PDA

View Full Version : Historical issues...



ick_of_pick
07-24-2004, 19:36
I have, and many of you may have noticed the significant historical inaccuracies in the game, and even more important, the blatant bias the developers have expressed against the Muslim factions, and to some extent the orthodox factions. Now I'm not saying the devs were completely helpless or prejudiced, they managed to get faction religion, and to a minimal extent, the geographical boundaries where the medieval empires had political control correctly. But they seemed to have designed the game with a minimum amount of regard for the Muslim factions, and as a result, the medieval Muslim factions have a unrealistically puny army. Now I’m not just ranting, I've done a significant amount of research, and I'm not the only one who's complaining about this. The stupid mistakes are as follows:

Resources:
No iron in Damascus...I mean seriously. Didn’t the Arab and Persian smiths of Damascus possess the most advanced sword making techniques in the world? Even the Japanese did not yet have that technology On top of that, there is no other province in the Middle East or far eastern Europe that contains any iron.

No gold in Arabia

Little iron in northern Germany.

No iron in Egypt, one of the largest raw material trading centers of the medieval world. Hell, I don’t even know if Egypt has food as a tradable good, the most useless Nile River I’ve ever seen.

Strategic map:

Made as if the battle of Manzekirt never took place.

The Armenians are supposed to be Christian, but the province is 99% Muslim.

The rest of the Factions basically have the wrong provinces.

Units:

Here is goes:

Janissaries were really firearm based soldiers.

Templar were supposed to be the most experienced and feared of the crusading orders, but here they're the worst.

No Varangians in late? How about doing your homework before you make a game?

Byzantine Kataphraktoi never charged into battle, they were too weighed down by the armor. They would trot into battle and start jabbing with their kontos, and act more like a mounted phalanx then charging knights, but they have a charge of 8, and the armor is pretty pathetic for the speed, especially when it’s their primary heavy cavalry unit for the ENTIRE GAME.

Firearms suck. The gun units act more like a human wall of demoralization then a division of projectile-based soldiers.

Lancers and Goths have the same armor, but the Goths are slower.

Nizaris cost 400 florins and lose to just about everything, -4 defense is a little undermining no?

Only get 12 Hashishin...



Mongol heavy cavalry is more heavily armored then chivalric knights but has significantly less melee? And the charge is only 6? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MONGOLS HERE. The Mongols were actually reported to fight extremely aggressively in hand-to-hand combat, often throwing themselves halfway off their horses to jump on an enemy, and then leap back on with one leg still on the horse.
On top of all this embarrassment, the famously loyal warriors of the Great Khan just seem to be waiting for the chance to turn and run. Mongol infantry are largely ineffective, being both weak in melee and low in moral. They are only decent as normal foot archers with cool looking helmets you trade an arm and a leg for.


Now the biggest problem: Islamic Cavalry

It is common knowledge that the one of the most expensive, fast and the most enduring horse is the Arabian. Now, I can understand the majority of Muslim lance-based cavalry having a charge of 6, as the Arabian is smaller, and therefore lighter then the destrier (large European horse), but it has naturally more endurance, and is significantly faster, let alone with all the armor the European knights wear. Now let’s start with the units.

Ghulam: The most basic Islamic cavalry. Ghulams were slave warriors who were trained from a young age in cavalry warfare. Being slaves, they were not allowed to do much more then practice fighting and actually fight, and their spare time consisted almost entirely of practice. They have a Melee of 3? The most advanced sword making techniques, constant practice, as well as very well bred mounts, and they have a melee of 3? on top of that, they move at the same speed as a European knight clad in armor, on a huge heavy, and generally poorly bred horse.

Ghulam Body Guards: Intentionally made worse then their European Counterpart despite superior Arab craftsmanship, higher emphasis on swordsmanship during training, constant practice on hunting fields and simulated combat, and only the best horses for the Sultans Guards. Not saying the European Royal Guards were anything to laugh at, they just didn’t put as much emphasis on cavalry combat, and the higher armor rating makes sense, but in general, giving Islamic cavalry lower melee is completely unrealistic.

Khwarazmiam: While most Persian cavalry were heavily armored as is accurately portrayed here, the rather lousy charge and melee puts them almost in the same position as the Ghulams. While Persian training was not as rigorous as the Turks or Arabs of the time, the Persian horses were massive, similar to the destrier in size and strength, reason being that Persian territory is not mostly desert like the western parts of the mid-east, but is largely a plateau, where the horses evolved differently then the smaller, but faster Arabians. But alas, the Khwarazmiam have a charge of 6, and a once again a pathetic melee of 3, AND it take a master spear maker and master horse breeder to produce them. Please don’t say they're worth the relatively small cost, generals need fighting units, not cannon fodder in the form of heavy cavalry.

Ottoman Sipahi: why are they even here? They are not nearly the equivalent of heavy cavalry, and they don’t have the speed of light cavalry, not to mention they are only available in an era where medium cavalry is obsolete.

Camels have no problem with temperate climates. Strange how they seem to have the same charge value of a fully armored khwarazmiam, and about 2/3rds the speed and cost.

Sipahi of the Porte: they're ok, but the unit size is just a bit too small to be effective. Not to mention, being a late era unit only, they have a weak melee ability of 4, despite the massive scimitar, and the superior training of Turkish cavalry.

Now the one thing that really got to me...Mamluks:

Most people know very little about the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt, but those who do know will probably be quick to realize there is seriously something wrong here…The Mamluks were arguably the most powerful cavalry force on the face of the planet. They beat the Mongols at their own game, pretty much destroyed the Seljuk Turks, Drove out the crusaders entirely, invaded deep into Africa, conquered the lesser Armenian kingdom, took Syria from the Mongols, and took Cyprus, all within 100 years and without losing a battle outside of a civil war. How did they do it? Well, let’s start with the most powerful cavalry force on the face of the planet. The Mamluks were superbly trained, superbly equipped, disciplined to the point of insanity, and were the top of the physical gene pool, as they were chosen and bought as slaves according to their strength and martial ability as young children, aged 5 average. The equipment that they were provided with was of the highest quality steel, some of it, despite being some three hundred years old, was later used by Napoleon Bonaparte’s cavalry, as well as the horses that had been carefully bred by the Mamluks for hundreds of years.
Now, let’s see what happened here…Mamluk Cavalry: cost 275, charge 4, melee 2, defense 3, armor 4, and honor 4.
That’s insulting. Melee of 2??? Honor 4???

Mamluk Horse archers: cost 375; charge 2, melee 3, defense 1, armor 3, honor 4.
Once again, insulting. Not only do they cost more then the heavier ax-armed version, they have higher melee capabilities and the same low honor.


I have played this game a lot, and I have spent even more time reading history books, particularly medieval history, and I can recognize obvious mistakes when I see them. As for all the above, it is not like me to complain about something without offering at least one possible solution to the problem. In my opinion, the total war community, or at least those who read and/or respond to this post should put some sort of effort to work together and create a unit stats modification that will take us a little closer to real medieval history. I would be happy to take the responsibility of compiling the information your provide me with, and doing the actual modding myself, just so long as I have your opinions on it. My objective here is not to edit the single player game to make it more realistic, but get a mod circulating that could easily be played online with other people, and would be as simple as a “realism mod” from any first-person shooter.

Thanks, Ick

DemonArchangel
07-24-2004, 22:58
Dude, it's for balance.
A properly played islamic army can thrash a catholic one.
And the Kataphraktoi (Klibanophori) did charge, although they should have maces instead.

the Kataphraktoi were actually byzantine cavalry

Mouzafphaerre
07-24-2004, 23:31
-
Greetings ick_of_pick,

My friends and I have been gatheing historical information (slowly but surely) to form a knowledge base and help modders (and ourselves for our Modlet poject). Please drop me a PM if you wish to join in.

No dress code https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
_

Steppe Merc
07-24-2004, 23:49
Balance shammalance. If your also similarly intersted in making RTW more historically acurate, ick_of_pick, check out the Europa Barborum movement. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

ick_of_pick
07-25-2004, 06:57
I understand that balance is always an issue when making a game, but the Islamic units are almost entirely inferior to the Catholic ones, not to mention that history is not balanced https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Kataphraktoi and Klibanophori are different, the klibs being the lancers. Oh, and what do you mean by "drop me a PM"??? And I would love to help anyone whos currently or is planning to work on a mod, for medieval or rome. Here is my E-mail: rickeshoo@hotmail.com

Mouzafphaerre
07-25-2004, 07:22
-
Look at the top right of your screen. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
_

Sjakihata
07-25-2004, 12:05
I second your thoughts Ick.

I am no great historian, especially when it comes to muslim units, but somethings cannot go unnoticed. I've, however, easily destroyed catholic factions with a muslim army (in mp) so it is definately possible. But I agree especially regarding cav, that the muslim factions need better cavalry in the game.

I hope you will have success with your mod, let me know if I can do anything.

lonewolf371
07-25-2004, 12:42
Don't say that, they might actually ask you to do something. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Sjakihata
07-25-2004, 13:53
Oh I sincerely hope that they know I just said that out of politeness and did not mean it at all

https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

meravelha
07-27-2004, 01:23
@ick_of_pick

I entirely agree.
I have studied (in an informal way) medieval islamic military systems for most of my life and I find all of the points you make above to be both accurate and reasonable.

Games can be balanced in a multitude of ways.
We should prefer balancing mechanisms that maintain a high standard of scholarship over those that succumb to a 'fairy-tale' or 'hollywood' interpretation.

I cannot quite believe that these inaccuracies are not deliberately euro-centric in that they address a principally anglo-european market.

Leet Eriksson
07-27-2004, 02:16
Thats a bit overglorifying the muslims armies, they are pretty fine right now, you must get used to them to get their full potential, mostly use pinning and flanking tactics.

In one of the battles i once only got 4 casualties against a late catholic army(custom battle, steppes terrain).And mongols are pretty good too, although they lack that feircness that made the famous, but they are still fun to play with(custom battle or multiplayer) there are also mongol campaign mods wich are fun.

RollingWave
07-27-2004, 12:54
I think dispite this being a great game there are still certain limits that will cause problems.... for example while it is true in this game muslim units are inferior in general... but they also (in most cases) cost much less... cost effective wise they are acturally still on par if not better than catholic factions in many cases (such as Armenian heavy cav... it's very very rigged if u aim to tech for v2 once right away as turks... )

But because of hte limit of the game you can not really accurtaly dipict some fundemental problems... such as the fact that some armies are conscripted... others are called up during war time... (most are acturally) while some are standing professional armies.. how do you accurately depict this? perhapes they could have tinkered with upkeep a bit more to reflect this... but then it gets moer complicated... as non standing armies should not count towards garrison? and can only be called up on the province they are from... not from whereever u like...

Staying on issue though.. if you were to really mod the muslim units.. you should realize that muslim factions during those time in general had a greater number of standing professional armies compare to the west... thus it would mean their upkeep would be considerablly higher... not to meantion the sultans pay for the training from their own coffer... while western kings paid for it with fiefs more often than hard cash....

I think one of the major problem is unable to accurately protrait calling up armies... for example in general milita units only defend their own province... they would not participate in a far away expedition and even in war closer to home you could not expect them to stay in service for long seiges and campaigns....

Knights in general had the same problem too... they are obliged for a limited service per year... (espically in the earlier periods) you can not expect them to serve long campaigns..... the crusade was a expection as they were promised wealth and land of the mid east.... and muslim faction had this problem too as their different emmirs had their own troops that are not always wiling to stay around for long siege

If you want historical accuratcy... than seiging is way too easy in this game... in real history you can not really hold seiges that last for years because you cannot support the armies. (as remember... numbers are quiet crucial during seige... while the bulk of the armies are usually call ups or mercenaries... both you can not realistically keep around for that long.. that's not even considering the logistic problems) but then again there should be defections... most armies would not hang around to fight a hopeless war... they would either surrender or flee..... etc... all these are not accurate.. but would be very hard to really make them so without putting in so much random factors that would really make the game difficult to play.

Plantagenet
07-27-2004, 21:32
On iron in Damascus and so forth, the historical resource placement for the entire game is screwed up, but so are those in every game about European history (along with the provinces, cities, etc.). But since I realize the people that make these games are developers and not historians, I just fix them myself. Now matter how much you or I complain, CA is not going to go back and fix an old title...so just mod it yourself.

Also, game balance does matter. You mentioned iron in Northern Germany; but to be really historically-accurate, the province of Saxony should have the following resources throughout the Middle Ages: Silver, Copper, Iron, Salt, Fish.

But a Saxony with all these resources would be too much for MTW; if you add to it a historically-correct Lotharingia (Wine, Iron, Pottery, Cloth, Glass), Franconia (Wine, Iron, Dyes), Swabia (Wine, Salt, Linen), Austria (Gold, Silver, Copper, Iron, Wood), and so on, the German faction would easily dominate everybody else. On top of that, while the game includes a resource called "iron", it leaves out a corresponding good called "arms" or "weapons". For instance, Franconia exported swords as a major source of income. But in MTW, a Franconia stuck with just "iron" is a very poor province indeed.

And that's assuming that the German provinces themselves are placed and bordered correctly, which they aren't. There was no Switzerland in 1087, Franconia didn't share a border with Holland at any point, Tyrol NEVER extended south of Switzerland or touched Burgundy, etc. So if you want resources to be accurate, then first you must fix the map itself.

So while I agree it would be nice if the map and its resources were more accurate, the amount of research involved is just too much to ask from a team of software developers. So we should just be grateful they made a game that allows us to modify the inaccuracies if we see fit

ick_of_pick
07-28-2004, 01:13
I understand how easy it is to mod the game myself, but my objective is to get people to come together and make a mod that would make unit stats more realistic for the sake of multiplayer.

ick

Mouzafphaerre
07-28-2004, 01:31
-
Hey ick, empty your inbox mate.https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/Skin/Default/PostIcons/icon12.gif
_