View Full Version : Creative Assembly FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments
Hurin_Rules
08-17-2005, 17:30
A few things on the latest FAQ for BI seemed a bit... well... odd to me. See what you think:
Q: I was wondering, was artillary actually ever pulled by chariots so they could be moved quickly across the battlefield, or is this just pure fiction?
A: Vegetius mentions wagon-mounted artillery in his texts on the Roman army although, reading between the lines, there's an air in his works of writing about how things should be rather than how they are or were. So, yes, there's evidence of (reasonably) mobile artillery being built by the Romans. They weren't stupid people and had a good grasp of basic engineering, but they were hampered by the materials technology available and - in our opinions - by an inherent conservatism in using new ideas.
Q: Have you changed the pictures of the family members faces in BI? Most importantly, have you removed the face paintings from the "barbarian" factions faces?
A: There are new family portraits in addition to the existing set. And no, not all the face paint has disappeared!
Q: Are most of the Saxon units pure fiction? Oh, while we are discussing historical accuracy vs. fiction, what literary sources (ancient and modern) did you use during the production of BI?
A: The problem with any barbarian force is that their armies were not organised into nicely differentiated units. Most 'barbarian' units were really all the blokes who were prepared to follow a strong man into battle for what they could plunder. If we did them 'accurately' we'd end up with every unit in the game being a variably sized mish-mash of individually equipped warriors. And, at the moment, PCs simply won't handle this kind of level of detail (every man would count as a different 'unit'). So what we have to do is create a unit list that mirrors the type of warriors that a particular people were well known for employing. This also makes the game tactically interesting too, as the chances are that most barbarian battles consisted of both sides screaming 'charge' and then fighting until a victor emerged, which isn't all that satsifying...
A few things I would note:
Though artillery might have been pulled by wagon, it certainly didn't fire while being pulled.
Face paint is inaccurate.
Barbarians were not morons.
And on another note, anyone besides me a bit disheartened that Spartan: Total Warrior gets higher billing on the CA website than BI? To tell you the truth, I hope that game tanks so CA can concentrate on what they do best. Leave the FPS to the console designers. You're not going to outdo Halo, so don't even try.
From the FAQ:
"So what we have to do is create a unit list that mirrors the type of warriors that a particular people were well known for employing. This also makes the game tactically interesting too, as the chances are that most barbarian battles consisted of both sides screaming 'charge' and then fighting until a victor emerged, which isn't all that satsifying..."
Well that's an interesting statement coming from CA considering that the gameplay is just like that with players smashing massive "snowballs" of units into each other. And yes it "isn't all that satisfying".
Also, CA doesn't mirror "the type of warriors that a particular people were well known for employing". Come off it! Pigs that are only known to have been used once? Egyptians from 1000 years before the game's time frame? Ballista chariots after just saying in another answer that it isn't know if they ever used such a weapon system?
You're not going to outdo Halo, so don't even try.
Halo is outdoable - it has been outdone time and time again on pc, and all it would take is a port of hl2/css with the same graphics to '360 to beat it :)
But yes, i am disheartened - spend more time on total war, it'll last longer for gamers anyway than a fps.
Captain Fishpants
08-18-2005, 09:52
Another person who needs the gentle rod of correction. Very Roman, the rod of correction. ~:)
Though artillery might have been pulled by wagon, it certainly didn't fire while being pulled.
Carroballistae didn't fire on the move? Maybe, maybe not. The basic design certainly wouldn't have made it easy or accurate, but you can bet they tried to use the weapon that way from time to time (sheer terror is the mother of many desperate tactics).
On the other hand, it doesn't make for a fun unit in the game. If you don't like it, don't use it in your battles.
Face paint is inaccurate.
Tattoos, facial scarification, piercings and generally slapping yourself with woad was common. The Huns were regarded as particularly scary people because they did go in an extreme 'look'. It was all about being as terrifying as possible before you engaged with the enemy. Better to stab a man in the back while he's running away than actually have to fight him!
Barbarians were not morons.
Barbarians are not morons. Barbarians are barbarous. This doesn't imply thick, dim, stupid, moronic or lax in any mental department. It does imply a lack of civilized accomplisments, such as an organised military structure or a staff college producing field manuals. It's the exceptional barbarian commanders who did understand that tactics were important who are remembered: Vercingetorix, Attila, Alaric the Goth and so on. The average commander had a loud voice...
And on another note, anyone besides me a bit disheartened that Spartan: Total Warrior gets higher billing on the CA website than BI? To tell you the truth, I hope that game tanks so CA can concentrate on what they do best. Leave the FPS to the console designers. You're not going to outdo Halo, so don't even try.
And finally, thanks for your good wishes on the success of Spartan: Total Warrior. Just to correct a couple of misconceptions, though: it's not an FPS, and it's not like Halo.
Grey_Fox
08-18-2005, 10:54
And on another note, anyone besides me a bit disheartened that Spartan: Total Warrior gets higher billing on the CA website than BI?
BI is only an expansion, Spartan: Total Warrior is a new game.
Anyways, if you don't want them to make games like Spartan, why don't you become a shareholder and tell them not to make it?
Hurin_Rules
08-18-2005, 21:01
Ok, the tone of my post was a bit bitter--sorry for that--but come on, you're twisting the facts here and being rather misleading:
Carroballistae didn't fire on the move? Maybe, maybe not. The basic design certainly wouldn't have made it easy or accurate, but you can bet they tried to use the weapon that way from time to time (sheer terror is the mother of many desperate tactics).
No, they didn't. Even tanks in WWII usually stopped to fire. This was with suspensions, rubber and advanced tracking systems. If you can site a single source saying carroballistae were fired on the move, I'll stand corrected. This isn't just about a game, its about historical accuracy. You're perfectly free to design whatever you want in a game, so long as you don't assert it as fact. I might even agree with your playability/fun argument. But pseudo-historical arguments produce only pseudo-histories. Please don't misinform people. As a professor of history, I have to deal with the consequences in my classrooms.
Tattoos, facial scarification, piercings and generally slapping yourself with woad was common. The Huns were regarded as particularly scary people because they did go in an extreme 'look'. It was all about being as terrifying as possible before you engaged with the enemy. Better to stab a man in the back while he's running away than actually have to fight him!
So you are asserting that Vercingetorix wore woad? What sources are you citing in defense of this revolutionary thesis? (Ack, sorry, being exessively sarcastic again; but you get my point.)
Barbarians are not morons. Barbarians are barbarous. This doesn't imply thick, dim, stupid, moronic or lax in any mental department. It does imply a lack of civilized accomplisments, such as an organised military structure or a staff college producing field manuals. It's the exceptional barbarian commanders who did understand that tactics were important who are remembered: Vercingetorix, Attila, Alaric the Goth and so on. The average commander had a loud voice...
Fair enough. But your characterization of barbarian warfare--viz., ''most barbarian battles consisted of both sides screaming 'charge' and then fighting until a victor emerged'--is highly speculative and indicative more of Roman (and Hollywood) attitudes to 'barbarians' than of the barbarians themselves.
And finally, thanks for your good wishes on the success of Spartan: Total Warrior. Just to correct a couple of misconceptions, though: it's not an FPS, and it's not like Halo.
Ok, that was a bit unfair-- I don't really hope the game tanks. But you must realize that many RTW players are intensely concerned that STW represents a reorientation of CA's priorities. This is a genuine concern, given some of the design decisions of RTW. It seems that CA is appealing to a somewhat different audience with both RTW and STW. If you can allay our concerns, please do.
~:cheers:
Simetrical
08-18-2005, 21:36
Face paint is inaccurate.I'm pretty sure some of the Britons used woad.
Orda Khan
08-19-2005, 15:39
If you don't like it, don't use it in your battles.
I've been applying this since original STW. It seems that historically inaccurate concerns have only surfaced since RTW. Perhaps less to do with 'carriage ballistae' and more with 'bandwagon'
.......Orda
Zatoichi
08-19-2005, 16:09
I've been applying this since original STW. It seems that historically inaccurate concerns have only surfaced since RTW. Perhaps less to do with 'carriage ballistae' and more with 'bandwagon'
.......Orda
Does anyone know if bandwagons can fire on the move? ~;)
Historical accuracy and realism both decined in RTW relative to the previous games.
Historical accuracy and realism both decined in RTW relative to the previous games.
Are you saying that seroisly?
STW, from a view of 1 Japanese history afficianado, is absurd, and I find it even insulting.
Super Ninjas, Geisha Terminators, stupid movies, wrong and wrong units.
STW, as a game, is superb but not so superb in the reallism department.
Let me tell you, IMO CA never cared much about reallism and historical accuracy.
Even in MTW, there was some obvious mistakes, although not bad as STW and RTW.
I really don't understand why peoples suddenly started screaming about historical inaccuracy with the release of RTW.
Maybe because there is much more people intrested in Ancient Rome then Medieval Japan.
Orda Khan
08-19-2005, 18:07
Are you saying that seroisly?
STW, from a view of 1 Japanese history afficianado, is absurd, and I find it even insulting.
Super Ninjas, Geisha Terminators, stupid movies, wrong and wrong units.
STW, as a game, is superb but not so superb in the reallism department.
Let me tell you, CA never cared much about reallism and historical accuracy.
Even in MTW, there was some obvious mistakes, although not bad as STW and RTW.
Not to mention units of Nodachi and with the introduction of the MI expansion it became even more absurd. I became bored ages ago with all the 'I hate RTW' threads and the constant bleating. Still, it's good to see this opportunity wasn't missed
.......Orda
Hurin_Rules
08-19-2005, 18:55
As I said, Its not the inaccuracies I mind--its trying to justify them by poor historical arguments. There is no evidence carroballistae were fired on the move. If you're speculating/inventing then just admit it, and I'm fine.
MTW had some inaccuracies, to be sure-- but it didn't have flaming pigs or screaming women. RTW does mark an important (and, to me and many others, an unwelcome) change in direction.
Barbarians are not morons. Barbarians are barbarous. This doesn't imply thick, dim, stupid, moronic or lax in any mental department. It does imply a lack of civilized accomplisments, such as an organised military structure or a staff college producing field manuals. It's the exceptional barbarian commanders who did understand that tactics were important who are remembered: Vercingetorix, Attila, Alaric the Goth and so on. The average commander had a loud voice...It depends on which "barbarians" you are talking about. Some "barbarians" had very well-developed military structures and tactics. Some had very strong cultural achievements (though we can agree that engineering, in general, compared to the Greeks and Romans, was not one of them).
However, not only "exceptional" barbarian commanders understood tactics. This is the same misconception that has existed for a long time; not unexpected, though perhaps a bit disappointing.
Are you saying that seroisly?
I really don't understand why peoples suddenly started screaming about historical inaccuracy with the release of RTW.
Exploding rocks, flying horses, 5 second incineration by fire arrows, phalanx that can't stop cavalry, men being thrown 100 feet or more through the air, unrealistically fast movement, wrong weapon use by hoplites, chariots faster than cavalry, lack of downhill bonus, overly effective artillery, cavalry dominated battles, non-existant weather effects, only two speeds for infantry, only two speeds for cavalry, ranged units where either all men shoot or none shoot, unit stacking without combat penalty, factions from outside the time frame, suicide generals, excessive delay to movement orders, pikes ineffective on an upslope, ranged units that always charge into melee in cities, machine gun firing rates for city towers, all men in a unit incur fighting fatigue even if only a few are actually fighting, routers run toward the enemy on bridges, running infantry through a phalanx unit is more effective and attacking it.
I didn't say the other games were accurate. I said RTW was worse. It's at least worse for me in the sense that whatever impression of realism the game is giving while you march into battle is dispelled as soon as the fighting starts, and that didn't happen in the previous games. We don't know the full extent of what battlefield features have been lost. Some cavalry types can shoot on the move, and that's the only thing i can think of, other than visual appearance, that's more realistic in RTW. All the games have unrealistic unit types.
conon394
08-20-2005, 02:38
Puzz3D
I am 99% in agreement with your post. But with one singular exception
machine gun firing rates for city towers
If you are attacking Rhodes you should face machine gun like firing rates. Sorry just my perennial plug for the Democracy of Rhodes the only people who should have repeating catapults.
antisocialmunky
08-20-2005, 03:20
As I said, Its not the inaccuracies I mind--its trying to justify them by poor historical arguments. There is no evidence carroballistae were fired on the move. If you're speculating/inventing then just admit it, and I'm fine.
I think, until someone gets so tired of this stupid back and forth on the part of both parties and build a freaking wagon ballista, this point is MOOT. It's not like it's impossible to fire while moving even over bumpy terran at a big target. Until someone can find an actual test or performs one, I think it's stupid to argue over this point. Just because someone said it was used this way or that, does not mean it was just used that way. So, please, it's getting old.
Exploding rocks, flying horses, 5 second incineration by fire arrows, phalanx that can't stop cavalry, men being thrown 100 feet or more through the air, unrealistically fast movement, wrong weapon use by hoplites, chariots faster than cavalry, lack of downhill bonus, overly effective artillery, cavalry dominated battles, non-existant weather effects, only two speeds for infantry, only two speeds for cavalry, ranged units where either all men shoot or none shoot, unit stacking without combat penalty, factions from outside the time frame, suicide generals, excessive delay to movement orders, pikes ineffective on an upslope, ranged units that always charge into melee in cities, machine gun firing rates for city towers, all men in a unit incur fighting fatigue even if only a few are actually fighting, routers run toward the enemy on bridges, running infantry through a phalanx unit is more effective and attacking it.
I wouldn't group engine problems and gameplay changes with intentionally problems. If you don't like the engine. Why don't you learn how to program and make your own game.
Then we'll ridicule you on all the engine problems because obviously all programmers are perfect and if something happens it's because everything was put into the engine intentionally.
Have you ever designed a game ground up? Control your passion would you?
Do you think if you yell at them and blame them for everything, that they'll be inclined to help you? It's not like they want people disliking the game.
Productivity
08-20-2005, 03:34
I wouldn't group engine problems and gameplay changes with intentionally problems. If you don't like the engine. Why don't you learn how to program and make your own game.
Ah hold up here - this argument is oft used but it's based upon bad logic. I through my purchase have paid CA to program the engine. I don't like the engine so I complain. CA has delivered to me a product which at best barely falls within tolerances so I complain. If you pay someone to do something and they do a sloppy job do you complain, simply because you couldn't do better?
Then we'll ridicule you on all the engine problems because obviously all programmers are perfect and if something happens it's because everything was put into the engine intentionally.
Ah no again, nobody is ridiculing them for not getting it right the first time. People ridicule them for not accepting the errors in the engine (how long/how much effort did it take before the save/load was accepted as a bug?), and for not correcting proven issues with the engine.
Have you ever designed a game ground up? Control your passion would you?
No I haven't - on the otherhand I've never designed a house from the ground up. I pay people to do that, like I pay CA to design a game from the ground up. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that none of the doors open in said house.
Do you think if you yell at them and blame them for everything, that they'll be inclined to help you? It's not like they want people disliking the game.
Well I'd be happy to be civil with them if they started actually treating us like customers, and not like their slaves - to me it seems clear that somehow it has got into their mind that we WILL buy a Total War game regardless - I'm not going to play by those rules, games get bought upon their quality.
Barbarossa82
08-20-2005, 12:18
It's great to see people discussing history with such dedication and passion. The only thing that disturbs me about this thread, and many others, is the level of implied certainty which is carried with many historical assertions.
History is not a particularly blind or speculative field of study when compared to other disciplines, indeed it is awash with evidence. The problem lies in the fact that the aggregate effect of this evidence is conclusive about very few things, and some of it is flat contradictory. This will come as no surprise to anyone who is interested enough to contribute to a discussion like this, but I have noticed a new and worrying tendency to upgrade what is really conjecture (sometimes very well-supported, very reasonable, very plausible conjecture) into hard fact.
This, I think, is based on two problems with the way that history has been presented, problems which are much less apparent in an academic setting but which inevitably emerge when the subject is popularised. And by popularised I don't just mean turned into trashy TV, I mean turned into the kind of history books which you and I go and buy or read, however serious and in-depth they may be. Both problems stem from a desire to arrive at a firm conclusion about what happened, not an unreasonable desire one might think but one which needs to be implemented in the right way.
The first issue is the apparent disappearance of critical analysis of primary sources. At university, I - and I'm sure many of you - was taught never to uncritically accept what any primary source says. That doesn't mean you reject its usefulness, it merely means that one must take into account the writer's background, his or her "agenda" or "bias" with respect to the content, and perhaps most importantly his or her capacity to have actually known what he or she was talking about. Sometimes, the manner in which the content is presented is more historically significant than the content itself. Many of the heated debates whch have sprung up on these boards over time spring, I think, from a tendency to regard contemporary sources as holy writ, such that the citation of a classical author's account of a certain event/person/object is regareded not merely as another interesting piece of evidence to add to the deductive process, but as conclusive. Thus, to give an exaggerated caricature: "Tacitus said the Britons fought with spears - so that chosen swordsman unit it TOTALLY UNHISTORICAL DAMMIT! GOD I HATE THIS GAME! DAMN YOU C.A.!!" What tends to get lost is the fact that Tacitus (for example) received the overwhelming bulk of his facts second-hand, without the advantages of photography or telecommunications which today's reporters and historians enjoy. And look at the number of glaring mistakes our media make about things that are happening right now, under their noses - only the other day one of our broadsheet newspapers described Iran as an "Arab state" on its front page! Now this absolutely does not mean that Tacitus (for example) is to be disregarded as a provider of historical evidence; indeed contemporary sources remain vital pieces of evidence. But we have got to re-learn how to receive and integrate his data critically. And that means accepting that sometimes he (for example) got it wrong, misinterpreted, bought a hoax, applied a gloss, and committed all the other little slips that we all do.
The second, related tendency is to be found in archaeology, again brought about as a result of the otherwise welcome popularisation of the field. This is something which has been going on for ages in the field of art history:
Stage 1: artist paints picture. It means something. He doesn't leave a handy written explanation.
Stage 2: When work exhibited, Critic sees painting. He doesn't know what it means, but, based on his experience in the field, he writes "in my opinion, it is likely that (artist) intended to allude to the horrors of fascism". This is a perfectly reasonable and plausible interpretation.
Stage 3: Author writes book about painting, reads Critic's summary and prints: "This paintng is a powerful allegory of the horrors of fascism, cunningly contrived to convey this effect." Book is then serialised on BBC4 and paiting as allegory of fascism is earnestly presented to the public as a known fact.
Substitute "ancient Briton burying broken pot in ground" for artist, archaeologist for critic and historian for author/presenter, and you see what I mean. Interpretation hardens into "fact" as it is passed from one person to another until it ends up being cited as a final, determining settlement of an argument on boards like these.
Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that Rome Total Realism should be replaced by Rome Total More Plausible And Better Supported Conjecture. Before anyone bites my head off, I recommend they do what I did and sit down with an old person to watch/read a historical account of something within their living memory, for example World War II. You'll quickly start to read history more critically.
Barbarossa82
08-20-2005, 12:46
If you can site a single source saying carroballistae were fired on the move, I'll stand corrected. This isn't just about a game, its about historical accuracy. You're perfectly free to design whatever you want in a game, so long as you don't assert it as fact. I might even agree with your playability/fun argument. But pseudo-historical arguments produce only pseudo-histories. Please don't misinform people. As a professor of history, I have to deal with the consequences in my classrooms.
~:cheers:
We don't have a single source to suggest that the ancient Britons could swim either, or that the residents of Carthage were not immune to the common cold. That doesn't make either of those things an unreasonable inference to draw from known facts (i.e. that they were human). If a "known fact" is that carroballistae existed, I can't really see how it's an unreasonable inference that they at least experimented with firing on the move.
If you could find a source saying that, it still wouldn't prove it was true, only support it. And the absence of a source doesn't disprove it, it just makes it less certain.
I appreciate you probably spend your days frustrated and wacky, unsupported theories inspired by popular culture which have germinated in your students' heads, but with respect, you shouldn't fall back on the source as the be-all and end-all of historical inquiry.
Well said, Barbarossa ~:)
And let´s not forget there´s only so much realism that can be implemented in a game even if we knew what actually is real - which we do not and never will.
Or would anyone like to give up the nice camera sweeping over the battlefield, watching the action close up in favour of a stationary (or almost stationary) first-person view down a hill, having to speak commands (in Latin, or ancient Greek - if realism, then all the way, after all) to a messenger who might or not reach the designated unit that may obey or not... I hope you get my point.
If a "known fact" is that carroballistae existed, I can't really see how it's an unreasonable inference that they at least experimented with firing on the move.
And there is a long way from experimenting with firing on the move on a cart pulled by donkeys and the ultra fast sniper chariots we see in BI.
CBR
Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that Rome Total Realism should be replaced by Rome Total More Plausible And Better Supported Conjecture. Before anyone bites my head off, I recommend they do what I did and sit down with an old person to watch/read a historical account of something within their living memory, for example World War II. You'll quickly start to read history more critically.Your excellent argument would hold more weight if it were wholly appropriate to the circumstances. There is a difference between the acceptance that no source can be 100% accurate, and the disregard for period sources altogether. There is a thing one might call due diligence when creating a game that is advertised as not "inspired by," not "loosely based on," but "set in" the time of the Roman Empire, to "bring the world of ancient Rome to life," to "recreate Europe."
So you see, more than other things, this is a question of truth in advertising. Either the game is an attempt to "recreate" an historical time, or it is not. Either it is an historical strategy game, or it is a strategy game loosely based on history. R:TW is advertised as an historical strategy game. Therefore, when I purchased the game, I expected better than to find a faction depicted 1000 years out of period, for instance. This means that either the marketing or the research of the game is off.
If the game had been billed as a whimsical RTS romp through a world loosely based on ancient Roman times, no one would have cared, except perhaps for about a dozen people who can't get past how many bands the first iteration of lorica segmentata was built with.
It is rather akin to, as you say, buying a historical wargame close to our own time and finding anachronistic things. For instance, buying a WWII wargame and finding that the "America" faction has been split in two, into the "Union" and the "Confederacy," which must duke it out while the rest of Europe fights a generally more accurate WWII, because this provides more balance and fun to the game, and is more "cool." And, to follow a VERY appropriate analogy, to describe the military of France (read: Celts/Gaul) as being disorganized, lacking in technology, and having perhaps one leader in a generation who was a grasp on strategy and does more than "shouts loudly."
You see, no one who has truly studied World War II would say that France's army was so horribly bad, that its technology was inferior, or that perhaps one out of all its generals knew the importance of strategy. They were soundly trounced by the Germans for different reasons, not for having a shoddy military. Nor would anyone say those things who has truly examined all of the textual and archaeological evidence available describing the Gauls, and the Celts in general. The Celtic history was just as rich and powerful as that of France, with a Brennus for a Napoleon, with a sack of Rome for the conquering of Europe. Yet the Gauls were soundly trounced by Caesar, and it seems some are content to assume this is because they were "barbarians," rather than to truly examine why they lost.
So; is there something to be said for toning down the rhetoric nitpicking historical inaccuracy? Certainly. The EB team, for instance, doesn't go about stating how bad it is that this tactic or that piece of armor exist in RTW. We are quietly fixing what we can safely fix based on available evidence, and we think the end result will be a mod that has more "cool" and diverse units than vanilla RTW - AND be more accurate. Now, our fans have a tendency to nitpick everything they see, but please don't mistake us for doing the same thing. Rather than bitch about it, we're making RTW into the game we had hoped it was from the beginning, and we DO welcome people to nitpick our choices, as we rather enjoy learning details about history.
Your excellent argument would hold more weight if it were wholly appropriate to the circumstances. There is a difference between the acceptance that no source can be 100% accurate, and the disregard for period sources altogether. There is a thing one might call due diligence when creating a game that is advertised as not "inspired by," not "loosely based on," but "set in" the time of the Roman Empire, to "bring the world of ancient Rome to life," to "recreate Europe."
So you see, more than other things, this is a question of truth in advertising. Either the game is an attempt to "recreate" an historical time, or it is not. Either it is an historical strategy game, or it is a strategy game loosely based on history. R:TW is advertised as an historical strategy game. Therefore, when I purchased the game, I expected better than to find a faction depicted 1000 years out of period, for instance. This means that either the marketing or the research of the game is off.
If the game had been billed as a whimsical RTS romp through a world loosely based on ancient Roman times, no one would have cared, except perhaps for about a dozen people who can't get past how many bands the first iteration of lorica segmentata was built with.
It is rather akin to, as you say, buying a historical wargame close to our own time and finding anachronistic things. For instance, buying a WWII wargame and finding that the "America" faction has been split in two, into the "Union" and the "Confederacy," which must duke it out while the rest of Europe fights a generally more accurate WWII, because this provides more balance and fun to the game, and is more "cool." And, to follow a VERY appropriate analogy, to describe the military of France (read: Celts/Gaul) as being disorganized, lacking in technology, and having perhaps one leader in a generation who was a grasp on strategy and does more than "shouts loudly."
You see, no one who has truly studied World War II would say that France's army was so horribly bad, that its technology was inferior, or that perhaps one out of all its generals knew the importance of strategy. They were soundly trounced by the Germans for different reasons, not for having a shoddy military. Nor would anyone say those things who has truly examined all of the textual and archaeological evidence available describing the Gauls, and the Celts in general. The Celtic history was just as rich and powerful as that of France, with a Brennus for a Napoleon, with a sack of Rome for the conquering of Europe. Yet the Gauls were soundly trounced by Caesar, and it seems some are content to assume this is because they were "barbarians," rather than to truly examine why they lost.
So; is there something to be said for toning down the rhetoric nitpicking historical inaccuracy? Certainly. The EB team, for instance, doesn't go about stating how bad it is that this tactic or that piece of armor exist in RTW. We are quietly fixing what we can safely fix based on available evidence, and we think the end result will be a mod that has more "cool" and diverse units than vanilla RTW - AND be more accurate. Now, our fans have a tendency to nitpick everything they see, but please don't mistake us for doing the same thing. Rather than bitch about it, we're making RTW into the game we had hoped it was from the beginning, and we DO welcome people to nitpick our choices, as we rather enjoy learning details about history.
When exactly was RTW advertised as "historical strategy game"?
I'm curious.
On my RTW box, there isn't a single mention about " this game is historical strategy game set in Ancient Roman times".
In fact, there is even mentions about "Roman wardogs" and "armys led by Hannibal and Caesar clash on the battlefield".
So where did you heard this?
Did CA sayed something like that on their website before the release or something?
There is a thing one might call due diligence when creating a game that is advertised as not "inspired by," not "loosely based on," but "set in" the time of the Roman Empire, to "bring the world of ancient Rome to life," to "recreate Europe."
Your post was very well stated, with the exception of this bit of hedging at the outset. To say something is "set in" a time period does not imply that it will be a verbatim recreation of said time period. The word "set" refers to an actors stage. Any play, movie, or apparently game, which draws it's inspiration from a setting builds and refines upon that basis to fit its audience and the forms supplied by the medium.
Their quote regarding bringing "the world of ancient Rome to life" referred to the games graphic quality, as the context clearly shows. A portion of the game which even its most rabid opponents are forced to concede is well crafted. Likewise, when they proclaim that they have "re-created Europe", the surrounding words once again show that the intent of this statement is quite clear. It refers to the mechanism that ties each portion of the strategy map to its own battle map. Another feature which I find to be quite enjoyable.
In short although I find your efforts most laudable, I think it suffers somewhat when you stoop to misquoting the creators. In my opinion, taking a very small excerpt of a thought and assigning a meaning to it completely different from it's original is somewhat trite.
RTW has been previewed, interviewed, and advertised throughout as being historically accurate. Forgive me for working with what I had on their website today, but too many interviews have been done with CA where they talk about how the game, how various units, and this and that are historically accurate. I'm mis-quoting no one.
It is revisionist history to say that because the -specific- quotes I chose are not ones that accurately reflect the words they used in interviews about their game, specificaly, that they never said so. I apologize if I chose bad examples, but there are plenty more where they came from.
Trite? Please. Here is another:
After reading about some of the strange little things that were acceptable in the ancient world, we put several dozen new vices into Rome: Total War. Without historical research, however, we'd just have done the same as some other games companies and "made some stuff up." As it turned out, our research ended up determining nearly all the game content: units and buildings in the tech tree, tactical abilities for units like the Roman testudo or tortoise formation, nations that we included, and so on.Need I find more, or is this, too, taken out of context and twisted around by yours truly?
Edit: Here is another, though this is given by Peggy Kim, from Decisive Battles, on why they chose Rome Total War:
One of the the great thigns they've done with that game and with the concepts behind it is made it a historical game which is completely in line with what we're doing. Everything from the look to the way the battlefield is laid out to what the soldiers would have been wearing, all of that armament, they're tried very hard to make everything historically accurate. That's very attractive to us.
From IGN, on CA's presentation to them at ECTN:
Creative Assembly were particularly keen to stress the amount of research that went into ensuring a historically accurate representation; including consultation with experts on the time-period. Wherever it doesn't have a detrimental effect on gameplay, the game is as historically accurate as possible, from the types of units available to each faction, the formations available (such as the famous Roman "tortoise"), and the terrain, which has been accurately mapped into the game, covering most of Europe and North Africa.
I can't find any pre-release interviews with CA, but certainly they pitched the game to the media as historically accurate, who then portrayed it often and always that way to us. Surely you can recall the press that couldn't keep the words "historical" or "historically accurate" out of their previews? I can recall words from CA as well, more strong than those above. I just can't find them at the moment. After all, the game has been out for almost a year.
But it is historically accurate...
Compared to other games. ~D
Mongoose
08-20-2005, 17:22
But it is historically accurate...
Compared to other games. ~D
What games are you comparing it to? "Age of craft"??? ~:joker:
RTW has been previewed, interviewed, and advertised throughout as being historically accurate. Forgive me for working with what I had on their website today, but too many interviews have been done with CA where they talk about how the game, how various units, and this and that are historically accurate. I'm mis-quoting no one.
It is revisionist history to say that because the -specific- quotes I chose are not ones that accurately reflect the words they used in interviews about their game, specificaly, that they never said so. I apologize if I chose bad examples, but there are plenty more where they came from.
Trite? Please. Here is another:
Need I find more, or is this, too, taken out of context and twisted around by yours truly?
Edit: Here is another, though this is given by Peggy Kim, from Decisive Battles, on why they chose Rome Total War:
From IGN, on CA's presentation to them at ECTN:
I can't find any pre-release interviews with CA, but certainly they pitched the game to the media as historically accurate, who then portrayed it often and always that way to us. Surely you can recall the press that couldn't keep the words "historical" or "historically accurate" out of their previews? I can recall words from CA as well, more strong than those above. I just can't find them at the moment. After all, the game has been out for almost a year.
Thanks ~:cool:
"Creative Assembly were particularly keen to stress the amount of research that went into ensuring a historically accurate representation; including consultation with experts on the time-period."
Reminds me the CA interview with PlayOnline where CA said something like "We asked Prof.Stephen Turnbull as the consultant to ensure a historical accuracy" and saying "Geisha is the strongest assasin unit. She can sneak into castle with only a samisen and will terminate any Daimyo or General" in the next paragraph.
Need I find more, or is this, too, taken out of context and twisted around by yours truly?
No, your point is well made with those quotes. However it's a question of degree. To you, mayhaps 95% accuracy or more in the game is the goal. Personally I find that interesting, and I'll be sure to download the EB mod when it's completed. To CA, maybe 65% accuracy was the goal. They make some compromises for gameplay, and to please the majority of their customers, but try to work the history in a good bit as well. For the most part the game is a decent approximant. And at the very least it applies itself to historical elements more than is traditional for games placed on the mass market. I'm sure the more thorough research being done by your team will be vastly enjoyed. But I'm also sure that CA did indeed put a good bit of research into the game. Maybe not for all factions, but based on the product, they worked at it. Could they have worked harder? Yes, but I find the game enjoyable, and a whole heap of people share that opinion.
Hurin_Rules
08-20-2005, 18:59
We don't have a single source to suggest that the ancient Britons could swim either, or that the residents of Carthage were not immune to the common cold. That doesn't make either of those things an unreasonable inference to draw from known facts (i.e. that they were human). If a "known fact" is that carroballistae existed, I can't really see how it's an unreasonable inference that they at least experimented with firing on the move.
If you could find a source saying that, it still wouldn't prove it was true, only support it. And the absence of a source doesn't disprove it, it just makes it less certain.
I appreciate you probably spend your days frustrated and wacky, unsupported theories inspired by popular culture which have germinated in your students' heads, but with respect, you shouldn't fall back on the source as the be-all and end-all of historical inquiry.
Actually, there are sources that suggest the ancient Britons could swim and the archaeological remains of ancient Carthaginians prove they were not immune to the common cold. On the other hand, it is not a logical inference from the descriptions of carroballistae to assume they were a mobile, tank-like unit that continuously fires while moving. Moreover, there is no evidence that Germans 'chose' groups of axemen and regularly deployed them tactically as an independent unit. Now, as to the axemen, CA has admitted this is fantasy and that the game is simply better with it. I have no problems with that. But for the carroballistae and the woad and their characterizations of barbarian warfare, they are asserting the same fantasies as fact. Sorry, but that is not an historically tenable position.
Your point about not treating the sources as gospel is well taken. But you must also realize that departing from the sources altogether is equally, if not more anachronistic. The other poster's point about having an America divided into the Union and Confederacy during WWII is an apt comparison. There are many things we don't know about ancient warfare. But that does not give us license to invent freely, and claim our inventions as logical inferences.
Again, let me stress, I have no problems with fantasy itself; my objection is when teams like CA claim their fantasies as fact. That's why I originally made the post. They seemed to be defending things that were not logical inferences and perpetuating stereotypes already long discredited by historians. That deserves to be pointed out and refuted.
antisocialmunky
08-20-2005, 19:19
Ah hold up here - this argument is oft used but it's based upon bad logic. I through my purchase have paid CA to program the engine. I don't like the engine so I complain. CA has delivered to me a product which at best barely falls within tolerances so I complain. If you pay someone to do something and they do a sloppy job do you complain, simply because you couldn't do better?
Ah no again, nobody is ridiculing them for not getting it right the first time. People ridicule them for not accepting the errors in the engine (how long/how much effort did it take before the save/load was accepted as a bug?), and for not correcting proven issues with the engine.
No I haven't - on the otherhand I've never designed a house from the ground up. I pay people to do that, like I pay CA to design a game from the ground up. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that none of the doors open in said house.
The bugs you point out are NOT as simple to correct as replacing the doors. These bugs is like someone buying an old house in California that won't withstand earthquakes and being angry that it isn't earthquake proof. Well poot. The only way to fix that is to rebuild the house yes? Alot of the big problems would take too much time to fix because it would require parts of the engine to be rebuilt. Plus, it's a comercial project with deadlines. If you've ever worked on comercial projects, you know that you can rarely deliver everything or go back and fix things. This is because the cost to benefit of functionality ratio is going to be too big. It's simply not practical to rip out half the engine and rebuild it if it doesn't seriously hamper the fuctionality of the final product.
If it was a few guys doing this in their spare time like the Click and Create game community or Free Game Community or the RTW modding community then you could probably get 80% of everything fixed. Even then, there would still be limits to fixing a old game and just making a game from scratch.
Basically, alot of the problems aren't worth fixing in this generation of the TW engine and is better left for TW4. If you find the game unplayable, then goto your local gameshop and trade it in for Empire Earth 3 and wait for TW4.
I appreciate you probably spend your days frustrated and wacky, unsupported theories inspired by popular culture which have germinated in your students' heads, but with respect, you shouldn't fall back on the source as the be-all and end-all of historical inquiry.
Hey, I'm just saying to keep an open mind. Hell, look at black holes, no one thought they existed because there was no evidence, that's not to say that they were wrong in believing so. As long as there is reasonable doubt in something, there's room for positive speculation. Do you think in 2000 years if someone dug up information about the use for C4 plastic explosive, that it'll detail Marines in the Pacific Theatre in WWII using it to heat coffee? Probably not. What I'm saying is that you should keep an open mind. Just because someone says something, it doesn't the only truth.
Seriously, why doesn't someone just freaking build one and experiment with it?
What I'm saying about a potential use of a wagon with a repeating ballista is as a supressive fire unit. Yes, it's main purpose would be a fire and move weapon(which you could mod easily if it uses the HA logic), but to say it was used in every single instance as a sit and shoot weapon is silly. What if people or cav were chasing you over flat terran. Would you not have the guy on the ballista shooting at them since you have no time to stop? What if you were skirmishing?
That's where I'm coming from, I'm not saying that BI super sniping donkey wagons are right, but I'm saying it's stupid to think that just because it was meant to sit and shoot doesn't mean it wasn't capable of moving and shooting. A moving shooting penalty really needs to be a coded for horses and chariots.
On a side note from what I've seen of Replica Roman repeating ballista, their range didn't look too spectacular. They were more like crossbows than the lesser cousins of the heavy siege ballista that's seen in Gladiator. The bolts were only about 6 inches long, though this could have varied depending on model.
They make some compromises for gameplay, and to please the majority of their customers, but try to work the history in a good bit as well.You see, this is a misconception. NO compromise need be made between gameplay and history. Why do people think that making something historically accurate means poor gameplay? It doesn't have to! Making the start positions, factions, and units of the main campaign more accurate can mean (and does, for EB) making them incredibly diverse, flexible, and add even more gameplay elements than not.
I can go into more details if you wish, but the idea that one has to sacrifice gameplay for history, or vice versa, or that making things historically accurate means setting them to some scripted timeline, is myth. EB sets the table, historically speaking, and allows the player to write history. The conditions and capabilities are there to start the Punic wars, for instance, but we don't script it to happen. It is likely to happen based on the position and options of Roman and Carthaginian troops, but we don't force it.
Anyway - this is not a zero sum game, with gameplay on one side and historical accuracy on the other. They go hand in hand, and for many people are synergistic.
Could they have worked harder? Yes, but I find the game enjoyable, and a whole heap of people share that opinion.I find the game enjoyable as well. Otherwise I wouldn't bother to mod it to, in my opinion, make it better. It is a testament to how much we like RTW, or at least how much potential we see in it, that we would work for almost a year now improving it.
However, that doesn't mean there aren't things I, and others, would like to see CA have improved from the get-go. Plus, as we see above I don't think the 65% number you give is accurate. The ancient Egyptians are outside of it, but their portrayal of the Celts, for instance, is accurate according to Cpt. Fishpants above. Which is not the case even if all the sources examined are Greek and Roman. I think they just had bad information, and I was hoping for a better portrayal...
You see, this is a misconception. NO compromise need be made between gameplay and history. Why do people think that making something historically accurate means poor gameplay? It doesn't have to! Making the start positions, factions, and units of the main campaign more accurate can mean (and does, for EB) making them incredibly diverse, flexible, and add even more gameplay elements than not.
There´s one difference, though. You´re a modding group who can take all the time you want to and you don´t (need to) sell it, neither to a publisher nor to the final customers. You don´t have to pay wages to your people, raise funds, finance the tools (what´s a copy of 3ds max? About 5000$ ? And that´s just one of the tools you´ll need). You don´t need to worry about it flopping due to lack of interest. You don´t have a publisher who´s making quite an effort of promotion and expects it to pay off... Do I need to go on?
^ exactly... there is a compromise involved. If they spend more time and energy and money on research, that postpones the release date, possibly detracts from work on other sections of the game and cuts into their profit margin. You guys have spent about a year as you say on just that. If CA delays their release for a year and pays wages for that year... that's a HUGE compromise.
And yeah, I don't even know if the game is 65% correct. I am hardly a professor of history, but parts of the game show that research was done. For instance the wonder descriptions. I've heard of those buildings before of course, but I don't know the details on them of hand, things like that take research... and so many more aspects... Even if it's only 30% correct, in baseball that's a career.
What games are you comparing it to? "Age of craft"??? ~:joker:
No, I'm not laughing.
^ exactly... there is a compromise involved. If they spend more time and energy and money on research, that postpones the release date, possibly detracts from work on other sections of the game and cuts into their profit margin. You guys have spent about a year as you say on just that. If CA delays their release for a year and pays wages for that year... that's a HUGE compromise.
And yeah, I don't even know if the game is 65% correct. I am hardly a professor of history, but parts of the game show that research was done. For instance the wonder descriptions. I've heard of those buildings before of course, but I don't know the details on them of hand, things like that take research... and so many more aspects... Even if it's only 30% correct, in baseball that's a career.I meant, I don't feel that the number was what CA was shooting for, not that the research was worse than that.
In any respect, the argument might hold true IF CA hadn't had a research department OFFER them their time and historical research for FREE. That is how Europa Barbarorum started. A group of history lovers who wanted to help CA create a more historical representation of the period. Without expecting a single cent EB did the research FOR CA. CA rejected it.
So don't tell me that it is all about money, or that somehow CA -had- to take the route they chose. How we're so different. If we had our way, CA would have used everything we're doing now in their game's release.
I'd have rejected your insulting proposal too if I had been CA. Everything you've said reeks of your own assumption that CA skimped on the reasearch into the era (for whatever reason from sheer cavalier-ness to economic fesability). A good deal of the EB people have this attitude as well. The fact that CA gave Parthia nothing but shitty infantry and the Greeks no heavy cavalry shows they are commited to a degree of historical accuracy.
Mongoose
08-20-2005, 23:09
IIRC, the greks did use some sort of heavy cavalry. They were just very rare and not very well trained.
Please correct me if im wrong.
I'd have rejected your insulting proposal too if I had been CA. Everything you've said reeks of your own assumption that CA skimped on the reasearch into the era (for whatever reason from sheer cavalier-ness to economic fesability). A good deal of the EB people have this attitude as well. The fact that CA gave Parthia nothing but shitty infantry and the Greeks no heavy cavalry shows they are commited to a degree of historical accuracy.Ahh, sarcasm is a beautiful thing. ~D
antisocialmunky
08-21-2005, 01:04
IIRC, the greks did use some sort of heavy cavalry. They were just very rare and not very well trained.
Please correct me if im wrong.
I'm sure at some point, the Central and Southern Greek did. They only really stand out with Macedon though. It's not they didn't try.
In any respect, the argument might hold true IF CA hadn't had a research department OFFER them their time and historical research for FREE. That is how Europa Barbarorum started. A group of history lovers who wanted to help CA create a more historical representation of the period. Without expecting a single cent EB did the research FOR CA. CA rejected it.
I'm sure there were no other good reasons to reject it. I mean, come on, there could have been no legal repurcussions with Activision or Intellectual Property Rights... or releasing a whole new game... or concerns with their target audience... or the fact that it could be released as a mod instead...
Sarcasm is really a beautiful thing...
sunsmountain
08-21-2005, 01:06
@Hurin_Rules
As a professor of history, I have to deal with the consequences in my classrooms.
Poor soul, but i bet the interest of your students in ancient Roman history has tripled due to Rome: Total War. It is then up to you to correct them where necessary, but as i recall:
- The Romans DID destroy Carthage
- The Romans DID use Legions
- The Romans DID build Aqueducts
And i'm not really sure the game is trying to teach them much more than that. A good teacher knows how to pose questions and deal with answers in a way to arrive at a shared truth, instead of conjecture. The primary ingredient for this is motivation, which is hard to instill in kids these days. Would you not rather thank CA for doing half the work for you?
Actually, there are sources that suggest the ancient Britons could swim and the archaeological remains of ancient Carthaginians prove they were not immune to the common cold. On the other hand, it is not a logical inference from the descriptions of carroballistae to assume they were a mobile, tank-like unit that continuously fires while moving. Moreover, there is no evidence that Germans 'chose' groups of axemen and regularly deployed them tactically as an independent unit. Now, as to the axemen, CA has admitted this is fantasy and that the game is simply better with it. I have no problems with that. But for the carroballistae and the woad and their characterizations of barbarian warfare, they are asserting the same fantasies as fact. Sorry, but that is not an historically tenable position.
Sounds like a good history lesson. One that the RTW fans in your class would love to follow, and actually be interested - for a change - in the subject you teach, namely history.
Now from what I read in CA's comments, they are not stating these things as fact. Because of my general knowledge, I know 120 men of Head Slingers are fantasy (you can actually prove this using logistics/chemistry reasoning), and considering the source (see your previous post), this affects the credibility of ALL their OTHER work (by deduction).
This contradicts your statement about assertation on the part of CA. How can CA state horse artillery as fact when they are then also stating Head Slingers as fact? Or do we need a list to separate trustworthy statements from untrustworthy statements? From the same company/source??
Perhaps you are unaccustomed to having your historical source (the interpreter at CA) alive instead of dead, and this may cause confusion in your scientific mind. Rest assured, though, that CA does not intend to disrupt your classroom. I would be worried more about commercials, and their effect on creating fact out of fiction.
NEXT!
@Puzz3D
I'm beginning to like you more and more Puzz3D, as well as your opinion. To respond to this barrage of complaints that made me laugh:
Exploding rocks, flying horses, 5 second incineration by fire arrows,
Cool. Lets have more of this!
phalanx that can't stop cavalry,
Well, i guess light cavalry should be slaughtered, but armored? One thing is sure though, the horses refusing to charge has never happened to me. One can mod this by the way, CA are fixing this, and the issue is undecided after many many discussions.
men being thrown 100 feet or more through the air,
Yippie! These Elephants are trained @ the Olympics! Fun.
unrealistically fast movement, wrong weapon use by hoplites, chariots faster than cavalry,
Well, the movements were motion captured, so there you go. Hoplites switch to swords when they have to. That's how the engine was designed.
lack of downhill bonus, overly effective artillery, cavalry dominated battles,
I see you longing for the tweaked and tested Shogun and Medieval maps, why are you still playing RomeTW? As for the cavalry, i agree their charge is powerful, and can be repeated, unlike before. Which spear troops defeat Legionary Cavalry might i ask? (1.)
non-existant weather effects, only two speeds for infantry, only two speeds for cavalry,
See before, and i don't remember any game with 3 speeds for any character (except racing games). Although I like rain, forests and hills to have an effect on battles, they've all been toned down, unfortunately. I wish i could mod this somewhere... (2.)
ranged units where either all men shoot or none shoot, unit stacking without combat penalty,
Actually, only part of the archers shoot.. only those that can. Unit stacking seems to be a problem, you get a lot more attacks/casualties per round, seemingly offsetting the negative morale bonus due to being outflanked/surrounded.
This is a little too easy to say without research though. In a recent BI battle with the Huns against the Romans, i charged all my light cavalry in one big stacking ball into this Roman unit, and it held them at bay. Certainly the killrate was not disproportionate to my advantage, which it should according to you.
factions from outside the time frame,
who cares?
suicide generals,
yep. (3.)
excessive delay to movement orders,
Unconfirmed. If you're giving movement orders to a unit that has any ability turned on, expect delays.
pikes ineffective on an upslope,
And so they should. This is design again.
ranged units that always charge into melee in cities,
Do they have a choice with the possible pathfinding and skirmish AI? I'm glad they charge at all. Better that than having to chase them all around town so they can get a couple of more shots in, they will die anyway and it's frustrating to lose to the time limit this way. Or having them stand still and get slaughtered by, gasp, archers.
machine gun firing rates for city towers,
Only for level 3 walls and above, and even then you're assaulting a fortified position so expect losses due to something (the AI wont force them).
all men in a unit incur fighting fatigue even if only a few are actually fighting,
Oh come on! You can't take the weighed average of the morale of the men in a unit unless you have dual core processors! Hey, an idea..
routers run toward the enemy on bridges,
Have you ever been routed? These men are oblivous... that's how it was designed...
running infantry through a phalanx unit is more effective and attacking it.
Never tried this, but say i believe you. (1.)
So besides Terrain/Weather, Suicide Generals, and the sometimes overpowering effects of the ingame physics in charges, i don't agree with you.
sunsmountain
conon394
08-21-2005, 02:32
Well, the movements were motion captured, so there you go. Hoplites switch to swords when they have to. That's how the engine was designed.
I think what Puzz3D was getting at was the fact Greek hoplites are essentially Macedonian phalanx-lite, which is unrealistic. Now I not trying to defend minute historical accuracy, but hoplites were not as vulnerable as the Macedonian phalanx to flanking (thus the hoplite like armed troops retained by Philip, Alexander and various other states like the Achaeans, deployed on the flank of the main sarissa phalanx).
Motion capture, maybe. Motion capture of a person hauling a full kit of armor, shield and weapons in the Mediterranean midday sun across a battle field, not. If one think is clear from the source material, it is that heavy infantry could not pursue effectively over more than a short distance, and if routed and fleeing only fled successfully by ditching its shield and armor. The movement rates in RTW are simply unrealistic.
I not asking that the CA create some perfect recreation of war in 3rd century BC, but why bother setting the game in the Roman period if your unwilling to model the actual tactical problems faced by a general of the era.
Well, i guess light cavalry should be slaughtered, but armored?
The fact is Heavy infantry ruled the field in the game period. Period. Even the best and most heavy armored cavalry only beat infantry in exceptional circumstances (with a frontal charge). The problem in RTW is that even light cavalry charges into and through better than average spear infantry.
Missile units in RTW well have all men firing even though most of the men are out of range as long as the first ranks can shoot. Just try and deploy a unit in column formation and watch the magic.
I dont know if its different in RTW but fatigue in MTW is actually calculated for each soldier and the average is what you see in game, tired, exhausted etc.
Motion capture is nice but doesnt mean a whole unit acts like one soldier does. Keeping order was important as well as not getting fatigued too quickly. But even if we dont care about historical accuracy the fact is still that compared to STW/MTW running speed was increased with like 60% and with 4 more units is gives a lot less control for the player.
I dont see why a pikemen cant lift up his pike a bit to make up for the slope, design or just animations not thought through to handle all situations?
CBR
antisocialmunky
08-21-2005, 03:47
RTW's move rate are unrealistic but most people would get bored to death. I have to agree that a speed compromise is needed for TW games for normal people or it just takes too long.
Routing heavy infantry is an interesting case though. As much as I'd love to see droppable equipment, it is a gameplay compromise so rallied troops can still fight. A droppable equipment system would be an interesting feature. Shields getting bashed, swords getting lost, soldiers without weapons trying to find one or going Rocky IV on their target.
Charging cavalry as was pointed out in a few places have a few problems that are engine related. Two things: They almost never lose their charge bonus AND armor adds to impact damage.
Productivity
08-21-2005, 04:37
The bugs you point out are NOT as simple to correct as replacing the doors. These bugs is like someone buying an old house in California that won't withstand earthquakes and being angry that it isn't earthquake proof. Well poot. The only way to fix that is to rebuild the house yes? Alot of the big problems would take too much time to fix because it would require parts of the engine to be rebuilt. Plus, it's a comercial project with deadlines. If you've ever worked on comercial projects, you know that you can rarely deliver everything or go back and fix things. This is because the cost to benefit of functionality ratio is going to be too big. It's simply not practical to rip out half the engine and rebuild it if it doesn't seriously hamper the fuctionality of the final product.
I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.
You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.
God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.
If it was a few guys doing this in their spare time like the Click and Create game community or Free Game Community or the RTW modding community then you could probably get 80% of everything fixed. Even then, there would still be limits to fixing a old game and just making a game from scratch.
How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?
Basically, alot of the problems aren't worth fixing in this generation of the TW engine and is better left for TW4. If you find the game unplayable, then goto your local gameshop and trade it in for Empire Earth 3 and wait for TW4.
Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.
For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.
I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.
You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.
God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.
How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?
Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.
For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.
Well I have to say their "new approach" is working well for them.
RTW sold over million copy over world and every major review magazines/sites gave it a gold award.
"Lose of trust" of several hundred gamer isn't going to do anything.
Productivity
08-21-2005, 08:55
Well I have to say their "new approach" is working well for them.
RTW sold over million copy over world and every major review magazines/sites gave it a gold award.
"Lose of trust" of several hundred gamer isn't going to do anything.
I've posted on this before, this doesn't surprise me.
CA had a niche in the highly tactical war game area. They're moving out of that, trying to reach into the traditional RTS area. As they do this, they move away from their core, reliable base, and into a far more volatile market of the standard RTS market. There they are going up against the big RTS guns - AOEIII etc. where they won't survive. They've got one round of sales, because it's something new, but it wont hold. They've moved out of what they are good at in pursuit of a quick dollar, but it won't hold.
This is similar to what happened to the Tribes series. In Tribes (1) there was a game which appealed to very few - but to those it did they loved it. It was too complex, too difficult for the average gamer, but those who did play were extremely loyal to it.
In Tribes 2 they created a game was dumbed down too appeal to the mass market (hey jetpacks! cool). They moved out of their niche, and tried to get into the standard FPS niche. And yes, it did sell well, but later, when the average gamers moved on, the core following was still there, but extremely dissapointed. The trust of the core had been lost, and they weren't goign to swallow another attempt like that any more.
Consequently, Tribes Vengeance was an attempt to move even further into the mass market, at which point it got beaten around the head by the big players.
This will probably happen with TW, think about it, those million sales haven't actually bought a lot, the new gamers who thought it looked cool to play haven't been held (I can name at least four of my friends who bought the game, but have given it away because it is too complex) - they liked the demo, because it's set up for you to win, but when you start having to look after your own flanks etc. then it all just gets too hard. In dumbing it down to attract the people above (who have allready abandoned it) they've alienated the core who are going to be hard to regain.
Now they are in the position where they can't easily go back to their old market, because the trust just isn't there, and if they try to attract the average gamers again, they are going to have to dumb it down to standard RTS level, at which point they are goin to go up against Age of Empire III etc. If they think they can win that battle, well good luck to them, but they are not going to.
So yes, they may look ok now, but come back in three years and see how they feel, being stuck out in the wilderness with the EA Games etc. to contend with - they chose to leave the safe house of the niche they were in, they won't be welcomed back in unless they prove themselves again.
I've posted on this before, this doesn't surprise me.
CA had a niche in the highly tactical war game area. They're moving out of that, trying to reach into the traditional RTS area. As they do this, they move away from their core, reliable base, and into a far more volatile market of the standard RTS market. There they are going up against the big RTS guns - AOEIII etc. where they won't survive. They've got one round of sales, because it's something new, but it wont hold. They've moved out of what they are good at in pursuit of a quick dollar, but it won't hold.
This is similar to what happened to the Tribes series. In Tribes (1) there was a game which appealed to very few - but to those it did they loved it. It was too complex, too difficult for the average gamer, but those who did play were extremely loyal to it.
In Tribes 2 they created a game was dumbed down too appeal to the mass market (hey jetpacks! cool). They moved out of their niche, and tried to get into the standard FPS niche. And yes, it did sell well, but later, when the average gamers moved on, the core following was still there, but extremely dissapointed. The trust of the core had been lost, and they weren't goign to swallow another attempt like that any more.
Consequently, Tribes Vengeance was an attempt to move even further into the mass market, at which point it got beaten around the head by the big players.
This will probably happen with TW, think about it, those million sales haven't actually bought a lot, the new gamers who thought it looked cool to play haven't been held (I can name at least four of my friends who bought the game, but have given it away because it is too complex) - they liked the demo, because it's set up for you to win, but when you start having to look after your own flanks etc. then it all just gets too hard. In dumbing it down to attract the people above (who have allready abandoned it) they've alienated the core who are going to be hard to regain.
Now they are in the position where they can't easily go back to their old market, because the trust just isn't there, and if they try to attract the average gamers again, they are going to have to dumb it down to standard RTS level, at which point they are goin to go up against Age of Empire III etc. If they think they can win that battle, well good luck to them, but they are not going to.
So yes, they may look ok now, but come back in three years and see how they feel, being stuck out in the wilderness with the EA Games etc. to contend with - they chose to leave the safe house of the niche they were in, they won't be welcomed back in unless they prove themselves again.
I have to say that is a wishful? thinking.
First, Tribes and RTW is a totally diffarent game, so it's not a fair comparison.
Second, by the tone of your voice, it sounds like you are hoping CA is going to fail. Is this true?
Third, You say old "Royal" supporter has left, but you forgot the fact that new TW fans was also created by RTW, and whether really all the old fans has left is questionable.
I for one been playing since the time of STW yet I love RTW, and I know some people who says the same.
Fourth, You claim new TW games won't survive against games like AOEIII but why are you so sure?
CA doesn't make games to "win" other games, they make it for profit.
As long as they make a profit, they will survive.
Productivity
08-21-2005, 10:36
1. Yes Tribes is a different type of game - so what? The player dynamics were the same.
2. No I don't hope CA will fail - well not particularly, I am ambivalent about them - I wouldn't particularly care either way at the moment.
3. I addressed this earlier - the new fans are fickle. Out of the ~20 regular gamers I know well, I and one other played TW games - a reasonable proportion of the others liked RTW but in the end gave up because it was not the standard sort of game. It's like why there are/were more people playing CS than Raven Shield, more people playing Battlefield 1942 than Ghost Recon. Games which try to be more realistic than the mainstream will allways have to be content with being in the shadows. Those who move out of the shadows inevitably fail as the 'fun' realism features wear off, and the tiring realism features begin to annoy.
4. I'm so sure because I've been playing games/watching the game industry for 15 years and I've seen many (probably hundreds now) try to do it and fail. If you want more detailed reasons, they can be summarised with one. Money. Actually they may do it - Sega owns them now, so they should have financial weight behind them - but if they do, it will hardly be the Total War series as you know it.
5. (yes I know there isn't a five, but treat it as your last paragraph) - Yes all they have to do to 'win' is make a profit. To make a profit you have to have high sales. Clones of original games rarely have the sales of the originals.
You say trust isn't important? I say it is if you are a small developer trying to work with a small market. If they are looking at a large market, well trust isn't so important. But there are big dogs out there who view that as their own market, and if you start trying to eat into it, they'll respond.
1. Yes Tribes is a different type of game - so what? The player dynamics were the same.
2. No I don't hope CA will fail - well not particularly, I am ambivalent about them - I wouldn't particularly care either way at the moment.
3. I addressed this earlier - the new fans are fickle. Out of the ~20 regular gamers I know well, I and one other played TW games - a reasonable proportion of the others liked RTW but in the end gave up because it was not the standard sort of game. It's like why there are/were more people playing CS than Raven Shield, more people playing Battlefield 1942 than Ghost Recon. Games which try to be more realistic than the mainstream will allways have to be content with being in the shadows. Those who move out of the shadows inevitably fail as the 'fun' realism features wear off, and the tiring realism features begin to annoy.
4. I'm so sure because I've been playing games/watching the game industry for 15 years and I've seen many (probably hundreds now) try to do it and fail. If you want more detailed reasons, they can be summarised with one. Money. Actually they may do it - Sega owns them now, so they should have financial weight behind them - but if they do, it will hardly be the Total War series as you know it.
5. (yes I know there isn't a five, but treat it as your last paragraph) - Yes all they have to do to 'win' is make a profit. To make a profit you have to have high sales. Clones of original games rarely have the sales of the originals.
You say trust isn't important? I say it is if you are a small developer trying to work with a small market. If they are looking at a large market, well trust isn't so important. But there are big dogs out there who view that as their own market, and if you start trying to eat into it, they'll respond.
You'll have to wait a bit for me to answer all of your replies, but let me says this now.
Your claim of previous TW titles being "small market" is ridiculous.
Both STW and MTW was a huge succes, STW sold more then million copy IIRC and MTW was top selling game in UK and in US#4 for the first 2 weeks.
And how can you call that a "small market"?
antisocialmunky
08-21-2005, 16:22
I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.
You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.
God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.
How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?
Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.
For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.
I'm not saying you shouldn't complain. I'm saying that you shouldn't make unrealistic demands from CA. They aren't making games tailored specifically to you or the people in this forum. Yes, it pisses me off that the game is rather unpolished in some aspects, but do yu really expect them to go back 8 months and redo a whole segment of engine? If you were part of the company dev team would you rather spend time and money on 8 months of redoing a whole segment of engine and force fitting it into the code and graphical engine interface of an old game or would you rather spend 8 months improve that aspect of engine after ripping off all the now cumbersome RTW baggage for the next generation TW? It's just not feasable economically, unlike someone making a mod in their spare time. Hell, just wait for TW4 and mod it to RTW2.
Flavius Clemens
08-21-2005, 16:48
Or would anyone like to give up the nice camera sweeping over the battlefield, watching the action close up in favour of a stationary (or almost stationary) first-person view down a hill, having to speak commands (in Latin, or ancient Greek - if realism, then all the way, after all) to a messenger who might or not reach the designated unit that may obey or not... I hope you get my point.
Personally I'm all for orders taking time to reach the unit concerned and be put into practice - that's an element of realism that adds to the challenge. Though it is dependent on the AI in command of the individual units being able to act reasonably in responding to circumstances - for instance if an infantry unit has orders to march on an enemy and attack it to have the sense to stop and face an ambushing cavalry unit appearing from cover.
And there of course is the rub - I don't doubt that good AI strategy / tactical programming is damn difficult and to produce a game at all CA are limited by what can reasonably be acheived within a given timescale and cost. There is a difference between a product failing to meet all the requirements that would be desireable in an ideal world and one that has bugs in the functions it does try to provide (I had a very frustrating CTD last night after a critical battle that I'll now have to refight from scratch) or a design that includes things that aren't just not 100% historically verified, but lack any serious credibility.
If it's too hard to code a barbarian unit with varying arms fair enough, make them all swordsmen, falxmen or whatever, but I don't feel comfortable with a one off unit like flaming pigs becoming a standard, or elite units becoming ten a penny once you've teched up to the right level. In that sense I want realism. So for mobile ballistas I want at least some chance that they were reasonably regularly used on the move before it becomes a game feature.
I definitely agree with the idea of building one and seeing what it's like in practice. I saw a documentary about Trajan's Column and the Dacian campaigns a few years ago, and in this they got someone to make Roman saddles based on the technology they had available at the time. They were surprised at how well they coped as a platform for melee against infantry, and made them take some of the illustrations on the column more literally than they had been inclined to. (Not an excuse for all powerful cavalry charges of course!) Try the same with the artillery - lets judge what was feasible. Not that I'm suggesting CA themselves get out the saws and planes, there are limits to how much programmers should get involved with hardware ~:)
Hurin_Rules
08-21-2005, 18:44
@Hurin_Rules
Poor soul, but i bet the interest of your students in ancient Roman history has tripled due to Rome: Total War. It is then up to you to correct them where necessary, but as i recall:
- The Romans DID destroy Carthage
- The Romans DID use Legions
- The Romans DID build Aqueducts
And i'm not really sure the game is trying to teach them much more than that. A good teacher knows how to pose questions and deal with answers in a way to arrive at a shared truth, instead of conjecture. The primary ingredient for this is motivation, which is hard to instill in kids these days. Would you not rather thank CA for doing half the work for you?
I thank CA for more than that. I thank them for making a very fun game. But that doesn't mean I can accept them asserting things that are not true.
Sounds like a good history lesson. One that the RTW fans in your class would love to follow, and actually be interested - for a change - in the subject you teach, namely history.
Now from what I read in CA's comments, they are not stating these things as fact. Because of my general knowledge, I know 120 men of Head Slingers are fantasy (you can actually prove this using logistics/chemistry reasoning), and considering the source (see your previous post), this affects the credibility of ALL their OTHER work (by deduction).
This contradicts your statement about assertation on the part of CA. How can CA state horse artillery as fact when they are then also stating Head Slingers as fact? Or do we need a list to separate trustworthy statements from untrustworthy statements? From the same company/source??
Perhaps you are unaccustomed to having your historical source (the interpreter at CA) alive instead of dead, and this may cause confusion in your scientific mind. Rest assured, though, that CA does not intend to disrupt your classroom. I would be worried more about commercials, and their effect on creating fact out of fiction.
What I can't understand is why they are willing to admit that 'chosen axemen' and head hurlers are fantasy, but are not willing to do the same for the other fantastic elements.
Orda Khan
08-21-2005, 18:55
Unconfirmed. If you're giving movement orders to a unit that has any ability turned on, expect delays.
I have not witnessed a delay in response to commands either.....unless that unit is, as Sunsmountain suggests, performing some ability or actually engaged. What I cannot understand is that so much is being made of this, when in MTW, I can remember many times having to double click on the ground to disengage my unit.
I dont see why a pikemen cant lift up his pike a bit to make up for the slope, design or just animations not thought through to handle all situations?
We have established by now that the game is not historically accurate so perhaps this feature is part of the gameplay issue, as in pikes less effective uphill.
suicide generals
So it was with MTW, the AI general was no different in that game.
The fact is Heavy infantry ruled the field in the game period.
Are we talking BI here? I thought we were, in which case cavalry were a far stronger influence than it had previously been
........Orda
conon394
08-21-2005, 19:22
Orda
Well the thread has been discussing both (BI and RTW). My comments were directed at the performance of cavalry in RTW.
RTW's move rate are unrealistic but most people would get bored to death. I have to agree that a speed compromise is needed for TW games for normal people or it just takes too long.
Routing heavy infantry is an interesting case though. As much as I'd love to see droppable equipment, it is a gameplay compromise so rallied troops can still fight. A droppable equipment system would be an interesting feature. Shields getting bashed, swords getting lost, soldiers without weapons trying to find one or going Rocky IV on their target.
Charging cavalry as was pointed out in a few places have a few problems that are engine related. Two things: They almost never lose their charge bonus AND armor adds to impact damage.
But it seems like CA could have make a better comprise decision. Say allowing battles to start with armies very nearly on top of one another, or a large battle filed with room to maneuver armies and eventually close for tactical gamers. The apparently impatient broad market gamer could choose to start on top of the enemy. No need for Olympic Sprinter hoplites. On fleeing infantry, I did not mean to suggest I was disappointed CA did not implement armor flinging (cool if they could); but just that in general if I saved a fresh unit of cavalry I would like a battlefield big enough combined with tired infantry running at realistic speeds such that I could actually run down routers.
antisocialmunky
08-21-2005, 22:09
I personally like the uber sprinting because it allows you to use the whole map instead of just the center. If you have slow units, then there would be no point for big maps.
Carroballistae didn't fire on the move? Maybe, maybe not. The basic design certainly wouldn't have made it easy or accurate, but you can bet they tried to use the weapon that way from time to time (sheer terror is the mother of many desperate tactics).
Take note of the first part... CF doesn't say that it is historically accurate at all, he says it is possible. And possible it certainly is.
Now if something that was possible and can add a bit of flavour is left out, I would as a publisher be rather dumbfounded. It doesn't make sense at all.
And about it being impossible to fire on the move. Well, all it would need was a proper pivot (I can certainly understand that that is where the trouble begins). Then the 'gunner' could stabilize the ballista with his knees, and yes, knees are absolutely superb shockabsorbers.
Remember the Crusader tank? You know the fast British tank in the desert, that got shot up in huge numbers? Well it was intended to shoot on the move, and had the entire gunmount being controlled by a standing gunner. A trained gunner could easily shoot on the move, using his knees to stabilize the gun. Two things conspired against that, bad training and the tiresome process of standing up shooting the gun. So in general it was a failure, butthe principle was there (and it was useable if you cared to do it properly), and the gun was vastly heavier than light ballista ever got to be.
So I can easily imagine some people gettingthe idea to shoot a ballista like that. Would they have done it a lot? Doubt it. Would it have been done at some point? Think so.
Hurin_Rules
08-22-2005, 02:58
Take note of the first part... CF doesn't say that it is historically accurate at all, he says it is possible. And possible it certainly is.
Saying something is possible is a far cry from depicting a unit that regularly uses a weapons system in that fashion in combat. I'm sure it was possible for ancient cavalry archers to ride their horses backwards so they could fire arrows from them. But there is no evidence they did. (The Parthians turned in their saddles, they didn't ride their horses backwards, and they certainly didn't do it regularly.)
So I can easily imagine some people gettingthe idea to shoot a ballista like that. Would they have done it a lot? Doubt it. Would it have been done at some point? Think so.
Did they do it regularly like they do in the game? Definitely not.
BobTheTerrible
08-22-2005, 03:19
Saying something is possible is a far cry from depicting a unit that regularly uses a weapons system in that fashion in combat. I'm sure it was possible for ancient cavalry archers to ride their horses backwards so they could fire arrows from them. But there is no evidence they did. (The Parthians turned in their saddles, they didn't ride their horses backwards, and they certainly didn't do it regularly.)
Did they do it regularly like they do in the game? Definitely not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main issue here is that CA wouldn't admit it's historically innaccurate. Well, CA never claims it is. All he said was that it was plausable.
Steppe Merc
08-22-2005, 03:26
I'd have rejected your insulting proposal too if I had been CA. Everything you've said reeks of your own assumption that CA skimped on the reasearch into the era (for whatever reason from sheer cavalier-ness to economic fesability). A good deal of the EB people have this attitude as well. The fact that CA gave Parthia nothing but shitty infantry and the Greeks no heavy cavalry shows they are commited to a degree of historical accuracy.
And the fact that the Parthians were pathetically purple, of all things means what, pray tell? And what does the fact that the Scythians, who were pretty much displaced at that time by the Sarmatians, wear no shirts in Russia, mean?
And they did skimp. Either they skimped, or worse, they ignored the research for no damn good reason.
P.S. Khelvan wasn't part of the team when we proposed to help CA, so it wasn't his insulting proposal.
Afro Thunder
08-22-2005, 03:45
And the fact that the Parthians were pathetically purple, of all things means what, pray tell? And what does the fact that the Scythians, who were pretty much displaced at that time by the Sarmatians, wear no shirts in Russia, mean?
And they did skimp. Either they skimped, or worse, they ignored the research for no damn good reason.
P.S. Khelvan wasn't part of the team when we proposed to help CA, so it wasn't his insulting proposal.
Nah, they were FABULOUSLY purple!
Simetrical
08-22-2005, 03:52
I don't know how much we know about carroballistae, but I could well imagine that they wouldn't be designed so as to allow someone to easily hang on and shoot at the same time. If it's not designed to be used while moving, perhaps the wagon-thingy wouldn't have any kind of support for the operator—he'd just stand on the wagon and shoot. If it's moving, bumping around, he'd have to hold on to something, and that would mean he might well be physically incapable of reloading.
So look at this image (http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/images/hi/1.12.h.jpg) from Trajan's Column, for instance. There seems to be no room for the operator to stand on the cart at all, and they're pulled by mules, not horses (so they'd be slower). Furthermore, according to this page (http://www.archaeoart.co.uk/structures/carroballista.htm) the carroballista was a two-man weapon, according to this (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/temetfutue/glossary/glossaryB.htm) it required six to ten men to fire, and that limits your options even more. If it was already preloaded, I could maybe see the soldiers getting off one shot, but reloading with no supports to hold you in place while you do so would be hopeless—you'd have to hold on with the hands you need for firing.
As far as the carroballistae firing on the run it has more to do with gameplay. Look at how regular ballistas impact a battle. Fire off 3 to 6 shots and then fall back and have no further impact on the battle, unless you can park them elevated from your troops where they can fire over with little risk of friendly fire. Would yoo really want it to take 15 minutes for the frontline troops to engage. If so then theres agood reason why they should'nt fire on the run, otherwise they need to so it's not a useless unit in your limited stack of 20.
Hurin_Rules
08-22-2005, 05:50
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main issue here is that CA wouldn't admit it's historically innaccurate. Well, CA never claims it is. All he said was that it was plausable.
Do you still think it's plausible after Simetrical's links to the picture and the archaeological research? There's no room for an operator, and no way to reload.
Now I'm even more convinced these things were never fired on the move.
This is, in fact, even more implausible than the flaming pigs. At least those were apparently once used in the fashion depicted.
As far as the carroballistae firing on the run it has more to do with gameplay. Look at how regular ballistas impact a battle. Fire off 3 to 6 shots and then fall back and have no further impact on the battle, unless you can park them elevated from your troops where they can fire over with little risk of friendly fire.
Would you really want it to take 15 minutes for the frontline troops to engage. If so then theres a good reason why they shouldn't fire on the run, otherwise they need to so it's not a useless unit in your limited stack of 20.
i agree with oaty on this,
too often artillery are pretty much useless in field battles, a couple of shots and then they nothing but are weak meelee troops, and a liability at that (too easy to rout).
if you dont like them simply mod your campaign game to exclude them
i still cannot find where CREATIVE ASSEMBLY STAFF said the game was historically accurate,
i CAN FIND plenty of reviewers and fanzine articles making that claim,
i CAN FIND CS Staff calling it a "historical strategy game",
but i cannot find one CA STAFFER claiming it is HISTORICALLY ACCURATE in detail.
B.
i still cannot find where CREATIVE ASSEMBLY STAFF said the game was historically accurate,Well, read this, from the Creative Assembly presentation at ECTN:
Creative Assembly were particularly keen to stress the amount of research that went into ensuring a historically accurate representation; including consultation with experts on the time-period. Wherever it doesn't have a detrimental effect on gameplay, the game is as historically accurate as possible, from the types of units available to each faction, the formations available (such as the famous Roman "tortoise"), and the terrain, which has been accurately mapped into the game, covering most of Europe and North Africa.You now have three choices:
1) CREATIVE ASSEMBLY STAFF said the game was historically accurate
2) IGN lied to its readers, CREATIVE ASSEMBLY STAFF did not say the game was historically accurate
3) IGN was mistaken, CREATIVE ASSEMBLY STAFF did not say these things and were misinterpreted.
Honestly, Barocca, do you feel that either 2) or 3) are even remotely possible? ECTN is a relatively large convention, and IGN is one of the leading publications. Either you must accept that CREATIVE ASSEMBLY STAFF did, in fact say these things, or that a leading industry publication is being purposefully dishonest. If you choose either 2) or 3), I'll have to accept that you're being purposefully dishonest just for the sake of arguing a technicality. They may not have been directly -quoted-, but they did say it.
1. Yes Tribes is a different type of game - so what? The player dynamics were the same.
2. No I don't hope CA will fail - well not particularly, I am ambivalent about them - I wouldn't particularly care either way at the moment.
3. I addressed this earlier - the new fans are fickle. Out of the ~20 regular gamers I know well, I and one other played TW games - a reasonable proportion of the others liked RTW but in the end gave up because it was not the standard sort of game. It's like why there are/were more people playing CS than Raven Shield, more people playing Battlefield 1942 than Ghost Recon. Games which try to be more realistic than the mainstream will allways have to be content with being in the shadows. Those who move out of the shadows inevitably fail as the 'fun' realism features wear off, and the tiring realism features begin to annoy.
4. I'm so sure because I've been playing games/watching the game industry for 15 years and I've seen many (probably hundreds now) try to do it and fail. If you want more detailed reasons, they can be summarised with one. Money. Actually they may do it - Sega owns them now, so they should have financial weight behind them - but if they do, it will hardly be the Total War series as you know it.
5. (yes I know there isn't a five, but treat it as your last paragraph) - Yes all they have to do to 'win' is make a profit. To make a profit you have to have high sales. Clones of original games rarely have the sales of the originals.
You say trust isn't important? I say it is if you are a small developer trying to work with a small market. If they are looking at a large market, well trust isn't so important. But there are big dogs out there who view that as their own market, and if you start trying to eat into it, they'll respond.
1, unlike tribes TW series was a huge hit from the beggining. Olso you didn't prove the reason why Tribes Vengeance failed was because it became "arcadish".
3,fickle? Then why games like C&C Generals and MTW became a huge hit?
I think you underestimate the intelligence of average gamer.
5, to have a high sales doesn't mean they have to sell more then AOE3.
Besides, how do you even know what next TW game will be?
IMO TW and AOE is on a diffarent table, as long as TW doesn't introduce AOE type gameplay.
6, Who said trust isn't important?
And what do you mean by "they'll respond"?
Are they going to point a gun to CA stuffs and say "stop competing with us, or else"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Creative Assembly were particularly keen to stress the amount of research that went into ensuring a historically accurate representation; including consultation with experts on the time-period. Wherever it doesn't have a detrimental effect on gameplay, the game is as historically accurate as possible, from the types of units available to each faction, the formations available (such as the famous Roman "tortoise"), and the terrain, which has been accurately mapped into the game, covering most of Europe and North Africa.
Please read this quote again. It simply states that they did their research, but choose gameplay over historical accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't see in what way this contradicts with what Barocca said.
btw, this tread makes me laugh. Really. You history fanboys are priceless ~D :bow:
Originally Posted by IGN...snip...Wherever it doesn't have a detrimental effect on gameplay, the game is as historically accurate as possible
you still have not provided me with a direct quote from a CA staffer claiming the game was flat out historically accurate in detail.
all you are giving is "they said that they said..."
B.
The delay is 2 seconds to get a stationary unit moving. I've measured it with a stopwatch, and at these cav speeds it means enemy cav can cover a lot of ground before your unit can move.
i agree, 2 seconds.
Allowing RTW to be used in the History Channel's Decisive Battles Program gave the wrong impression about the game. You can't re-enact any of the battles shown in that program with this game. The Battle of Trebia in the RTW demo was scripted to give a false impression that the gameplay was historical; complete with an elaborate historical description of the disposition and tactical capabilities of the two armies. Now either this was all a deliberate hoax or something went horribly wrong during the developement of the game.
was not decisive battles a "recreation" via simulation?
they used RTW engine to recreate what happened,
not unlike ACW re-enactors, sometimes there are far more rebels show up than Fed's, but the rebels still lose?
frankly complaining that the engine cannot "recreate" for players what was a scripted for TV simulation of an historical event is a fraction over the top when it comes to criticising the engine.
B.
antisocialmunky
08-22-2005, 12:36
I don't know how much we know about carroballistae, but I could well imagine that they wouldn't be designed so as to allow someone to easily hang on and shoot at the same time. If it's not designed to be used while moving, perhaps the wagon-thingy wouldn't have any kind of support for the operator—he'd just stand on the wagon and shoot. If it's moving, bumping around, he'd have to hold on to something, and that would mean he might well be physically incapable of reloading.
It really depends on which role you assign it. It could likely be the Roman version of 'Flying Artillery,' towed artillery that can be deployed, fired, and moved, which it would take a team because you would probably use a heavier mount. I wouldn't put it past the Romans and their history of logistical accomplishment that the ability to move artillery from one side of the line to the other would be lost on them.
However, if they really wanted to, repeating ballista with a hopper full of bolts(more than 8, less than 20) that automatically reloads as the operator cranks could be operated a by as few as one man.
I'd think the 'flying artillery' version is more likely because they used mules. In that setup, the mule(s) the 6-10 men it would take to fire a heavier ballista could have ran along side the cart like gun operators ran alongside their artillery pieces during the American Civil War and American-Mexican War. It doesn't bar the fact that the second model could not have been made for harassment.
frankly complaining that the engine cannot "recreate" for players what was a scripted for TV simulation of an historical event is a fraction over the top when it comes to criticising the engine.
B.
Then why did CA publically imply that I was wrong? If their game couldn't do what was being portrayed on TV, they should have been up front about it. Instead they went into damage control mode.
The Battle of Trebia in the RTW demo was scripted to give a false impression that the gameplay was historical; complete with an elaborate historical description of the disposition and tactical capabilities of the two armies. Now either this was all a deliberate hoax or something went horribly wrong during the developement of the game.
if you know how to unpack the pak files from the demo, so that one may go and look at what was scripted and what was not, then please share such information.
if the files cannot be unpacked then speculation on what was, and what was not scripted, remains as speculation only and should not be "bandied around" as inarguable fact
misrepresenting a product (the hoax as you put it) is a criminal offence, i would suggest one be absolutely sure before one starts running around accusing companies of crimes in a public forum (the bigger the company the bigger the lawyers)
I DID NOT LIKE THE DEMO (for rome), gameplay, movement speed and battles were WAY TOO FAST
B.
Then why did CA publically imply that I was wrong? If their game couldn't do what was being portrayed on TV, they should have been up front about it. Instead they went into damage control mode.
i missed that post/thread
please enlighten this poor soul
B.
Hm was that what I used as a signature for a while Yuuki? heh
CBR
And the fact that the Parthians were pathetically purple, of all things means what, pray tell? And what does the fact that the Scythians, who were pretty much displaced at that time by the Sarmatians, wear no shirts in Russia, mean?
And they did skimp. Either they skimped, or worse, they ignored the research for no damn good reason.
P.S. Khelvan wasn't part of the team when we proposed to help CA, so it wasn't his insulting proposal.
It was the colour they choose, which happened to look well let's face it silly on the eastern meat shields and HA but looked great Hillmen and Persian cavalry. As to the shirtless Scythians being in well they aren't gone until 250 BC which means when the game starts in 275 BC it's perfectly allright to have the Scythians. Their shirtlessness is a design ethic applied to all barbarian factions. That being only elite units can have shirts. You'll notice that Gauls are shirtless in France, Germans in Germany, and Britons on Britian. Every time I play as the Britons on Germans in a winter battle I'm think man that could never happen it would be too cold.
I guess the diffarent color for each faction is to make recognizing the battle easier.
It was same in all previous TW game, although not as vivid as in RTW.
A perfect example is RTR6.0. Every faction uses a same sort of color so in heat of battle it gets quite difficult to see who is who and which is which.
Although I think they could have chosen a better color then purple.
IceTorque
08-22-2005, 15:15
It was the colour they choose, which happened to look well let's face it silly on the eastern meat shields and HA but looked great Hillmen and Persian cavalry. As to the shirtless Scythians being in well they aren't gone until 250 BC which means when the game starts in 275 BC it's perfectly allright to have the Scythians. Their shirtlessness is a design ethic applied to all barbarian factions. That being only elite units can have shirts. You'll notice that Gauls are shirtless in France, Germans in Germany, and Britons on Britian. Every time I play as the Britons on Germans in a winter battle I'm think man that could never happen it would be too cold.
Too cold maybe, but did'nt the picts fight naked ?
@the purple parthians debate:I actually think they look cool.
A very bold color.
I can't understand why people complain about faction colors.
Too cold maybe, but did'nt the picts fight naked ?
They could well have, but in winter?, in Scotland?
btw, this tread makes me laugh. Really. You history fanboys are priceless ~D :bow:Your condescending attitude makes me weep for the state of public schools.
if you know how to unpack the pak files from the demo, so that one may go and look at what was scripted and what was not, then please share such information.
if the files cannot be unpacked then speculation on what was, and what was not scripted, remains as speculation only and should not be "bandied around" as inarguable fact
misrepresenting a product (the hoax as you put it) is a criminal offence, i would suggest one be absolutely sure before one starts running around accusing companies of crimes in a public forum (the bigger the company the bigger the lawyers)
I DID NOT LIKE THE DEMO (for rome), gameplay, movement speed and battles were WAY TOO FAST
B.
Sorry, couldn't let this one slip. It is not misrepresentation, either for the purposes of Misrepresentation Act 1967 (UK) or in negligence (tort) if at the time Puzz3D made the statement, he honestly believed it to be true.
Misrepresentation is a tricky field, and though I am not a tort expert, I can assure you that a statement or such made in this (public) forum would be very difficult to prove as misrepresentation and thus attracting criminal or other liability in negligence (which is near impossible as damage has to be shown and remoteness considered etc. ect.), no matter how good the lawyers are... ~;)
I think the best thing is to stay off such legal warnings etc. and find better ways to dispute someones statements.
Zenicetus
08-22-2005, 17:56
@the purple parthians debate:I actually think they look cool.
A very bold color.
I can't understand why people complain about faction colors.
The problem (for me, anyway) is not that factions have identifying colors, it's that the colors are often too saturated and too bright. When the designers go too far in that direction, the screen starts to look like a cartoon instead of something approaching what the real thing would have looked like.
The ancient world didn't have an endless selection of dye and paint colors to choose from, and soldiers' uniforms don't look bright and fresh after a months long march through a dusty desert. Toning down the palette saturation just a little bit, while still keeping the identifying colors, would make the game look more realistic. In my opinion.
That's why I like the looks of barbarian captain skin in BI demo (the brown dude).
It has some faction colors, but is not totaly painted, so he looks better them most other units.
This line from CA: “Wherever it doesn't have a detrimental effect on game play, the game is as historically accurate as possible” reminds me of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. People like to quote the latter half of the sentence and ignore the critical supporting clause.
Any deviation from history in the game can be said to enhance game play. Since good game play is so very subjective, disagreements are inevitable. CA knew that Egypt was Greek in 200BC but deliberately put in the Rameses look believing that it would improve the appeal for many gamers. Hence enhancing the game play for buyers who expect Egyptians to look like Pharaohs. We accurites don’t like such decisions but we’re stuck. It’s a game, not a simulation. CA has been up front about that from Shogun onward. They include a heavy dose of reality just the same. Enough, IMO, to warrant their claims of accuracy to a large degree. Regarding history, I think CA gets a lot more right than wrong and when they are wrong I believe they usually know it. If you want to believe that CA has sinned, then they are sins of commission. I suspect that the historians at CA do fight the good fight over these issues, winning some and losing some according to somebody’s idea of playability.
Mongoose
08-22-2005, 18:36
Please read this quote again. It simply states that they did their research, but choose gameplay over historical accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't see in what way this contradicts with what Barocca said.
btw, this tread makes me laugh. Really. You history fanboys are priceless ~D :bow:
You CA fanboys are priceless :smartass:
How does it hurt gameplay to have egypt LOOK Greek?
How does it improve gameplay to have almost the same standard set of units for the "barbs"???
~:confused:
Your condescending attitude makes me weep for the state of public schools.
:cry:
Steppe Merc
08-22-2005, 19:49
It was the colour they choose, which happened to look well let's face it silly on the eastern meat shields and HA but looked great Hillmen and Persian cavalry. As to the shirtless Scythians being in well they aren't gone until 250 BC which means when the game starts in 275 BC it's perfectly allright to have the Scythians. Their shirtlessness is a design ethic applied to all barbarian factions. That being only elite units can have shirts. You'll notice that Gauls are shirtless in France, Germans in Germany, and Britons on Britian. Every time I play as the Britons on Germans in a winter battle I'm think man that could never happen it would be too cold.
Indeed. The shirtlessness is a entirely false design ethic applied to all "barbarians", which is idioticly to apply to the Scythians. They were rich peoples at this time. None of them wouldn't have been able to afford a shirt and still afford multiple horses and a bow. And what of the "Amazons", and those giant axe wielding women? Yes some women fought in Sarmatian armies. But not in the matter that they showed.
And faction colors are just foolish and annoying.
edyzmedieval
08-22-2005, 20:01
I agree with you Steppe Merc.
It's the same with my ancestors, the Dacians. We weren't barbarians. We even had fortified stone walls. And we had many unique units. We were rich people. Otherwise, why would the Romans plunder our land?!
Steppe Merc
08-22-2005, 20:02
Silly Edy, don't you know that only Greeks and Romans mattered? :dizzy2:
edyzmedieval
08-22-2005, 20:04
True.
But at some parts, it's very irritating.
Steppe Merc
08-22-2005, 20:18
I was kidding, man. I can't stand Greeks and Romans. ~;)
edyzmedieval
08-22-2005, 20:21
~D :p
I hate the Romans, but I like very much the Greeks.
But, sometimes, "barbarians" rock.
if you know how to unpack the pak files from the demo, so that one may go and look at what was scripted and what was not, then please share such information.
Unpacking the files violates the license agreement.
if the files cannot be unpacked then speculation on what was, and what was not scripted, remains as speculation only and should not be "bandied around" as inarguable fact.
As I recall, the RTW demo only allowed you to play as Carthage in the Battle of Trebia. If you played the Roman side by using a mod that enabled you to do so, some of your units would go forward without orders and the Carthaginian units didn't do anything until you engaged them. At the time this was attributed by players to scripting of the Roman units, and the supposition was that it was done because the AI wasn't finished. The demo was definitley trying to reconstruct the Battle of Trebia in a historical way. I doubt this meant anything to RTS gamers since their gendre is not particularly realistic, but it meant a lot to historically minded players.
misrepresenting a product (the hoax as you put it) is a criminal offence, i would suggest one be absolutely sure before one starts running around accusing companies of crimes in a public forum (the bigger the company the bigger the lawyers)
Obviously, CA wouldn't commit a crime and they never claimed the game could do someting it couldn't, so it could be the other possibility that "something went horribly wrong". However, the last sentence of that post I made isn't what I wanted to say, but I forgot to delete it. There is a third possibilty that nothing went horribly wrong, and what happened is that people drew incorrect conclusions from what information they were given about the game. For instance, there was a still image of a truely massive army laying siege to a large city. There was a video released that showed men climbing up ladders onto the wall and charging thought the gate of a city with very good FPS. There was an unrelated statement from CA that the FPS performace of RTW would not be worse than MTW. There was another statement that you could have up to 10,000 men in a battle. At some point, and I don't remember exactly when, the recommended system requirement for RTW became available. In retrospect, you obviously can't draw any conclusion about the performance of the game in that still image of the massive army sieging the city. However, I'll bet a lot of people did and were disappointed when they actually tried to field armies that big on machines that exceeded the recommended system requirements.
Take another case of the increase from 16 units to 20 units in an army. That's true, and the game definitely has that feature. There is no misrepresentation going on here. However, what was never disclosed is that the "normal" unit size was reduced by 33%. So, there was a 25% increase in the number of units and a 33% reduction in the number of men. When I saw that I understood how CA could state that the FPS performance wasn't worse than MTW. Stupid me for assuming that RTW would stick with the standard unit size used in the previous games. Now I have more units to control but fewer men in the army. What was gained here in terms of gameplay especially when you can just roll a bunch of units up into a ball and use them like that? The next larger size option doubles the unit size giving you many more men than you had in MTW, and much worse FPS performance as a result.
The way Load/Save works was intentionally designed that way according to CA. There's no misrepresentation going on here eventhough virtually every player is going to assume that reloading a save game will restore all the parameters to their previous settings. CA didn't mention that they were using a non-standard way of implimenting load/save until after a player discovered it. As a result, I have to set aside a very large block of time when I want to continue my saved campaign which is very inconvient. There is no misrepresentation, but I still feel like I was tricked.
I still don't understand why the RTW demo tried to reconstruct an historical battle or why RTW was used in the History Channel's program. When I quoted Ian Roxburgh's statement from his IGN interview that RTW gameplay was like the movie Gladiator or Braveheart, CA was quick to counter that he was just being enthusiastic. Why all this hedging about the issue when it turned out to be the case? Well it's a rhetorical question because I know the answer.
I could go on an on with further examples, but it's pointless. This type of marketing is done by lots of companies. The consumer might think he or she is being clever by combining different statements to draw a conclusion or by assuming that a product is designed in a standard way, but it's not the consumer who's the clever one. It's the marketer who's clever, and they have the benfit these days of large statistical studies of what works and what doesn't work to attract customers.
BTW, when I pointed out those things about the RTW engine that I think are inferior to the previous engine, I'm wasn't criticising CA. I'm sure there are valid business reasons for why these things are the way they are. However, they are still inferior as far as I'm concerned. People might not like the graphics of STW, but the spears worked in that game which makes a huge difference in the gameplay.
Red Harvest
08-22-2005, 22:03
btw, this tread makes me laugh. Really. You history fanboys are priceless ~D :bow:
All in favor of castrating flippy say, Aye.
"Aye."
Orda Khan
08-22-2005, 22:17
The delay is 2 seconds to get a stationary unit moving. I've measured it with a stopwatch, and at these cav speeds it means enemy cav can cover a lot of ground before your unit can move.
Next time I play I will make sure that my units wait for 2 seconds before they respond because they are obviously reacting too quickly.
The suicide general was fixed in MTW.
This would explain why the AI General would regularly charge to his death in MTW games.
Here we have a thread complaining about historical accuracy. Were Giant Sword Saints acceptable then? The game is not historically accurate and never has been. It matters not one bit if units pause for 2, 10 or 20 seconds, an enemy unit can stroll up behind it and cut them to pieces if the player does not move it. This is not accurate either. I guess it's a case of whether or not one wants to play the game and I suspect that the majority of us will
.......Orda
sunsmountain
08-22-2005, 22:55
I can only stand in awe and agree with Puzz3D, critical, non-fanboy and non-historical as i am.
Will get back to this summary of promises from CA later, first:
Hurin Rules:
What I can't understand is why they are willing to admit that 'chosen axemen' and head hurlers are fantasy, but are not willing to do the same for the other fantastic elements.
I think they're trusting on your ability to judge these things, if your job depends on it. You're also ignoring the possibility that they simply chose to use their Creative, artistic freedom, to ignore history in this particular case (and not in all others) for good, exciting gameplay. Stationary horse artillery? Boring.
To not sound too ahistorical, perhaps they're "covering up their tracks", but please, give them some slack. I mean, an entire army full of ahistoric units (egypt), axemen, head hurlers, do you really want the full and 100% historic & non-historic correct list? Why don't you make it yourself? YOU're the history teacher here, not they (CA). They are proud of their research, as anyone would be, but it cannot replace years and years of study in an actual university and a master degree.
mongoose:
How does it hurt gameplay to have egypt LOOK Greek?
Oh, another pike/hoplite faction.. cheer... the Egyptians look COOL, who CARES they're more than 1000 years out of sync? Besides, Pharaoh's Guard can form Phalanx...
How does it improve gameplay to have almost the same standard set of units for the "barbs"???
Hardly true, the brits, germans and gauls have quite distinct army rosters. Then again, the game has 7 different barbarian factions, so creating original content for each and every one of them is perhaps a little too much. 1 Egyptian, ok, but 7 barbarian?
Puzz3D:
I think it's an unintended effect. The pikes are not just "less" effective on an upslope. They are "zero" effective.
I didn't know this but i don't doubt you. I would, however, like some testing of this. How steep a slope does one need?
That's interesting because it turned out that RTW was even less realistic than I had deduced from the demo.
I hadn't noticed. I didn't find it interesting at the time. Your other comments however, in particular that large siege battle with 10000 troops.. now that i found interesting when the game got out.
Then why did CA publically imply that I was wrong? If their game couldn't do what was being portrayed on TV, they should have been up front about it. Instead they went into damage control mode.
I'm sure they regret ever doing so, Puzz3D.
First of all, i don't understand why you say Trebia scripting was something that went "something went horribly wrong". If you unpack the files, you can surely retrieve the descr_battle.txt. The Carthaginians moving historically was scripted, because you cannot expect that from an AI. If, at any time, CA gloated, boasted or exemplified this demo battle, then that was wrong of them to do, but surely, these are not "mistakes".
You continue with the promise of performance, which i agree was scaled back considerably. We could simply count the Urban Cohorts in the screenshots containing 242 men, but as soon as the game was released, that was 162.
As for MTW units and count, that was 16 and 200 max (peasants) (3200)
RTW is now 20 and 240 max (peasants). (4800)
Actual fighting units was 120 men in MTW, huge size. (1920)
That's now 160. (3200)
Normal is indeed reduced, but large and huge have been considerably increased. Huge is now 100% extra.
Where you had peasants before, now you have soldiers.
Peasant unit sizes:
MTW: 50-100-200
RTW: 30-60-120-240
Normal mode has been reduced, but you should compare it to Large mode, shouldn't you?
But 10000 men is not really an option in multiplayer or in Custom battle. 256 MB system RAM and 64 MB video RAM was a lot more than anticipated (they were/are *so* proud of their engine...)
What was gained here in terms of gameplay especially when you can just roll a bunch of units up into a ball and use them like that?
I still can't believe this, but it must be true. Does it work in Shogun/Medieval, or do you get penalties? These are not levied in Rome? hmm
I still don't understand why the RTW demo tried to reconstruct an historical battle or why RTW was used in the History Channel's program.
You can recreate Time Commanders if you create a 2v2 historical battle with the battle editor. I'm still planning to do this.
Next time I play I will make sure that my units wait for 2 seconds before they respond because they are obviously reacting too quickly.
I always get a delay, although it does seem to vary a bit depending on unit type or possibly experience level.
This would explain why the AI General would regularly charge to his death in MTW games.
I play MTW/VI v2.01 campaign using STWmod for MTW/VI, and it's very difficult to get the AI general. He doesn't charge in at the begnning of the battle, and very often withdraws on his own when things look bad.
Here we have a thread complaining about historical accuracy. Were Giant Sword Saints acceptable then? The game is not historically accurate and never has been.
That's true and the STW engine was not suited to single man units because they got battlefield upgrades too easily, but I'm thinking back to original STW which didn't have kensai, battlefield ninja or naginata cav for that matter. It wasn't historically accurate, but it did have pretty good balance in the gameplay.
It matters not one bit if units pause for 2, 10 or 20 seconds, an enemy unit can stroll up behind it and cut them to pieces if the player does not move it. This is not accurate either. I guess it's a case of whether or not one wants to play the game and I suspect that the majority of us will
I just want my unit to move when I see the threat and give the movement order. I don't see how the delay improves the gameplay, but it would be acceptable if things were not happening so fast. I agree that, if you don't see the threat, the delay doesn't matter, but not seeing the threat happens more in RTW because you have less time to look around and it still takes time to move the mouse and scroll the camera. I never liked winning a piece in chess because my opponent didn't see that I was threatening his piece, and in a casual game I always give the player a chance to change his move in that circumstance.
Simetrical
08-23-2005, 00:39
Unpacking the files violates the license agreement.Which clause?
Interesting thread, although I sometimes wonder if we are arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Have the people criticising the historical inaccuracies tried Rome Total Realism v6.0 or a similar mod? RTR has historical Egyptians, purges the war dogs & other silly stuff, the battles play as slowly as STW and MTW, and it is extremely rewarding if played in a "historical" (as opposed to gamey) way. Far more satisfying to me from both a historical or gameplay point of view than either vanilla STW or MTW. EB promises to be even more historical and also has some fun gameplay features (eg different victory conditions for different factions).
As long as CA continues to be produce games that can be modded to produce such high quality mods, I can't help be extremely relaxed about things like moving carballistas (sp) - just another thing for the RTR/EB/whatever team to mod.
BTW: Talking of snowballing - I (almost) never do this. Following the recent poll here on using the pause button, I realise that I am continually pausing the game. This allows me to fight my battles at a unit by unit level, working on positioning, good unit match ups, flanking etc but I try to avoid exploiting the AI too much. However, I had a fantastic battle in RTR 6 when, as Romans campaigning far from home, I had a greatly weakened army attacked by a sallying Ptolemic army and their relief force. My infantry was reduced to a pitiful handful of men locked in battle with masses of phalanxes and rock hard 2HP hypastates (sp?), my one missile unit had no ammo and all I had left uncommitted was my general and a couple of dozen of cavalry. Out of desperation, I grouped the cavalry together and then snowballed - hitting one enemy in the rear after another. It was utterly exhilarating. Maybe not historical, but if so it was what the history should have been!
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 02:56
I think they're trusting on your ability to judge these things, if your job depends on it. You're also ignoring the possibility that they simply chose to use their Creative, artistic freedom, to ignore history in this particular case (and not in all others) for good, exciting gameplay.
Well if they did, why won't they admit it? That's all I'm asking. But look at the way they are trying to defend repeating, fire-on-the-move carroballistae. In Bill Clinton's words, that dog won't hunt.
To not sound too ahistorical, perhaps they're "covering up their tracks", but please, give them some slack. I mean, an entire army full of ahistoric units (egypt), axemen, head hurlers, do you really want the full and 100% historic & non-historic correct list? Why don't you make it yourself? YOU're the history teacher here, not they (CA). They are proud of their research, as anyone would be, but it cannot replace years and years of study in an actual university and a master degree.
That's why they should offer me a job ~:)
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 02:57
Have the people criticising the historical inaccuracies tried Rome Total Realism v6.0 or a similar mod? RTR has historical Egyptians, purges the war dogs & other silly stuff, the battles play as slowly as STW and MTW, and it is extremely rewarding if played in a "historical" (as opposed to gamey) way. Far more satisfying to me from both a historical or gameplay point of view than either vanilla STW or MTW. EB promises to be even more historical and also has some fun gameplay features (eg different victory conditions for different factions).
I'm fine with the game itself, actually-- I'll move on to RTR and EB once I get bored. It's just the refusal to admit the anachronisms that I just can't understand.
You CA fanboys are priceless :smartass:
How does it hurt gameplay to have egypt LOOK Greek?
How does it improve gameplay to have almost the same standard set of units for the "barbs"???
~:confused:
:cry:
I guess it's a matter of flavour and taste.
I mean, we all ready have 5 hellenic faction, why make another one?
Mongoose
08-23-2005, 03:42
Greek egypt had plenty of flavour. Just look at the EB updates ~:eek:
IMO, the whole debate is kind of pointless with mods like EB....
Which clause?
The license says you cannot "reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile or disassemble the Program, in whole or in part".
However, I had a fantastic battle in RTR 6 when, as Romans campaigning far from home, I had a greatly weakened army attacked by a sallying Ptolemic army and their relief force. My infantry was reduced to a pitiful handful of men locked in battle with masses of phalanxes and rock hard 2HP hypastates (sp?), my one missile unit had no ammo and all I had left uncommitted was my general and a couple of dozen of cavalry. Out of desperation, I grouped the cavalry together and then snowballed - hitting one enemy in the rear after another. It was utterly exhilarating. Maybe not historical, but if so it was what the history should have been!
I won the BI demo Battle of Chalons doing this exact same thing with a unit of cav. I knocked out every single AI unit with one unit of cav. Unlike you, I wasn't exhilarated by this kind of gameplay. As a matter of fact, I haven't touched the BI demo since doing that, and I'm not inclined to ever again.
I'm fine with the game itself, actually-- I'll move on to RTR and EB once I get bored. It's just the refusal to admit the anachronisms that I just can't understand.
It's easy to understand. Simply think like a marketing person with the job of maximizing sales. Their research showed that the unit in question might have existed. That's enough to claim historical justification when you take the position than it doesn't matter how implausable the unit might be. I actually prefer to see gameplay justifications because it means the unit wasn't simply thrown in for the sake of variety.
Mongoose
08-23-2005, 04:58
Now i understand why they still have a screen shot of that battle with 20,000+ soldiers on the official site:laugh4:
edyzmedieval
08-23-2005, 07:14
All in favor of castrating flippy say, Aye.
"Aye."
AYE ~D
Hopefully they're gonna purge the fantasy units.... Incendiary pigs.... Be serious!!! :laugh4:
@ Puzz 3D
And what happens if I don't receive the license?! ~D
I didn't read through the entire thread so forgive me if I repeat someone else's statements.
Perhaps we should ask the question "What advantage would firing while moving incur?" I doubt the wagon would be trucking along at 15 mph. What is the possibility of that? Would a team of draught animals be able to pull the wagon a sufficient enough speed to warrant its use as "mobile artillery"? Or, as was most likely the case, the ballistae were carted on wagons for transportation and eventual deployment. Remember the animals are not only lugging a wagon with a ballista but also the crew operating the artillery piece.
Besides, imagine a wagon bumping along while the ballista fires. Is the bolt even going to land anywhere near the intended target? It only takes an inch of movement for the ballista to destroy its accuracy. So why would one think that a military general/officer would compromise all accuracy and efficiency with a sluggish wagon moving at a negligeable speed.
I really appreciate Captain Fishpants coming here to post. BUT the one problem with the "if you don't like it, don't use them in your battles" statement is that I can't decide if my enemy wants to use them and then the battle will be clown shoes. ~:)
just in case anyone is wondering what all the fuss with carraige ballista's is really all about
DOWNLOAD THIS BI-Demo mod (http://www.3ddownloads.com/strategy-gaming/totalwar/RTW/Demo/Ballista_Fun_BI_Demo.zip)
then play as Romans and march your CB's beside the Goth's as they make there way to the center of the field
B.
Your condescending attitude makes me weep for the state of public schools.
You couldn’t be more off but i’ll take it as a compliment.
Are you mad at me? Just because I said you’re wrong?
Anyways, I admit my comment was a bit over the top. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. It is really nothing personal. Hell, why would it be? I don’t even know you. Besides, English is not quite my native, so sometimes I ehm... choose the wrong words to express myself. :bow:
But, again (sorry), it still makes me laugh. I find all this rather pointless. The game is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Live with it. Or move along.
I guess it's a matter of flavour and taste.
I mean, we all ready have 5 hellenic faction, why make another one?
Well, again an example where gameplay won over historical accuracy I guess.
And you know what. I'm kind of a history fanboy myself. In this case I resent the decision CA made. I would rather have a hellenic-like egypt.
But guess what. They're not going change egypt because of that. And still I enjoy the game (from time to time...).
Now come all over and castrate me....
AYE!!!
Here we have a thread complaining about historical accuracy. Were Giant Sword Saints acceptable then? The game is not historically accurate and never has been. It matters not one bit if units pause for 2, 10 or 20 seconds, an enemy unit can stroll up behind it and cut them to pieces if the player does not move it. This is not accurate either. I guess it's a case of whether or not one wants to play the game and I suspect that the majority of us will
I agree completely.
I don't expect CA to give me a 100% historical accurate game, as long as the inaccuracies can be modded out. My problem is that the gameplay did not live up to my expectations as well.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.