mods: history vs gameplay

[caesar44]

hi
a question
what is more important in modeling
is it historical accuracy or gameplay ?
i prefer the first option 70 to 30


:book:

[khelvan]

In my opinion, you need make no compromise. You can have both.

[caesar44]

ok
but you know , tw is the best strategy game ever and even so its far away from being historical
some examples
1.the celts never had a unified kingdom
2.the britons and the germans - the same thing
3.the romans were a unified republic until the civil wars , a period of not more than 40 years
4.the carthginians had a semi republic and not a monarchy
5.the "greek states" were not a kingdom but several (many) sity states with different agendas
ect ect
so i wish i can have them both...




"i played my role" (augustus)

[Myrddraal]

But, imagine what would happen if they had split up all the smaller nations. For those who aren't very good at the game, they would be limited to the romans. All the other factions would be too hard to play.

[Suraknar]

I thnk personally, a balance between the two, since, even if this is a simulation of tactics and strategy, it is also a game.


3.the romans were a unified republic until the civil wars , a period of not more than 40 years

I think a compromise here to merge the realities of pre-civil wars and post civil wars.

Besides I do play considering that the other two Roman Factions are mine, it just happens that I don't conrol them.

The game does help in that regard in that when you follow a senate mission to declare war to another faction the Senate and the other two roman Factions will follow as if all 4 were one.

It also hapened that in my curent Campaign playing as the Scipii, the Brutii had an alliance with the Thracians, and when I attacked them the Brutii did break their alliance, and over a couple of turn even the senate changed their stance towards that faction (simulating lots of debates in the senate and the influence the Scipii had in it at the time).

So its the little things here that when looked at from a certain angle are actually part of a more global effort. The design does take them under account, and I am happy of that.


5.the "greek states" were not a kingdom but several (many) sity states with different agendas

Actually these are Post-Alexander Era Greeks, and there were Kingdoms and not only City States as per the Classical hellenistic Era, roughly 300 years prior to the Game's Timeline.

As for the Celts, well, even if anachronistic the moment the game starts, lest not forget that Vercingetorix was able to unify the Gauls, so its a Design decision from my perspective as Myrddraal said, it would be very dificult to play the other factions if they were not united.

And besides, it does open the way for moding ;)

[caesar44]

But, imagine what would happen if they had split up all the smaller nations. For those who aren't very good at the game, they would be limited to the romans. All the other factions would be too hard to play.

why ?
you still have the eastern empires , the numidians and the carthaginians
beside , the harder the play will be - the better
historicaly , establishing an empire from a small tribe is very very hard
:book:

[caesar44]

I thnk personally, a balance between the two, since, even if this is a simulation of tactics and strategy, it is also a game.



I think a compromise here to merge the realities of pre-civil wars and post civil wars.

Besides I do play considering that the other two Roman Factions are mine, it just happens that I don't conrol them.

The game does help in that regard in that when you follow a senate mission to declare war to another faction the Senate and the other two roman Factions will follow as if all 4 were one.

It also hapened that in my curent Campaign playing as the Scipii, the Brutii had an alliance with the Thracians, and when I attacked them the Brutii did break their alliance, and over a couple of turn even the senate changed their stance towards that faction (simulating lots of debates in the senate and the influence the Scipii had in it at the time).

So its the little things here that when looked at from a certain angle are actually part of a more global effort. The design does take them under account, and I am happy of that.



Actually these are Post-Alexander Era Greeks, and there were Kingdoms and not only City States as per the Classical hellenistic Era, roughly 300 years prior to the Game's Timeline.

As for the Celts, well, even if anachronistic the moment the game starts, lest not forget that Vercingetorix was able to unify the Gauls, so its a Design decision from my perspective as Myrddraal said, it would be very dificult to play the other factions if they were not united.

And besides, it does open the way for moding ;)


ok
about the greek cities
in the post alexander era the greeks had several semi republics like the aetolian alliance , achaean alliance , lacedaemonian alliance , athens ect
they were not monarchic
vercingetotix united only the independant celtic tribs and only for 2 to 3 years :book:

[General_Sun]

why ?
you still have the eastern empires , the numidians and the carthaginians
beside , the harder the play will be - the better
historicaly , establishing an empire from a small tribe is very very hard
:book:

Huh why? Ever heard of Cyrus the Great?
Ever heard of Gengis Khan?

[caesar44]

Huh why? Ever heard of Cyrus the Great?
Ever heard of Gengis Khan?

ho ho
cyrus did not begin with a small tribe , he crashed the babilonians with a huge
persian nation that was already there
gengis is one of a very unique individuals (3 or 4) to establish an empire from a small tribe . and he did it so drastic that his empire immediately collapsed like that of alexi

:book:

[Suraknar]

Hello,

The Point is that this "is" a game. We can debate History and both bring up exact chronologies and demographics and sociopolitical organizations.

I do not think that RTW is suposed to be an accurate Simulation of History, instead, it is inspired by one of the Greatest Era's of Human History and with some compromise brings that to us the players in various degrees, but also following the paradigm of the series.

Besides, wanting to make this as acurate historically as possible, that would mean that some Factions will never have a chance of wining the game.

The Gauls Lost Historically...now tell me who would like to play a game as the Gauls knowing that whatever they do, will result in them losing in the end?

The egyptians never expanded in to Europe, yet you can play as egyptian and conquer the known world of the game.

How Historical is that? Well it is not. Hence, replaying History, is not necessarilly enjoyable if you really think about it. A game that relates to history is in reality all about an Alternate History, bringing you at a solid starting point but as soon as you press that "end Turn" button you are no longer inside the history that you know, as you are making new and alternate History from then on.

And that is what is fun about it, the possibility to do things differently! The "what if" element, the changing factors. I may play the Greek Cities and conquer the world in one fashion, and you may do so in another fashion. Both are as valid and as fun and both are good, in the end result.

And yes, they are not historical, because historically we know who conquered whom.

Hence, if you make a game that gives the opportunity to all factions to have a chance to conquer the world, well you have to make some decisions that are not Historical in order to make it so they are capable of attaining that goal.

Makes sence?

In your original post you are asking "what is more important in modeling".

And you also say that you prefer History rather than Gameplay.

I prefer a balanced approach in acknowledging the fact that this is meant to be a Game as much as a Historical Simulation.

But there is no right or wrong answer here I think, it is a question of preference.

And the best thing about it is that all the various preferences can be expressed through moding and exchanged amongst people of with various different preferences.

So, by all means, nothing of this discussion is to say, "don't do Historical Modeling" Go ahead. Will be looking forward to your Mods! :)

[caesar44]

hi suraknar
it is obvious that when the game starts we are walking from history in to fantasy
its only a game but its a game that lean on history
if playing a small tribe like the celtic icceni is hard , so let it be hard , thats fine with me
and more enjoyble (sorry for my english , its not my language)
is it not inreresting to play as it was ?