View Full Version : About The TURKS
Raziel17
12-28-2006, 21:34
We have written this article to criticize and correct the mistakes about the Turks in MTW2. We hope it will be taken into consideration by the producers of the game.
1-The Turks in the game are just like the Arabs. In these years the Seljuk Turks were very different in culture from the Arabs of Mesopotamia. The Seljuks were still living the steppe culture mostly. But in the game even from the beginning the Turkish units such as spies, assassins, captains and even family members are wearing Arabic costumes. The wives of family members are wearing “buqra” which is very wrong as the Turkish women preferred kershief.
2-The Turks are beginning with a few regions not including Baghdad. In 1055 Baghdad and caliph were saved from Buveyhis by the great Seljuk sultan Tugrul. The Turks should have Baghdad in the game too.
3- Military units are very weak. As a consequence, the Seljuks who resisted many Crusades are much weaker than in fact. During the First Crusade, six hundred thousand Crusade soldiers entering Anatolia left as a force of only forty thousand. This proves the strength of The Seljuk Empire .Also, the Ottomans’ military units are weak in the game. Even around the time of foundation of the Ottoman Empire, no wars were lost except the one against Timurlane. During that war, which was the biggest battle in the Medieval times, Timurlane lost forty thousand of his soldiers despite the fact that he had never lost more than two thousand up to then. This is another point proving Turks’ strength(Timurlane was also a Turk).
4- In the game one of the most irritating mistakes is that Anatolia is just like a desert and the building in Anatolia resemble those in Arab peninsula. The mosques like other buildings in Anatolia were very different from the ones of Egypt and Arabia. In Anatolia mosques were much like the Orthodox churches. Trees in Anatolia such as palms are another disturbing point. Palm trees are not found anywhere other than Mediterranean coasts such as Antalya and Mersin coasts in Turkey. But in the game they are everywhere.
5- Turkish faction leaders are called “Sultan” all the time. But from 1350, they were using the title “Padisah” meaning “Sultan of sultans”. This is a very common mistake made by the Europeans.
6- Cavalry units were stronger than they’re in the game. For example, Kapiqulus were elite soldiers which no factions had. They were compelled to protect the Padisah (ottoman word for “sultan”)But in MTW 2, they are the weakest of heavy cavalry units.
7- Another thing is that our favourite Turkish soldiers-Akinjis are not the way they should be. Akinjis consisted of only Turkish worriers who were living close to borders of the country and protecting them. A Rum (Greek) who converted Islam or an Arab did not have the right to be an individual of that unit. They were one of the most important units of Turkish army. They attacking as far as mid-Europe causing fear. In Balkan countries many officials were charged with the mission of warning an oncoming riot by the Akinjis. These officials were only made redundant in the 20th century. But these important soldiers are very weak and they are only told to be Muslims in the game.
8-There aren’t any powers of the Caliph. While the Pope calls for a Crusade every now and then, Jihads are called by a regular Imam, which is one of the most important mistakes in the game.
9-The worst mistake in the game, according to us, is that the word “Jenissary” is claimed to be of Greek origin. Actually, “Yeni (Jeni)” means “new” and “Çeri (Sary)” means “soldier” in Turkish. We cannot understand how this kind of a mistake is made.
10-“Sipahis” in the west regions of the Empire is told to be Christian. But in Turkish armies, Christians were never recruited. Instead, “Cizye” tax was to be paid. This tax was one of the most important sources of income of the state.
As a result, we wouldn’t like to consider these mistakes made deliberately. We hope that the will be corrected immediately. Maybe a patch can be released in order to correct them.
Raziel 17 & The Ak07
beauchamp
12-29-2006, 00:23
Hm, I agree with you Raziel. I made a comment earlier about the Tuaregs, (a nomadic Berber tribe in the sahara) not being strong enough (and the Mamluks for that matter), and am baffaled at the absence of an Abbasid Caliph at Baghdad. Im also playing a game as the Turks right now and am realising their weaknesses of Horse archers and with any real infantry or "attacking cavalry". Seems to me that the west was really given the benifet in terms of troop strength and the east forgotten in general.
But, I actually havent played as the Turks in the late era, so I havent gotten a chance to play as the Janiserries (sorry for the transliteration, arne't they called Yeni Cheri?) so hopefully they fully represent the Turks/Ottomans.
BeeSting
12-29-2006, 00:31
600,000 crusaders during the first crusade…? The number is quite obscene for the time, don't you think? I'd like your source on that number if possible.
NagatsukaShumi
12-29-2006, 00:44
I can't see CA releasing a patch to correct the historical inaccuracies you've cited I am afraid to tell you, same would go for most games companies. Your best bet is to wait for realism mods (Medieval Auctoriso which I lead, Medieval Total Realism, Medieval Fidelity and so on).
OMGLAZERS
12-29-2006, 01:18
I can't see CA releasing a patch to correct the historical inaccuracies you've cited I am afraid to tell you, same would go for most games companies. Your best bet is to wait for realism mods (Medieval Auctoriso which I lead, Medieval Total Realism, Medieval Fidelity and so on).
There's also a mod to make the voice acting more realistic or period-proper.
I'd pop them off an email about the “Padisah” problem.
Marquis of Roland
12-29-2006, 01:56
Playing as Turks right now, and I am loving it as much as I did in MTW1, Turks were my fav faction back then too. To respond to Raziel:
1. Don't all three islamic factions in the game have the same avatars for their generals/agents? It'd be great if they had more variety but pretty sure CA is not going to change this.
2. Yea, Turks should have Baghdad. But then I guess England should start with York, the scots with Inverness, etc..... CA probably made some traditional provinces rebel to balance the game.
3. If I recall correctly the Turks beat the Crusaders down with missile superiority and better mobility; they did not prove superior in melee combat. If this is true then the game is not far off. I beat down every single crusade with horse archers. By the way, the army of the first crusade that was wiped out by Turks in Anatolia was mostly peasants/pilgrims, so not surprised alot of them died. There were enough actual soldiers to make it a good fight still, but anytime your army is mostly peasants the kill count is going to be inflated. The Turks had a harder time of it at Antioch, where they lost despite holding numerical superiority over a starving foe (the crusaders at that time had no cavalry because they ate all their horses lol). The losses for Timur at the Battle of Ankara range from 15,000 to 40,000, I guess its just a matter of which country your sources came from. And also, Timur was not a Turk, he was an ethnic Mongol living in traditional turkic region conquered by Mongols (proven by scientific analysis of Timur's skull in Samarkand), but pretty sure a lot of his troops were turkic.
4. Don't all the islamic faction buildings look the same, and ditto with all catholic factions? My computer already lags playing this game, I don't want it to lag anymore lol.
5. It'd be nice if they added in "Padisah" soundbit to replace "sultan" after 1350 but I don't think CA will do it.
6. I don't think kapikulus are THAT weak, they did pretty well in my campaign against high-age knights and such.
7. don't fully understand.
8. I agree that having a caliph will make playing islamic factions more involved. But one of the reasons I play Turks is so I don't have to listen to a pope/caliph! :laugh4:
9. You are correcto :2thumbsup:
10. If I recall correctly, sipahis were recruited using the devshirmeh system (same as janissaries) early on, and only later were they strictly recruited from ethnic Turks. Under the devshirmeh system they would have recruited orphan boys from conquered Christian lands? Not sure about that, but pretty sure Janissaries recruited Christian boys, but I believe they were made to convert to Islam before becoming a full member of janissaries.
Besides, I think there's more blatant inaccuracies than having palm trees in Anatolia and Arab-looking agent pictures, for example, how the hell do you mount a fairly large cannon on the back of an elephant?!?!? :dizzy2: Next thing you know they'll be giving frenchies breadsticks that shoot out cheese :laugh4:
Historical accuracy was never one of CA's strong points. :no:
If you look at the european factions, almost every one of them has some sort of unique traits/buildings/units/etc that aren't accurately reflected / not reflected at all in-game, so while you're right in most of your analysis of the turks, I'm afraid one could write up a similar article on every faction and request that it be made more unique. I'm sure CA have their limitations ;)
One thing I don't agree on is the analysis of turkish troops. I think they're quite close to being balanced relative to other factions. The thing with quoting historic events is that there are a lot of variables and you can very easily spin the details in your favor. I personally think the balance with european heavy infantry+cavalry superiority and eastern horse archer superiority is pretty good.
:sweatdrop: heh :) played the turks and let me tell u the mobility and versatility of the HA really wipes the floor with most europeean powers - also turks have the Janissary Heavy Infantry which is also one of the best units in the Game..
i think people expect too much historical accuracy from this (And other games) - try realism mods for closer depictions of the times
- what i think the game does is provide a valueble incentive for people to learn more about their past - CAs games and the modding community had the superb effect of getting me to read a lot of History Books over the years and games that stimulate this kind of curiosity should be held to high esteem (doesnt mean CA should leave so many bugs in tho :clown: )
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
12-29-2006, 05:06
History is not a selling point.
History is not a selling point.
History is not a selling point.
Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.
Muslim heavy cavalry is already much improved from MTW, where they didn't even have barded horses and got shot up rather easily. Once you get a decent general and some experience for them, they will easily beat Catholic knights.
600,000 crusaders is definitely inaccurate. All military accounts exaggerate troop strengths and casualties, even today. Ever notice how in England vs France military history, France consistently loses 30% more men even when they win the battle? Medieval accounts are defintely unreliable unless proven otherwise. History is written by the victors, and accounts from different sides will disagree greatly. The Turks claim to have defeated 600,000 Crusaders, but the French claim to have slaughtered 200,000 'Moors' in Spain, the English to have beaten 200,000 French knights at Agincourt, the Greeks (Macedonians really) to have annihilated 2 million Persians at Issus, and so on. It's ridiculous, to say the least.
600,000 fighting men in Medieval Europe? That is more men than the entire Imperial Roman army under Augustus, auxuiliaries included. Logistically, they could have won simply by eating up the whole Middle East. A more reasonable estimate would be 100,000, including a large percentage of camp followers and other non-combatants. Opposing them were 20,000-30,000 Turkish fighting men at most. Feudal armies could be very large, but only a tiny fraction of them would actually be hardened soldiers (knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries like longbowmen). The rest just scream and run around a lot when the fighting men are defeated.
5- Turkish faction leaders are called “Sultan” all the time. But from 1350, they were using the title “Padisah” meaning “Sultan of sultans”. This is a very common mistake made by the Europeans.
Many mistakes here. Padishah doesn't mean Sultan of Sultans. It means Great Sultan. It's Persian/Farci, broken down meaning Padi (great) shah (king). Sultan of Sultans would be Shahanshah (King of Kings). The title used by the Sassanid Perisans for their rulers. Also the ruler titles are set in stone. You either have to have Sultan all the way through of Great Sultan all the way through.
From my experience with Total War games CA always divides the factions into certain groups that have a similar base (animations, units, graphics etc) it makes it easier to develop the game. In M2TW the factions were divided by religion, so we have muslims, catholics and orthodox nations, the last actually include some catholic one. They have their unique aspects, but are still largely similar. Due to this fact each nation has a lot of inaccuracies and while they are certainly important, like it was pointed out in the original post, they are still too numerous to correct when one looks at all the factions.
PS. The sentance below was very amusing :laugh4:
Feudal armies could be very large, but only a tiny fraction of them would actually be hardened soldiers (knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries like longbowmen). The rest just scream and run around a lot when the fighting men are defeated.
way offtopic: Dont forget to mention a large contingent of professional feudal coconut clappers for dismounted knights in need of self esteem. :sweatdrop:
History is not a selling point.
History is not a selling point.
History is not a selling point.
Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.
Historical accuracy was never one of CA's strong points. :no:
Of course history is a major selling point, kind of hard to argue that about a game titled "Medieval Total War"
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but you can tell that some of the voice acting and piecing together for the Turks was rushed a bit. When you actually decide to fight a battle on the battle map, the army that you have selected says something. In some cases, the little one liners are too long for the "zoom in" which takes you to the battlemap, so you can't hear the whole thing.
Nasreddin
12-29-2006, 12:18
Hi, folks.
I just finished my Turkish campaign and I do not consider the Turks to be a weak faction. For sure the game is historically inaccurate. But I think its bearable.
For the Tursk themselves. I think they are the strongest Muslim faction in the game. At the beginning you have two good options with Sipahi-all-cav-Armies or an Army based on Ottoman Infantry with additional cav and some spears.
Later in the game you can rely on your Janissaries. An Army based on Janissary Musketmen supported by some spears and cav has proved to be deadly against all european factions in my campaign. It's really funny watching Heavy Knights being gunned down, while they try to rush into your lines.
What I am more sad about is that the Arab factions are really weak. I both tried the Moors and the Egyptians but stopped the game frustrated because of their meagre units.
the_ak07
12-29-2006, 19:16
And also, Timur was not a Turk, he was an ethnic Mongol living in traditional turkic region conquered by Mongols (proven by scientific analysis of Timur's skull in Samarkand), but pretty sure a lot of his troops were turkic. Timur's skull is not important for me. There is a quotation of his poem:
We are the ruler of turan (a name that is used to express all of the places where the Turks live), ,Emir-i Turkistan" "We are those who descend from Turkish ancestors." "We are the most ancient of all nations and the most improtant- leader of The Turks"
don't fully understand. In the game Akinjis are mercenaries and too weak. But they were not mercenaries they were a unit of Turkish army. If you want I can tell about them much.
If I recall correctly, sipahis were recruited to use the devshirmeh system (same as janissaries) early on, and only later were they strictly recruited from ethnic Turks. Under the devshirmeh system they would have recruited orphan boys from conquered Christian lands? Not sure about that, but pretty sure Janissaries recruited Christian boys, but I believe they were made to convert to Islam before becoming a full member of janissaries. Sipahis were consisted of only the Muslims. I mean a Christian could not be a sipahi. But Christians who later accepted Islam could. In the game some sipahis are said to have been christian. This is wrong. First Sipahis were recruited with the devsirmeh system but by the time of Mehmed 2 their ranks were only chosen from among the ethnic Turks who owned land within imperial borders.
Marquis of Roland
12-29-2006, 19:36
Sipahis were consisted of only the Muslims. I mean a Christian could not be a sipahi. But Christians who later accepted Islam could. In the game some sipahis are said to have been christian. This is wrong. First Sipahis were recruited with the devsirmeh system but by the time of Mehmed 2 their ranks were only chosen from among the ethnic Turks who owned land within imperial borders.
Yea thats what I was trying to say hehehe.
Tell me more about akinjis, they sound historically interesting.
If I may throw in a take here, wanted to put in a word.
Akincis (or is it akuncu, plural ?) were advance raiding parties used to disrupt the enemy on the borders of the empire. They would be sent in ahead of main armies led by the Sultan, Padishah, Grand Vizier or other leader...etc.. almost always, and very often they would also be acting alone under the authority of their own corps commanders.
Often these men, of Turk ethnicity, would be part of the same extended families or tribes (for want of a better word), led by a senior "family" member who would be the corps commander.
They would be responsible for interdicting supply lines, in enemy territory, pillaging the land, and generally causing chaos. They were light cavalrymen, but obviously well armed/equipped, and well skilled to operate in enemy territory and live off the enemy, as they had no supply lines of their own. One of their tasks was also flank and forward reconnaisance for main armies, and otherwise reconnaisance and intelligence gathering. They would be deployed in corps strength to harass and demoralise the enemy armies through constant strikes. This would make the task a lot easier for the main Seljuk or Ottoman armies when they engaged, later.
In the game I believe the unit concept is somewhat flawed in this perspective.
I use Turkomans as akinci.
Raziel17
12-29-2006, 19:49
Many mistakes here. Padishah doesn't mean Sultan of Sultans. It means Great Sultan. It's Persian/Farci, broken down meaning Padi (great) shah (king). Sultan of Sultans would be Shahanshah (King of Kings). The title used by the Sassanid Perisans for their rulers. Sorry for the explanation of the word "padisah". It is my mistake.
Also the ruler titles are set in stone. You either have to have Sultan all the way through of Great Sultan all the way through.(Sultan-Seljuks, Padisah-Ottomans) If CA can’t reflect the Turks of seperate states as they do the Italians, they have to pay attention to these differences. They cannot reflect a nations culture wrongly.
If I understand correctly, there are 3 main cultures in the game. Catholic, Othodox, and Middle Eastern.
Everything that falls under Middle Eastern is Arab-isied, inluding the Mongols. That's the way the game is made. A lot of the nations could be seperate cultures in game as in reality. To save that (huge amount of) work I think they have chosen to Arabise the Eastern nations.
You are (obviously) correct that Turks are not Arabs.
I would like to add the Mongols are not Arabs either, nor the Timurids.
They have also fallen under the same Arab umbrella culture in M2:TW. They have changed to voices to something similar to Shogun: Mongol Invasion voices, at least something different, which the Turks don't have. They sound very Arabic.
Actually to many people as long as you're Eastern you're Arab. If you're Persian, Turk, Afghan, Pakistani, Indonesian etc.. they don't know the difference. Of course this is completely false, to say that everyone is Arab (lol).
Steppe Merc
12-29-2006, 20:08
I agree 100%, the Turks are horribley misrepresented. I know a bit about the Turks, and as such I found I could not play as them because they were shown so porely.
There are no ghulams, and the very fact that they combine the Saljuqs and the Ottomans is ludicrous.
It is much better now than MTW part 1. I Have to give credit where it's due.
Raziel17
12-29-2006, 20:36
Tell me more about akinjis, they sound historically interesting.There were Akinjis in nearly all Turk states. They orginazed raids as far as Arab peninsula at the time of Gokturks (means sky Turks); mid-Byzantum at time of the Seljuks and mid-Europe at the time of the Ottomans. It was decided beforehand which akinji unit was supposed to loot exactly which place. Then they suddenly took action and turn back with lots of prisoners and loot even before their enemy could make out what was going on. When they were in enough numbers, they wouldn’t even hesitate to go for a pitched battle. They even could conquer cities by themselves. For example Mihaloglu Ali Pasha, conquered the city of Varadin as well as looting it with his 18 000 akinjis. This outsanding commander crossed the Tuna for exactly for 330 times.(source : Ottoman history records) They acted as a part of the army when Padisah was on a campaign. A very useful unit… Unfortunately they are very weak and weird in the game(plus mercenaries).
3- Military units are very weak. As a consequence, the Seljuks who resisted many Crusades are much weaker than in fact. During the First Crusade, six hundred thousand Crusade soldiers entering Anatolia left as a force of only forty thousand.
Thats baloney. There were no 600,000 man armies in the middle ages - there was no logistic capability to support that many troops in one army on campaign. The First Crusade kicked butt, Turk and Arab. First they took the Seljuk capital, which was Nicea, then they took Antioch. How'd they do that if the Seljuks were so overwhelmingly powerful? They took their capital, dammit!
600.000 is indeed nonsense. It is the number mentioned by Fulcher of Chartres and Albert of Aix, but can be discounted as a gross exxageration for dramatic effect.
Runciman (still considered the authorative work on the crusades by many historians) estimates the total strength of the first crusade at about 4500 cavalry and 30.000 infantry when assembled near Constantinople.
This is a number that can be properly supported by primary and secondary sources.
the_ak07
12-29-2006, 21:40
Thats baloney. There were no 600,000 man armies in the middle ages - there was no logistic capability to support that many troops in one army on campaign. The First Crusade kicked butt, Turk and Arab. First they took the Seljuk capital, which was Nicea, then they took Antioch. How'd they do that if the Seljuks were so overwhelmingly powerful? They took their capital, dammit!
Hey watch it Grifman.:whip: There may not have been as many as 600,000 men but there were on of the biggest armies in history.And the army lost at least%80 of its soldiers. The first Crusade was a baloney:balloon2: too as the others. They took Nicea but guess what then? The Seljuks captured it immediately afterwards. The Seljuks had the second most powerful units of that era(after german cavalry knights). Knowing your mistake is the first step to correct it-your bein powerless!
by the way u wrote "600,000 man" yeah the plural form of "man" is "man" again.:idea2:
I can give English lectures for 25$ per hour!!!
lol, you wouldn't happen to have any reliable sources to support all these facts would you?
By the way, "600,000 man army" (or 600,000-man, not too sure on the grammar) is the correct way of stating it. I do English lectures for $20/hr :laugh4:
the_ak07
12-29-2006, 22:29
lol, you wouldn't happen to have any reliable sources to support all these facts would you?
By the way, "600,000 man army" (or 600,000-man, not too sure on the grammar) is the correct way of stating it. I do English lectures for $20/hr :laugh4:
I do have reliable Turkish sources.It's normal that the numbers are variable.but it's a fact that the Europeans did all they could:laugh4: to launch that Crusade!
Grifman exactly wrote: "Thats baloney. There were no 600,000 man armies in the middle ages" See? There are hyphens which means the sentence is grammatically wrong.If he said 600,000-man-army that would be correct.But he didn't ,so I'm the one who's right.
I do English lectures for $15.U'd better hurry as u have a long way to go!!!:book:
During the First Crusade, six hundred thousand Crusade soldiers entering Anatolia left as a force of only forty thousand. This proves the strength of The Seljuk Empire
Oh please, spare me the chest thumping about how awesome the Turks were. I'm sure everyone has their pet faction they think should be able to rip everyone else to shreds. Complaining that 'your' faction isn't as strong in the game as it was historically is silly. Making it an exact replica of historical strengths and weaknesses would be terribly boring and we'd all just play Spain and England.
And your 600,000 number for the crusades is wildly overinflated. I don't know what useless propaganda you have been reading, but bear in mind many Crusader armies fell apart due to supply problems and infighting amongst the Crusaders or fighting with the Byzantines long before they even *got* to the Turks.
They cannot reflect a nations culture wrongly.
Uh, guess again. Name one culture or religion in the game you feel is represented 100% accurately.
There may not have been as many as 600,000 men but there were on of the biggest armies in history.
Not even close. In fact, even if they were 600,000 strong they would be far from being one of the biggest armies in history. I think you may need to expand your scope a bit more: Medieval armies, by and large were *not* very large.
but it's a fact that the Europeans did all they could to launch that Crusade!
Mmmm also no. It's amazing just how disjointed and unorganized the crusades were. The Europeans were so far from being united on this that it isn't even funny. Crusades got sidetracked butchering Jews and fighting with the Byzantines, for crying out loud.
The first Crusade was a baloney
OK, I think we can see where you are coming from here. You have a personal vendetta against crusades. Fine. No problem. But you don't need to bring that here. This is a forum about a game loosely based on the medieval era, not an arena for debating the moral pros and cons of the crusades.
I do English lectures for $15.U'd better hurry as u have
It's 'you' not 'u'. That's certainly a far more egregious mistake than leaving a hyphen out of 600,000 man army.
Steppe Merc
12-29-2006, 23:36
Anyone who thinks that striving for historical accuracy would be boring is simply wrong. There are far more intersting people and soldiers in history than CA represents.
However representing them historically would reflect all factions weaknesses as well as strengths. And at the time of the Crusades, the Saljuq's training of their ghulams had declined. The Saljuqs (calling them Turks is silly, there were many Turkic peoples in the world at the time), would not be an easy faction to play as, mainly due to both the Crusaders and the fact many of their own men often were mutinous.
Oh, and 600,000 men is an insanley large number... now way could they have fielded that many men.
@OP: If those 10 points are the worst historical inaccuracies you can find in this game, consider yourself lucky. If you would disagree with this, just read up a bit on the actual development of gunpowder weapons, of the efficiency of longbows vs crossbows, of archers vs. infantry etc. Or just stare at the Artillery Elephants for a few minutes.
This game is great fun, but it's no more realistic than your average Hollywood movie. The term "based on a true story" is really fitting.
Frankly, in a game where berber camel gunners use 19th century afghan rifles(as far as I can tell, anyway), elephants run around with artillery pieces on their backs, arquebusiers actually kill people, and it takes a year to move a distance that would in reality have taken weeks(to mention but a few flaws), is it really the naming of one factions' leader as "Sultan" rather than "Great Sultan" that tilts the whole into the realms of absurdity?
It's a cliché, but it's largely true: this is a game, not a simulator. I'm confident that fun-ness and cool-ness was always a priority ahead of historical accuracy.
That being said, I do think it's a good thing to bring up in-game inaccuracies. It gives all the ambitious modders something to do :yes:
the_ak07
12-30-2006, 00:55
And your 600,000 number for the crusades is wildly overinflated. I don't know what useless propaganda you have been reading, but bear in mind many Crusader armies fell apart due to supply problems and infighting amongst the Crusaders or fighting with the Byzantines long before they even *got* to the Turks.
Uh, guess again. Name one culture or religion in the game you feel is represented 100% accurately.
Mmmm also no. It's amazing just how disjointed and unorganized the crusades were. The Europeans were so far from being united on this that it isn't even funny. Crusades got sidetracked butchering Jews and fighting with the Byzantines, for crying out loud.
It's 'you' not 'u'. That's certainly a far more egregious mistake than leaving a hyphen out of 600,000 man army.
The number may be exaggerated in Turkish sources,there probably was a problem or something.
Crusader armies' falling apart proves their unorganization. An army setting out for Jersualem got stuck even before reaching ISTANBUL.:laugh4:
And "u" thing...While even the Prime Minister of England and president of the US uses the word "gotta",there is nothing wrong with an innocent abbrevation.But when you say 600,000 man army,even my 6-year-old cousin (see the hyphens?)would laugh at that.
Hey no more discounts!!!Still for 15$!!!
Let's keep this friendly and respectful, everyone. ~:grouphug:
BTW, I am all in favour of debating history at the Citadel, but English lessons are off-topic.
We could keep debating about rifle inconsistencies, favourite factions and the degeneration of English grammar for as long as we like, but that'd be, quite frankly, stupid.
As econ pointed out, we're all quite free to debate history here, but we are not free to simply say "my favourite faction is better than yours - so there!", and nor are we free to criticise other members simply because we disagree with them.
We're looking for a nice, civilised debate here, not a mob ;)
To the topic at hand (and here i'm stopping myself from mentioning that there's no such word as 'unorganisation'), it's quite likely that the numbers of the crusading forces were exaggerated both to increase the glory felt through victory and reduce the shame of defeat.
As to the crusaders falling apart, you have to remember that we're talking about diverse armies consisting of both professional troops and volunteers (bear with me, my history is a bit shaky) from literally a dozen european kingdoms united only by a flaky goal and without a central leadership facing off against a united, professional army in the Turkish.
The only reason the crusades were as successful as they were was that the Muslims were disorganised - once they obtained a central leadership it all came crumbling down.
And correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't recall any cases of a crusade falling to pieces before reaching Constantinople - the (fourth?) one may have taken the city, but i don't know of any that failed to make it that far...
my 2c
I do have reliable Turkish sources.
How would the Turks know? Did they have access to the Crusader records, as if they were any? Did they take a headcount as they marched by? Come on, get serious. You just quoted 600,000, now you back off of that when challenged, but say that you have "reliable" Turkish sources. Which ones - the ones that told you 600,000 or the ones that you now say are lower!
Quite a few crusades failed to even get out of Europe. The Fourth Crusade in particular ended up sacking Constantinople after getting involved in local politics. Some got sidetracked killing Jews, pagans or rival Catholics.
No professional troops (in the modern sense) in Medieval times, but I suppose you can count the knights and mercenaries as 'professionals'. Professional armies require centralized taxation and are controlled directly by the crown. They are also uniformly equipped, organized and drilled. Feudal armies of the Middle Ages are much looser affairs; mismatched groupings of regional levies around a very tiny core of elite fighting men that may not even like each other, plus a huge assortment of camp followers and servants that do nothing but slow the march down and add to the number of mouths to feed. While a feudal army can look very impressive on account of its sheer size, its actual combat effectiveness is often rather poor when confronted with a more disciplined force. So, when you see suspiciously large troop strengths in any historical account, the esteemed and ancient chronicler may not only be inflating the figure, he may also be counting in all the noncombatants as well. Defeating 5,000 squabbling men-at-arms plus 595,000 cheerleaders and water-carriers doesn't sound quite as glamorous as defeating 600,000 glorious paragons of knightly virtue, does it?
To be fair, I don't think the Turks of Asia Minor were very united or professional at this time either. Their nucleus of fighting men was no greater than that available to the crusaders and their military organization was still basically feudal, with all its problems. The Ottoman army contained some professionals, but that comes much later and under completely different management, so to speak.
Snoil The Mighty
12-30-2006, 05:56
This is a game, it is not Peabody's Wayback Machine. If you're so concerned about historical accuracy, you would be pointing out the silliness of the "rebels" who are everywhere, and rightfully so. It's greatest of all inaccuracies. Who were all these provinces rebelling against? And why are they automatically at war with with every titled faction, all the time, with no exceptions for any reason? I doubt the people of Antwerp were really at war with the Turks, just as an example, but there they are, rebels at war with every titled faction. Or in fact a rebel captain who leaves his army outside of York, also at war with the Turks and everyone else. That's a bit more of an inaccuracy than not migrating the title of the Sultan to uber-Sultan. And there are many, many other inaccuracies elsewhere, both within each faction or the game as a whole. As I read the OP, while it progressed it sounded more like you are upset that the Turks are not the uberest of all ubers! with the mightiest soldiers! and grandest titles!, while using "inaccuracies" as a foil for your argument. Bow before Turkey or you are inaccurate!!! :smash: If you want a game in which Turkey wins every time, modify a few numbers make the titles suprememly super-uber, dress the animations of the Caliphs in jewels and gold, put the game on autopilot as you watch Turkish armies run roughshod over every foe with supreme ease and enjoy yourself! Fortunately CA makes the games easy to mod. :beam:
This is a game, and the game is about re-writing history (preferably with your own stamp of greatness of course!), not retelling it. To make the game fun and cool for everyone, not just fans of the janissaries, the factions are balanced with strengths and weaknesses-some with historical basis, some not. For all factions. Enjoy the game or don't as you see fit, however all the winning conditions for every faction involve completely ahistorical outcomes. Including the Turkish faction. I mean historically, once the Turks get to Vienna, should they not be obliterated? Hope that the inaccuracte winning condition doesn't keep you from winning the game, though. I had an absolute blast running my Jannisaries down the Rhine personally! That Viennese bulwark didn't stop us this time! :2thumbsup:
Hey watch it Grifman. There may not have been as many as 600,000 men but there were on of the biggest armies in history.
First it was 600,000, now it's just one of the "biggest armies" in history. How do you know? Medieval numbers are notoriously unreliable, and most armies of that age were relatively small, compared with either ancient or more modern armies. Please quantify the number for me and others so we can evaluate your claim.
And the army lost at least%80 of its soldiers.
Even if true, it wasn't from the Turks. Most of their losses were due to lack of supplies and water. In battle, they defeated the Turks at Nicaea, Dorylaeum and another battle later on. And they finally defeated them at Antioch. So the Turks were 0 and 4 vs the First Crusade.
The first Crusade was a baloney
I'm certain the Turks of the time wished that were so, but history says otherwise. After the First Crusade, the Byzantines took advantage of the weakness of the Turks and rolled back many of their previous gains such as Nicaea. Where most of Asia Minor had been held by the Turks previous to the Crusade, after the Crusade Alexius was able to retake most of coastal Asia Minor. Sorry to have to pull history on you :)
They took Nicea but guess what then? The Seljuks captured it immediately afterwards.
I don't think that is true. Please provide a reference. But even if that were true, it speaks more of the weakness of the Byzantines not the Crusaders, as the Byzants took possession of the city.
The Seljuks had the second most powerful units of that era(after german cavalry knights).
Since we aren't discussing the merits of Seljuk cavalry vs. Western knights, this is irrelevant.
Knowing your mistake is the first step to correct it-your bein powerless!
A wise position to take given the historical mistakes you've made :)
by the way u wrote "600,000 man" yeah the plural form of "man" is "man" again.
Not in the way I used it.
I can give English lectures for 25$ per hour!!!
Uh, don't give up your day job to teach either history OR English.
Raziel17
12-30-2006, 12:10
I want to say that we haven’t done any historical mistake. As we said before numbers are not important. 600,000 or 300,000 . This not our issue and we can never verify that. Here I am trying to say that Anatolia Seljuks were very successful against the Crusades despite they managed to take Jerusalem.(Seljuks were not beaten four times. They withdrew and tried guerilla warfare so Crusades suffered big damages. If you look at the second Crusade, you can see that even an Anatolia Seljuk Empire facing with many diffuculties could manage to beat Crusades. ) Nobody can deny that Crusades’ army was very big. If it was’nt so, they would not manage to pass all this way with so many wars. If you want to discuss about Crusades more , you can open a new thread about them. Please try to comment on other topics.:2thumbsup:
It was said that our culture was represented 100& accurately by Ulstan. I don’t agree with him. We have written this writing because our culture and army were showed wrongly. We are just like the Arabs and our soldiers are looking like an Arab soldier. If you are making a game with the name of “Medieval” you have to be careful about these details. Anatolia is being shown as a desert on main map. If we had made this game and showed England as a desert with palm trees, and titled England king as kaiser, there would be a storm of protests. That can be only a game but many people are playing it and they are learning wrong informations about us. For example, maybe many people will not learn the truth about the word” janissery”.
Ak07, please don’t give English lectures.:laugh4: There is no need for this...
Faenaris
12-30-2006, 13:11
I'm way off-topic with this first part, but:
I study English Language at my university and I asked my professor English Grammar about the usage of hyphens. She said that not even the Brits have a clear rule regarding hyphens. One grammar book can give rule A, another can give a rule B. The Brits don't mind hyphen mistakes, simply because they don't know what is right or what is wrong. ~:) Just wanted to say that, my language-sense forced me to type this. :grin:
Regarding the Crusades, Seljuks and other things:
We cannot trust ANY source completely. Throughout history, it is shown that people exagerate to make victories (or defeats) more impressive. Even the most respected historians (like Polybius) have changed their accounts one way or another. So, the only way to actually know if there was a 600.000 army is to go back in time and see for ourselves.
I do think 600.000 is a bit too much, medieval warfare was very low-scale and there simply wasn't any experience dealing with very large numbers. And everyone knows that there was a constant power-struggle for control, but what you'd exspect from all those nobles and princes? Just take a look at your political system, you see nothing but fighting there, I'm sure. ~:) Now, my opinion on the feudal system is just that: my opinion. It is based on writings from history books I have read and those in turn are translations and interpretations from original texts. And to top it all, they are "modern" interpretations, because we cannot think like a true medieval person. Like I said, you can't trust any source completely, so, I might be completely wrong regarding my opinion. ~:) But I'm disgressing ...
To sum up, lads (and lasses), please don't start debeating "heatedly" because of a number, since nobody can confirm it or deny it for 100%.
Barbarossa82
12-30-2006, 13:17
I can give English lectures for 25$ per hour!!!
That's fortunate, since you won't be getting a job giving history lectures at any price.
The first crusade was aimed at the Holy Land, not the Turks. The Crusaders passed through Anatolia accompanied by Byzantine soldiers, and the Turkish garrison of Nicea surrendered to the Byzantines in order to avoid being captured by the Crusaders. The Byzantines accepted and forbade the Crusaders to enter, which didn't do much for catholic/orthodox relations.
The Crusaders left Anatolia, passed down into the Levant, and took Antioch and then Jerusalem, where they carried out a huge massacre of the population. The Crusade ended with the establishment of the Crusader States - Jerusalem, Edessa, Tripoli and Antioch. For the turks to have "recaptured Nicea" is hardly testament to their incomporable military strength, since it was only a side-show to the main purpose of the crusade.
P.S. I'm not disputing what you say about the Turks being poorly/wrongly portrayed in the game, that's a fair point.
The issue, Sadiqs of the org, is not about numbers and this that.
The orginal poster has raised issue with the manner of representation for the Turks.
edit: Sadiqs used affectionately, using the famous omnipotent Sadiq from the game.
The issue, Sadiqs of the org, is not about numbers and this that.
The orginal poster has raised issue with the manner of representation for the Turks.
People have different standards for what they can accept in terms of realism in a game, I am not sure there is much to be gained from debating issues like the derivation of the word janissary (it seems clear CA made a howler there, but it is also clear it won't not spoil most non-Turkish gamers enjoyment of the game).
How do historically minded people who play the Turks feel about how they play in the game?
For what it's worth, I just had my first battle with the Turks playing as English with them. They seemed pretty good and suitably characterful to me. It was around 1260 and I was trying to relieve a Aleppo with a scratch army that sadly lacked longbows or swords (the English mainstays). The Turks camped on a nice hill, with Akinjis (sp?) on the flanks. My knights and Turcomans struggled to best the Akinjis, who skirmished well exacting a terrible tole on my crusader knights. My spears predictably failed to push the Turkish spears off the hill (on VH battles), despite my now very depleted knights coming in support. The Turks had a few decent armoured lancer types who coped well with my knights. I lost horribly. It was great. It felt like a real medieval battle (to someone with only a beer and pretzels knowledge of the period). And indeed my entire struggle to hold onto my budding crusader kingdoms as England has felt wonderfully characterful and nicely challenging. Haven't even taken Jerusalem or met a Mongol/Timurid either. :scared:
Inquirer
12-30-2006, 14:16
I agree with Sinan. On the other hand i claim that Turkish generals' avatars are "disaster". Beyond being a muslim nation, the Turkish tribes moved into Asia Minor and Middle east from "Middle Asia (Far East)" since second half of 11th century. They had very different culture comparing arabic nations. (More likely to look like "Chinese" or "Mongol" by phsycal appearance) Those "dark and fearsome" men in this game can not be represented as Turks to my mind. Of course CA "may" have made mistake standing Catholic nations respectivly. But... They should have studied more on Turks...
P.S: Please dont recognize my thoughts as if baiting... No one desires flame bait in this community. However everyone ought to respect other peoples' ideas. I want to admire everybody in this community for sharing their ideas :book: :idea2:
people should check their history books - and then those of your neighbours - see how every nation tends to write its own history in its favour even when it not neccesarily wasnt - i think its normal (i dont blame anybody) and helps build national pride in the classroom but after a certain age people have to come to their senses and see it for what it is and not as facts.
i'm telling you all this because not so long ago i got the chance to compare the history taught in turkey with that taught in romania (my family came to Romania lnog time ago from istambul) and in that from grece... things are different totally POVish and tend to leave unconfortable things out. what i'm trying to say is: excercise reason and look at the context (this is a game not an academic learning tool or smth).
people are right if game factions reflected precisely the strength of actual historical factions (even with ballenced non-POV accounts) it would be boring - its still a game, use your imagination, mod, roleplay - enjoy.
Raziel17
12-30-2006, 14:32
[QUOTE=Inquirer]They had very different culture comparing arabic nations. (More likely to look like "Chinese" or "Mongol" by phsycal appearance) QUOTE]
In fact the Turks did not look like chinese or mongol peoples. The Turks who were living together with Mongols, had some mongoloid property. But the others did not. I can suggest you the book "National Culture" of Ibrahim Kafesoglu for this subject :book: (If you know Turkish:beam: ). But it is true that tribes migrating to Anatolia had very different culture and they were very different from Arabs.
Slug For A Butt
12-30-2006, 14:46
The number may be exaggerated in Turkish sources,there probably was a problem or something.
Crusader armies' falling apart proves their unorganization. An army setting out for Jersualem got stuck even before reaching ISTANBUL.:laugh4:
And "u" thing...While even the Prime Minister of England and president of the US uses the word "gotta",there is nothing wrong with an innocent abbrevation.But when you say 600,000 man army,even my 6-year-old cousin (see the hyphens?)would laugh at that.
Hey no more discounts!!!Still for 15$!!!
Sigh... ak07 please provide your evidence for insinuating that the English PM uses the wird "gotta". :inquisitive:
Also, he was correct in saying "600,000 man army", if you were English and hence used English as your first language you would know that. Anyone can make a grammatical error, but you are not making an error. You are making a fool of yourself.
Obviously your English grammar is a bad as that chip you carry on your shoulder. Please do not try to teach native English people with good grammar how to bastardise the language. That is what you are trying to do.
I will give you lessons for free in order that you may justify that $15 (yes, it should be $15... not 15$ ~:rolleyes: ) price tag.
Come on gents. Focus on the topic and quit the petty bickering.
This could be an interesting learning discussion.
The issue, Sadiqs of the org, is not about numbers and this that.
The orginal poster has raised issue with the manner of representation for the Turks.
I have no problem with the OP's intent - it is the dubious set of "facts" that he is using to justify his position that I am disputing. His claims are inaccurate at best, outlandish at worst.
people should check their history books - and then those of your neighbours - see how every nation tends to write its own history in its favour even when it not neccesarily wasnt -
Uh, what do you do when it isn't your own nations history that you're reading about? Can I trust what an American history books says about the Hundred Years War? Or the Greek-Persian Wars?
The Wizard
12-30-2006, 18:02
Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.
Eh?
It took EB -- a development team made out of volunteers without pay -- about one and a half to two years to make a historically accurate game. We're talking modders, not professionally educated, spending their free time to make stuff. Sure, they started with an existing foundation, but that one was so ill-suited we had to throw tons out.
Compare that to the (well-)paid, professional, 9-to-5 Creative Assembly developers. Surely they could pump out something historically accurate and fun to play (which EB is, infinitely more so than RTW) within the deadlines demanded in the software manufacturing market if a bunch of amateurs could do it?
And also, Timur was not a Turk, he was an ethnic Mongol living in traditional turkic region conquered by Mongols (proven by scientific analysis of Timur's skull in Samarkand), but pretty sure a lot of his troops were turkic.
Timur was a Turk, or at least a Turcoman -- he spoke a Turkic language and had a very shaky connection to Chinggis Khan indeed. Phrenology, I hope, isn't an argument to anybody with some measure of grey matter in between his shoulders.
P.S. What the man says is correct. Numbers are insignificant and of lesser value than the truth they serve. What that means? That you should stop number crunching and start listening to what he has to say, which is not to be disputed.
No bickering please. I am going to edit out any material I find unpleasant, unfriendly or off-topic from this point on.
Uh, what do you do when it isn't your own nations history that you're reading about? Can I trust what an American history books says about the Hundred Years War? Or the Greek-Persian Wars?
:balloon2: I wasnt suggesting you should read from your neighbours - i'm sorry if i didnt express myself correctly - i just wanted to say that each nation writes their own history books and in the process some things geta spin.
- furthermore most things taken as historical fact are are due to more than one account and proof from different sources.
Can I trust what an American history books says about the Hundred Years War?
I'm sorry i still think u didnt get my point. Lets take the Hundred Years War - are both the french and the british accounts and attitude towards the events is identical in classroom books ? can you trust your state authority to give you the right information without proof or bias ?
i apologize as i realise this is somewhat offtopic also apologize if i'm not making much sense - i like this thread a lot somehow :) but i'm gonna stop writing in it so as to not seem inflamatory + i have a feeling that my english sux :)
noodles, i think i understand what you're trying to say, and i agree with it.
What's not coming through clearly is that you must use a diversity of sources in order to prove and/or trust anything.
In this case both sides of the arguement have been quoting from a single point of view that is, as always, slanted to their own side.
Unbiased history is very rare and that's why everything has to be taken in isolation.
I agree with Sinan. On the other hand i claim that Turkish generals' avatars are "disaster". Beyond being a muslim nation, the Turkish tribes moved into Asia Minor and Middle east from "Middle Asia (Far East)" since second half of 11th century. They had very different culture comparing arabic nations. (More likely to look like "Chinese" or "Mongol" by phsycal appearance) Those "dark and fearsome" men in this game can not be represented as Turks to my mind. Of course CA "may" have made mistake standing Catholic nations respectivly. But... They should have studied more on Turks...
P.S: Please dont recognize my thoughts as if baiting... No one desires flame bait in this community. However everyone ought to respect other peoples' ideas. I want to admire everybody in this community for sharing their ideas :book: :idea2:
it is strange that the mongols and timurits are also arabic...
it would be cool if the turks, mongols, timurits had the same kind of avatars for their generals, leaders etc.
And the leaders should be called khan or amir? and in the late game period Sultan.
btw. the first time i klicked on an aztec warrior he also had a arabic dialect :S
and in german version you see some english words like "ivory" instead of Elfenbein :)
Durallan
12-31-2006, 02:41
First of all, It is just a game. Its not terribly historic because you can warp so much of history and end up with any one faction owning all of europe and anywhere else they care to fight. That isn't very realistic. That aside I don't care for the inconsistencies, there was only so much they could do about historic events because you don't know what the players are going to try and do. I keep in mind that Medieval 2 is just a game and a fun one. I love being able to build empires and with a few more tweaks M2TW could be great!
I just think this is taking things a little overboard for a game:balloon2: , but thats just me. Remember to have fun when getting into discussions likke this or things get nasty :skull: :book:
The Wizard
12-31-2006, 03:03
First of all, It is just a game. Its not terribly historic because you can warp so much of history and end up with any one faction owning all of europe and anywhere else they care to fight. That isn't very realistic.
You base yourself on an incorrect assumption.
What matters is the outset, what is handed to you at the beginning of each scenario -- that is to say Early, High and Late. Everything at that beginning should be just like it was in real life, as far as we can reconstruct it. With those tools given to you, the choice is yours what to do... follow history, or follow loftier ambitions?
You take it from there. You are thrust into the position of kings and emperors, caliphs and sultans, and you must decide as they did.
This is the essence of a game like this, and the masters of it are Paradox Entertainment. Their advantage in this over CA, however, is that a Paradox game does not contain any direct combat. In this, for sake of simplicity, the historical military units, their equipment, and their tactics should maintain strict adherence to history, just as the starting positions in each scenario do.
Only in this way can you truly presume to have made a game in which the player is thrust before the same crossroads that the great leaders of history were thrust before.
Plus, it's hella fun. :wacko:
Slug For A Butt
12-31-2006, 03:16
It's beginning to sound a little like Turkey vs The Rest Of The Civilised World.
One thing Bakma, since when has Cologne been a Turkish state?
Dammit, when can I start to be proud of being English? No one seems to let me. :hide:
Durallan
12-31-2006, 05:28
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that its a game, relax and don't take it so seriously. If they said on the Medieval 2 box that this would be a politically, technically, historically correct simulation of medieval warfare and the political intrigue that went with it, then you would probably have a case to get so upset at them about it. They do the game to make money and to have fun making it and to enjoy seeing people playing the game they made. Unfortunately they don't have 30 years to spend researching each faction's history, where they came from how they arose and everything else. Thats alot to ask of a group of people who are making a game let alone any one person.
They don't make the game to be so historically correct that your eyes will water reading large pages of text about what happened before the time you have started in. I'm just playing a great game that is really entertaining except for a fair few niggles.
Now I don't really care that much about it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start seeing spells and mages and monsters from the underworld appearing in the next expansion but its not that important to get every single fact right when it is only a game. Plus half of history is about tales that people heard, some of it is first person evidence the rest is third person evidence.
One of the best things about Medieval 2 is its moddability, at least thats what I like calling it. If you really want to make everything absolutely historically, politically and techinally correct, make a mod! I'm not sure how far you can get with it but I'm sure its possible.
At least then it will be constructive and you can show everyone else and CA how much better an apparently historically correct game would be (because nobody knows for absolute certainty unless they lived in that time period.)
Raziel17
12-31-2006, 08:55
Of course this is a game, not a history book but its subject is history. We are not expecting it to be correct compeletely or play a game that is progressing just like in history books. However there are some mistakes that souldn't have been made even in a game. For example Turkish names. Everybody knows that Nuzhet ed-Devlah can not be a Turk name. Instead of this they could use names such as Kilijarslan, Alparslan, Porsuk, Alptegin etc. and finding these names doesn't take 30 years or instead of researching for these they could ask for Totalwar fans help. But they didn't do anything and now the game is full of bad mistakes. These mistakes is not only for Turkish faction, also other factions Like Mongols or Timurids have some mistakes. In my opinion they should be corrected by the producers of the game not by modders. A small patch can be acceptable.
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
12-31-2006, 11:56
Eh?
It took EB -- a development team made out of volunteers without pay -- about one and a half to two years to make a historically accurate game. We're talking modders, not professionally educated, spending their free time to make stuff. Sure, they started with an existing foundation, but that one was so ill-suited we had to throw tons out.
Compare that to the (well-)paid, professional, 9-to-5 Creative Assembly developers. Surely they could pump out something historically accurate and fun to play (which EB is, infinitely more so than RTW) within the deadlines demanded in the software manufacturing market if a bunch of amateurs could do it?
Yes. It took EB developers one and a half to two years to mod a game that spent 3 years or more in development just to make it mostly historically accurate. Eb didn't *make* the game, they just took a game that was already made, changed some numbers in a file, and made some new models. Of course, I'm simplifying it, but the point is they didn't build an engine, and they didn't have to build their game from the very first line of code. The metaphor doesn't work.
You think game developers work 9-5 shifts? Dang. Talk to someone who works in the industry, man. Many developers have to stay overnight, unpaid, in order to finish on time. During the closing days of development, most developers get into a crunch, where they might work for an entire day or more at a time. It's a rather inglorious existance, most of the time.
Creating an entirely historically accurate game is not an easy undertaking, and the rewards of the finished product are almost nil. First of all, a 100% historically accurate game is aiming for the same target audience that watches the History Channel and reads famous historical works on a regular basis, which is a woefully small percentage of the population. The costs of developing such a huge game would greatly outweigh the profits of selling it.
Look at Medieval 2. It took about a year and a half to two years to develop, and it was built on pre-existing engine that took another three years to make. And just look at all the "egregious" historical inaccuracies we can all come up with after 5 years of development. Seriously, I think that addressing the fact that AI-controlled armies never fight back is a much bigger issue than making sure you got the title for the 14th-century Turkish ruler correct. There are much bigger issues that need to come before historical accuracy.
Splitting factions up into cultures is necessary. Do you really expect CA to individually create 21 different factions with exact, flawless, spot-on historical accuracy? It's an absolutely absurd expectation. There's neither the time nor the money to do so. Nor is it even a real factor in the face of the many gameplay problems and bugs the game is currently facing. Seriously, when they fix the AI never fighting back, my units not responding to orders, and wanton AI stack spammage, then I might, just might, start to care about the historical implications behind the effectiveness of Sipahis versus Crusader Knights.
Even if a company does try to make a historically accurate game, you're still going to find problems with how they portrayed history, because history does not translate into a game. It's not that easy. Many units are entirely theoretical, and sometimes the military of an entire tribe or significant regional power is represented by one or two units, cases in point being Tuareg Heavy Spearmen (the Tuareg were a fairly major tribe) and, even better, the Numidian cavalry from RTW. Numidia was a fairly powerful realm, and it seems odd that that the nation's entire military power is represented by a single unit of javelin-throwing light cavalry. If you wanted to make everything historically accurate, then the game would have a thousand different units. Oh, we need to differentiate between Sipahis in the 14th century as opposed to the Sipahis that were raised by the Askljac;na98a35 system of land grants and taxation in the 13.5th century, because the latter incarnation of Sipahis wore a red uniform, while the former wore scarlet! Thus we have to create two separate units, otherwise it's historically inaccurate! Oh NOES!
My point is that historical accuracy is impractical and does not sell in the commerical world, and that is what Medieval 2 Total War is - a commercial product.
Raziel17
12-31-2006, 12:27
If you wanted to make everything historically accurate, then the game would have a thousand different units. Oh, we need to differentiate between Sipahis in the 14th century as opposed to the Sipahis that were raised by the Askljac;na98a35 system of land grants and taxation in the 13.5th century, because the latter incarnation of Sipahis wore a red uniform, while the former wore scarlet! Thus we have to create two separate units, otherwise it's historically inaccurate! Oh NOES!Aren't you reading messages or aren't you able to understand them. I am writing again, read carefully:
--Of course this is a game, not a history book but its subject is history. We are not expecting it to be correct compeletely or play a game that is progressing just like in history books. However there are some mistakes that souldn't have been made even in a game. For example Turkish names. Everybody knows that Nuzhet ed-Devlah can not be a Turk name. Instead of this they could use names such as Kilijarslan, Alparslan, Porsuk, Alptegin etc. and finding these names doesn't take 30 years or instead of researching for these they could ask for Totalwar fans help. But they didn't do anything and now the game is full of bad mistakes.--
Now think again, hope you understand that we aren't talking about 100% accuracy, we are talking about the mistakes which were made obviously and can be corrected easily.
Durallan
12-31-2006, 13:53
I agree with you about the names, there are some definite errors there, but some people in this thread did go a wee bit overboard I think. I know you would like them corrected but I don't know if it will happen. It all depends on what comes out of the February patch oh and happy new year everyone!
Everybody knows that Nuzhet ed-Devlah can not be a Turk name.
I suspect you mean "every Turk knows that", not "everybody". I am afraid most Brits like me, and probably the Ozzie CA developers are totally unaware of it. Things like names of random fictional figures are probably very low on a game designer's priorities - conjuring up lists is probably something they give to the new kid who makes the coffee - and arguably rightly so. Should they have gone and looked for a Turkish medieval historian to check something like that? Seriously, if I were CA, I would use their limited time and money for other things.
The upside is that is probably very easy to correct by modding. And teams like EB have done a great job of getting historians to check out details like that, even with languages that are long dead.
I would focus your complaints on big things, not names or the derivations of them. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. My question to Turkish players is more functional: does the M2TW Turkish army play in a reasonably authentic way? My, not very knowledgeable, impression is that seems about as historically accurate as most other factions (way better than the Russians, for example) and not too bad for a mainstream strategy game. I haven't picked up any major complaints on that angle in this thread so far. But, as I said before, we all have our own standards for what we can accept in terms of historical accuracy.
Aren't you reading messages or aren't you able to understand them. I am writing again, read carefully:
Comments like this are unnecessary - no bickering or hectoring, please.
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
12-31-2006, 14:50
Aren't you reading messages or aren't you able to understand them. I am writing again, read carefully:
--Of course this is a game, not a history book but its subject is history. We are not expecting it to be correct compeletely or play a game that is progressing just like in history books. However there are some mistakes that souldn't have been made even in a game. For example Turkish names. Everybody knows that Nuzhet ed-Devlah can not be a Turk name. Instead of this they could use names such as Kilijarslan, Alparslan, Porsuk, Alptegin etc. and finding these names doesn't take 30 years or instead of researching for these they could ask for Totalwar fans help. But they didn't do anything and now the game is full of bad mistakes.--
Now think again, hope you understand that we aren't talking about 100% accuracy, we are talking about the mistakes which were made obviously and can be corrected easily.
Well, Killer, I was kind of responding to the post I quoted, and posts similiar to it, not yours specifically, even though I do think some of the things you pointed out are completely absurd to expect to be added in a patch "immediately." Oh well, to each his own wishes.
For the record...you could easily pass off Nuzhet ed-Devlah as a Turkish name to me. Heck, you could probably tell me it's an Algonquin name and I'd believe you. Raz, are you Turkish?
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
12-31-2006, 16:02
No, I'm wondering if you are Turkish, because most of the time posts about the detailed inaccuracies of a single faction are the product of nationalism. You know, the whole "My native country is not represented correctly! Grr!", that sort of thing, whatever the poster's country of origin may be. Having made a post about the Turks, I assume you are of Turkish descent. Most of us here don't learn Turkish history, because we aren't Turkish. Oh, and the whole assuming that everyone knows Turkish naming patterns and patronymics gave it away too. So, I have nothing against you, I just take issue your suggestions and the priority you think they should have (which I detailed above ^^^)
Again, my point is that every faction is portrayed inaccurately, not just the Turks. So why should the Turks get the priority?
Raziel17
12-31-2006, 16:16
Again, my point is that every faction is portrayed inaccurately, not just the Turks. So why should the Turks get the priority?Of course they souldn't, read my old messages please:
But they didn't do anything and now the game is full of bad mistakes. These mistakes is not only for Turkish faction, also other factions Like Mongols or Timurids have some mistakes. In my opinion they should be corrected by the producers of the game not by modders. A small patch can be acceptable.
Well, I tried. :shrug:
This thread just seems to be stirring up bad blood between Org members, with not many new points of significance being made after the original post.
Let's have a group hug and close the thread. ~:grouphug: :closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.