth. The majority of the buyers have bought MTW for a couple of factors: they want a game, they want a strategy game, they want thousands of units, they want tactics, they want historical accuracy, they want graphics, etc. Historical accuracy is one of those factors. It may not be always the largest, but it is an important one.

Indeed, I was complaining about the apparent foolishness of the Ptolomies. They used mainly mercenaries and their own Greek troops, while totally ignoring the native Egyptians and other Africans. However, at Raphia (a battle were an outnumbered Ptolomaic army (22000 men) defeated Antiochus the third (55000 men)), they lost so many men that they were forced to recruit Egyptian forces as well.

The real Ptolomies used Greek style units. However, they did have the option to use other style units. As you are changing history, why shouldn't you be given that option?

[ShadeHonestus]

ahhhh, the great debate of historical accuracy continues with this unit...

I remember a history professor of mine from Greece describing the Cilician Pirates and in fact all pirates of the time as the "bad rash" on the Greco Roman world. They were, more often then not, bested on the battlefield but could never be gotten rid of.

As to the "its a game" vs "history" debate...I stick the comments I made here... At this thread (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=19&t=19020)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 07 2004,03:12)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 06 2004,19:44)]
Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 06 2004,17:23)]If you guys want historical accuracy, read a book. The game is for having fun, and gameplay FAR out values historical accuracy.
Why do you keep having that ridiculous notion that making a game ahistorical makes it more fun? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif Gameplay issues have far more to due with balance of stats than units. That's easy to do. Not in the case of the 3d units.

Historical accuracy is not in ANY way antagonic with Gameplay.

In fact, by TW's previous examples, historical accuracy was the reason for their sucess. No game had the flair and daring in the way historical accuracy was portraid, like STW and MTW.
But it is antagonic with gameplay to the biggest market, the ones who know shit all about this era.
No it is not. A mind with no knowledge can be easily tought a lesson or two. Nobody would mind being tought a few history lessons.



Quote[/b] ]It is antagonic to gameplay when the Greeks and Egyptians have nearly the same army.
No, it isn't. It's realistic. Besides, the Ptolomaic army still had units unavailable to others.



Quote[/b] ]It is antagonic to gameplay when a faction of barbarians only has 5 units becuase historically thats how it was.
Once again, no it isn't. After the Marian reforms Rome had only 3 kind of combat units (Legionaires, Cavalry, Siege Weapons). You might had to that the auxiliary archers. Nothing else. See how you, Activision and CA are wrong?



Quote[/b] ]And you say that balancing the units stats is no problem, then why are you guys complaining that these pirates are superior?
I never said that. Don't take my oppinions for those of others.



Quote[/b] ]CA would much rather have 50 twelve yearolds say "WHOH THEY THROW HARPOONS" than one history buff say "Hmmmm, yes, indeed, these units look right proper with their boring looks, numerous similarites to a dozen other units, and general lack of creativity"
But the fact that you, Activision and CA don't seem able to grasp is that the kids would like even more the coolness of saying: "WHOH THEY HAVE THOSE LONG PIKES TO PUNCH THROUGH EVERYONE RIGHT ON"



Quote[/b] ]And if MTW was so historically accurate, than why is Medmod so incredibly different? The only unit that keeps the same name for the Byz is the katanks (dunno about ver guards), and intead of being unstopable tanks, they are medicore fighters with bows.
Because the names mean (in a lot of cases) almost the same, but in Greek.

The level of historical accuracy has made this route:

Shogun > Medieval > Rome

See where this is going? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif



Quote[/b] ] That is, im assuming, if medmod is the more historical of the two.
It is and it will be ever more so.

[Ragss]

you are a history buff, and probably a really smart guy who loves to learn. Most people who fork out the dough for VIDEO GAMES aren't buying it for a historical lesson, they are buying it, in this case, because there are insane numbers of troops. I'm willing to bet that games like Secret Weapons Over Normandy (very arcadey) outsold IL2 Sturmovik(hardcore sim), simply because, for the larger market, zipping around and just having fun is better than spending an hour taking off and cruising to your target and constantly adjusting your trim before an ounce of action happens.

CA is in it for the money, and the best way to make money in this business is to make your product appeal to the widest audience, and that is probably kids 12-18 who would much rather have harpoon throwing pirates that javelin throwing...anything.

and don't you think that having an army that only consists of 3 troop types will get old pretty fast?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

There were only about 10 in Shogun in total. That wasn't so bad.

IL2 Sturmovik is a bad example anyway. Having historically accurate units would not change the actual gameplay in anyway, as opposed to historically modeling the air war on the eastern front during world war 2, which did affect gameplay.

As Aymar said, no-one is going to miss these units if they are removed because THEY NEVER EXISTED And I seriously doubt that anyone is buying the game just because of the harpoons. People will buy it because of the huge battles-and these will still be there, regardless of accuracy.

[Duke John]

CA needs the cash to developing games. By making the game a bit more mainstream and adding cool units the game will sell more than with purely historical games.

I can accept this as long as CA gives us a solid engine that proves to be very moddable. The Dungeon is spawning lots of talented modders and you only have to wait a few more extra months before you got the game you wanted.

You only need to fear the dumbing down of the combat system. You can want as many historical units as you want, if combat is arcade-style then the game is worthless.

If the engine on itself is historical then RTW will be the mother of endless mods in many years to come.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 07 2004,17:14)]Most people who fork out the dough for VIDEO GAMES aren't buying it for a historical lesson, they are buying it, in this case, because there are insane numbers of troops.
Accordingly, just like BKS said, the historical accuracy of units will be of no consequence.



Quote[/b] ]I'm willing to bet that games like Secret Weapons Over Normandy (very arcadey) outsold IL2 Sturmovik(hardcore sim), simply because, for the larger market, zipping around and just having fun is better than spending an hour taking off and cruising to your target and constantly adjusting your trim before an ounce of action happens.
No. What you claim isn't right. Like BKS said, IL2 Sturmovik has completelly costumizable dificulty controls, as well as quick missions, etc...



Quote[/b] ]CA is in it for the money, and the best way to make money in this business is to make your product appeal to the widest audience, and that is probably kids 12-18 who would much rather have harpoon throwing pirates that javelin throwing...anything.
What's the difference for them, I ask? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif I've already expained that the cool factor can be achieved with historically correct units...



Quote[/b] ]and don't you think that having an army that only consists of 3 troop types will get old pretty fast?
So, CA should make the Dragon Legionaires (a special bombarding air unit), the Armoured Assault Pigs, etc to increase the variety of the Roman faction? In the game, Rome is quit accuratelly represented. Why not the others, if that would even make the game easier to finish (less units)?

[Ragss]

But historical accuracy is of consequence. In IL2 most of the planes are useless as there are a few very superior ones. You have to open your eyes and see this game for what it is, a way to make lots and lots of money. The days of RTS's where every faction is almost identical minus a few unique units are over. Now you have to have every faction with all their own units, or the will get burned by reviewers in magazines and websites, which in turn means less people will buy it.

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]Quote
It is antagonic to gameplay when a faction of barbarians only has 5 units becuase historically thats how it was.

Once again, no it isn't. After the Marian reforms Rome had only 3 kind of combat units (Legionaires, Cavalry, Siege Weapons). You might had to that the auxiliary archers. Nothing else. See how you, Activision and CA are wrong?


And why do a few units have to make a game dull and repetive. STW didn't have many units at all, the demo for MTW alone had more units than in all of STW but STW was still a great success. The Historical accuracy drew people into the game. I myself didn't know anything about Japanese history in comparision to my knowledge of European and Near Eastern history but in STW that didn't matter becaue I learned a lot about Japanese history from the game and that was accomplished with accurate units and only a few of them. Also I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of STW because all seemed well. When Battlefield ninjas and Kensai were thrown in it ruined the gameplay me thinks because instead of more accurate units like naginata cavalry they had to add in "super" units which dumbed the game down and actually caused me to shift away from it and hope for better from MTW.

[Ragss]

yes but that was years ago, times change, markets evolve. A game with such few units today just wouldnt cut it.

[The_Emperor]

The Total War series is built upon Historical accuracy...

If you want a game that has "woah cool" fantasy units in it I suggest you go and buy the Lord of the Rings war game when it comes out.

This game is set in the Roman era and CA's marketing are claiming that it is a good reflection of the world at that time.

Their success is contributed to great gameplay and historical accuracy combined together in the TW series. Its a combination that CA still boasts to this day, though they are getting less to boast about on the accuracy side with the latest Egyptian fiasco.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 08 2004,05:42)]The Total War series is built upon Historical accuracy...
While I would like to agree, I don't.

I haven't read a single important preview, review, interview or any other -view that has mentioned "This game is increadibly accurate to the times". What they have said that comes close to this is that the game lets you reforge history or lets you duke it out as a medieval warlord. Very vague and quite likely not intended to follow the historical line rather than the 'play battle' line.

No, it is the battles TW is built upon. CA could create their own universe today, and launch it right on top of Rome (two TW games). It would most likely sell as good, despite the fact that it was entirely fictional.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 07 2004,22:50)]But historical accuracy is of consequence. In IL2 most of the planes are useless as there are a few very superior ones.
But they are available to both sides. Therefore, gameplay balance is not an issue. The WW2 was a balanced one in technological achievements. The Germans had the edge, but not the numbers. The same can be made on RTW. More men for the Barbarians and the like...



Quote[/b] ]You have to open your eyes and see this game for what it is, a way to make lots and lots of money. The days of RTS's where every faction is almost identical minus a few unique units are over. Now you have to have every faction with all their own units, or the will get burned by reviewers in magazines and websites, which in turn means less people will buy it.
Are you reading my posts? Or not? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

It almost seems like you ignore all of what I say...

Let's repeat again:

Historically correct Ptolomaic faction has DIFFERENT units from the Greek City States and from the Seleucids. ALL of them have different units (probably half of them).

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 08 2004,05:17)]yes but that was years ago, times change, markets evolve. A game with such few units today just wouldnt cut it.
That is what you say...

Tell me:

Are you a gaming press reviewer? Are you a gaming marketing department analyst? Are you CA's President?

Am I right in saying... ...no, no and no?

What you have is your oppinion, and that isn't enough when the votes in all of the forums (ORG, COM, TWC, etc...) are favorable to an historical accurate game.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ June 07 2004,04:24)].... Besides that, the Total War line is famed for its historical accuracy. It's one of the main reasons that it is doing so well....
Really?

You really find that MTW or STW were historically accurate?

Would you like to look at the campaign map a second?

Have you seen Italy? I mean ITALY With Venice and Genoa in the same kingdom?
Aquitaine being English? Flanders being French?
Where have you seen that HRE, or France, or nearly any other kingdom on the map was as centralized as they are portrayed?


And if you want to focus on units, do we need to go throught al MTW units to point at the ood and strange ones? The missing ones?


If MTW was trying to sell on historical accuracy, it would not sell at all.


I agree with Kraxis, the strong selling point are the battles. Reviews point at battles. That's what TW is really famed for. Not historical accuracy.


It would not hurt if the game were historically accurate, but the impact on the success of TW is likely to be marginal

Louis,

[Ragss]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 09 2004,20:41)]
Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 08 2004,05:17)]yes but that was years ago, times change, markets evolve. A game with such few units today just wouldnt cut it.
That is what you say...

Tell me:

Are you a gaming press reviewer? Are you a gaming marketing department analyst? Are you CA's President?

Am I right in saying... ...no, no and no?

What you have is your oppinion, and that isn't enough when the votes in all of the forums (ORG, COM, TWC, etc...) are favorable to an historical accurate game.
Obviously CA doesn't give a flying fuck what you guys think Unless they are indeed completely retarded, (but with the great game they are making, I highly doubt that) they know that catering to you guys is not worth their time, even listening to you guys is a waste of resources. They are, instead, making the game appeal to the market what will get them the most money.

I may not be a 'market analyst', but I know my shit and have been gaming for many years, and I have witnessed my fair share of companies selling out to their original fan base in order to rake in more dough, and I have seen many game franchises evolve.




"Historically correct Ptolomaic faction has DIFFERENT units from the Greek City States and from the Seleucids. ALL of them have different units (probably half of them)."


I dont know about this, I just saw a lot of people complaining "WHERE ARE THE GREEK UNITS WE WERE PROMISED???"

[Nowake]

I think this will soon get closed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[ah_dut]

there is waaaay too much flaming going on here but I agree with Duke John i don't give a crap how accurate this game is as long as it's as moddable as CA says. Then we'll have to enslave Duke John and Wes W and any other modders we can get our hands on to get them to make us a great mod. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif look people i realy do like the TW games, honest, I think that CA spent time on history in the first two, I learnt a lot from them. Being accurate does not hurt a game. Medieval was great and still relatively accurate. We can't expect CA to do everything right first time can we? I just want a good moddable game. If it's historically accurate so much the better, Oh and by the way, Ragss, listen to Aymar, he has a point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif

[RisingSun]

Quote[/b] ]I dont know about this, I just saw a lot of people complaining "WHERE ARE THE GREEK UNITS WE WERE PROMISED???"

No, we've been saying "Where are the Greek-style units we were promised??"

Your argument is silly. Like you said, most people won't know about the era. So how will making it accurate hurt it? There will still be plenty of different units.

The only thing making these units accomplish would be alienating the existing fanbase, rather than attracting new fans. Nobody is going to say "wow, look at those cool head dresses those Egyptians are wearing I'm buying this game" They will say "Wow, look at those cool elephants I'm buying this game"

There probably won't even be any Egyptians on the box.

So why? It's stupid. All they do is alienate and sell out the hardcore fans whose mods have kept their games alive, and screw themselves over in the long run.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 09 2004,23:20)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 09 2004,20:41)]
Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 08 2004,05:17)]yes but that was years ago, times change, markets evolve. A game with such few units today just wouldnt cut it.
That is what you say...

Tell me:

Are you a gaming press reviewer? Are you a gaming marketing department analyst? Are you CA's President?

Am I right in saying... ...no, no and no?

What you have is your oppinion, and that isn't enough when the votes in all of the forums (ORG, COM, TWC, etc...) are favorable to an historical accurate game.
Obviously CA doesn't give a flying fuck what you guys think
My, my Such accumulated anger... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif



Quote[/b] ]Unless they are indeed completely retarded
Guess what? By the looks of things, they are



Quote[/b] ]they know that catering to you guys is not worth their time, even listening to you guys is a waste of resources. They are, instead, making the game appeal to the market what will get them the most money.
Waste of time? Funny, since we were the ones that bought STW in the first place. Therefore, their STW sales depended upon us, right?



Quote[/b] ]I may not be a 'market analyst', but I know my shit and have been gaming for many years, and I have witnessed my fair share of companies selling out to their original fan base in order to rake in more dough, and I have seen many game franchises evolve.
And, like Rosa said, most expanding franchises that evolve to catter to the mass market produce flopps. Most games and films are like that. Remember film sequels?



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]"Historically correct Ptolomaic faction has DIFFERENT units from the Greek City States and from the Seleucids. ALL of them have different units (probably half of them)."
I dont know about this, I just saw a lot of people complaining "WHERE ARE THE GREEK UNITS WE WERE PROMISED???"
No, they complained about: "WHERE ARE THE GREEK-STYLE UNITS WE WERE PROMISED?"

[lonewolf371]

While at first sight CA adjusting to create a larger fan base by curtailing historical accuracy might seem to create a larger market, one has to remember that there is already an established order for those sorts of things. If CA thinks that by having Pharonic Egyptian Soldiers instead of the classic Ptolemnic ones will create a larger fan base, the chances are it won't happen. I've played a lot of strategy games in my time, and while Warcraft 3 may have its spells and Empire Earth is heavy unit counters, the largest thing Total War has going for it is its complexity and accurate depiction of historical battles. In most games the gamer can quite simply just give a damn about whether or not its raining when he's fighting, whether he's on top of a hill, so on and so forth. However the types that usually care about those things and have the patience to put up with them often care enough about historical accuracy to actually know something about what happened during the RTW time period to care. Most of the fans who look at RTW and say "WOW CRAZY PIRATES WITH HARPOONS" will probably see Warcraft III or Halo 2 right next to it and instead say "WOW HEROES WITH COOL SPELLS" or "WOW BLASTING HUNDREDS OF ALIENS WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE" and buy one of those to games instead. Whereas the classic strategy game historical buff like you or me will look at Rome: Total War and say "WOW AWESOME ENGINE" or "WOW AWESOME LEGIONAIRES" but then we will see another game down the aisle called Empire Earth 2 and say "WOW IT GOES FROM THE PREHISTORIC AGE TO THE NANO AGE AND ACCURATELY DEPICTS HISTORY IN BETWEEN" and we will buy that instead. CA trying to add ridiculous Hollywood style units will only result in the same consequence as when Coca-Cola tried to steal Pepsi fans: they won't get any new buyers, but they'll lose the old ones.

[Ragss]

Look, apparently you guys know what you are doing, more-so than CA, so I'm curious, where is your game?

The difference between "Greek units" and "Greek style units" is semantics.

CA knows that there are going to be VERY FEW of you history buffs who will refuse to buy this game as is, and they also know that having a much more diverse, and consequently ahistorical, unit list will yield higher sales. I would bet good money that if the Egyptians had more than 2 or 3 Greek-style units, a reviewer at www.ign.com, or any other respected sight, would point out that units are copied over to other factions.

Ask yourself these questions, but pretend you are a 14 yearold pothead/skateboarder/video gamer with a computer your parents bought:

Would you prefer units who through javelins, or harpoons?

Would you prefer 2 factions sharing some units, or have 2 completely different factions and have the game (GHASP) ahistorical?

Would you like a history lesson while you are playing your computer game? Or would you simply like to murder thousands with your completely ahistorical pharonic archers?

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ] I would bet good money that if the Egyptians had more than 2 or 3 Greek-style units, a reviewer at www.ign.com, or any other respected sight, would point out that units are copied over to other factions.

Only, if he is too lazy to read the faction and unit descriptions, in which case he shouldn´t be reviewing games in the first place.

[RisingSun]

Quote[/b] ]The difference between "Greek units" and "Greek style units" is semantics.

No, it is not. Greek-style means all it really has to do is use the phalanx or be in some way similar to a Greek unit. A Greek unit would be exactly copy-pasted from the Greek faction. See the difference? Egyptian units could still be plenty different if they were Greek-style.


Quote[/b] ]CA knows that there are going to be VERY FEW of you history buffs who will refuse to buy this game as is, and they also know that having a much more diverse, and consequently ahistorical, unit list will yield higher sales.

We've already gone over this point several times in several threads, and you are again, incorrect.


Quote[/b] ]Ask yourself these questions, but pretend you are a 14 yearold pothead/skateboarder/video gamer with a computer your parents bought:

Would you prefer units who through javelins, or harpoons?

Javelins. Because I would be thinking "How the hell can these guys not afford regular javelins?"


Quote[/b] ]Would you prefer 2 factions sharing some units, or have 2 completely different factions and have the game (GHASP) ahistorical?

I would like two factions sharing some units. Why? Because if this kid is fourteen, he has at least had a freshman history class, and should know- "What the **** are these guys?"


Quote[/b] ]Would you like a history lesson while you are playing your computer game? Or would you simply like to murder thousands with your completely ahistorical pharonic archers?

If all he wants to do is murder stuff, he won't buy a strategy game, he'll buy Doom III or Half Life 2 instead of RTW. Get it through your head.