The kingdom of Portugal

[nmdca30lx]

Hello,
I begun this discussion in another forum I was recommend to bring it here raising not only the number of discussion partners but also hoping the game developers could read it.
In my opinion, for Medieval Total War to have minimum standards of historical accu-racy the Kingdom of Portugal should be included. They were major participants on the Iberia Peninsula Reconquista with the Kingdoms of Leon, Castille, Aragon and Navarra. The Kingdom was founded by king Afonso Henriques (Afonso I) in 1143. In the beginning AfonsoI fought Alfonso from Castille but then he turned south and recon-quered the territory to the moors. From 1249, when the Algarve was conquered he was kept basically the same borders. Even before the time of discoveries there are very important factors that justify including Portugal has a faction:
- Major role on the "Reconquista", obtain the definitive territory 200+ years before Spain;
- The conquest of Lisboa (Lisbon) in 1147 was the only sucess of the Second Crusade. The english, flemish, french and german crusaders help the portuguese against the moors on the way to the Holy Land;
- After the reconquista series of battles (most of them won)happened against Castille in order to mantain the Portuguese Kingdom independent, the most important were in 1383-1385 where our greatest military hero - D. Nuno Álvares Pereira - beat the spanish troops against all odds;
- The conquest of Ceuta, in North Africa, that marked the beginning of the discoveries time.
There are more important moments, I have just mentioned some.

I can accept the argument of territorial size, in order for the game to be playable, which defends that the Iberia Península must be a unique nation in the game or else it would be underpowered. It would be also difficult to reflect the rivalries among the christian kingdoms (e.g. Portugal vs. Castille) as well as among the moorish ones even during the Reconquista. Well in that case the name should never be "SPAIN" since Spain exists only from 1469 when Fernando and Isabel get married. Thus, historically, Spain didn't exist during the game's time span (1049-1453) there were the major Iberia Peninsula Kingdoms: Portugal, Castille, Aragon, Leon, Navarre,... The only logical name is “IBERIA” or “CHRISTIAN IBERIA” for the playable faction where the people/troops should be called “IBERIANS” and never “SPANISH”.

Any opinions?
Is there any e-mail address to send this message so that it could reach the game developers?

Cheers,
Nuno

[Sword_Monkey]

I get the feeling that moving the game to the more familiar Europe is going to cause more problems then it solves http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

I believe that the primary reason they're moving the game to Europe is not because somebody honestly believes the game will be better. I think the reason is a bunch of suits, or maybe even the designers themselves, got the bright idea the reason Shogun didn't move 500K copies is the setting was "too foreign" for the average gamer. The result is that the sequel doesn't give us a better version of Shogun (which I would have preferred) but rather a variation of games already out there on the market which are arguably successful (Age of Kings, Cossacks, Empire Earth, Europa Universalis, etc.)

Consequently, you don't go for slavish historical accuracy or you run the risk of losing that "average Joe familiarity" which was your goal in the first place. For instance, it's like the thread on here about the case for Lithuania. Although my best friend of over ten years is a quarter Lithuanian and even spoke the language as a child, I certainly never knew the country was a major power in the era the game models. All I knew of Lithuania is some things about their art, cuisine and other cultural elements, plus that Hitler and Stalin used the country as a bargaining chip in WW2 (which is probably at least four more things than the average American knows).

What I'm getting at here is the idea that the game is going to include those "historical" countries which will immediately be recognisable to the audience they're targeting (and Spain is immediately recognisable and perceived to have been a major power during this era even if it actually wasn't). From their perspective, they've done the "obscure but historical" game once hoping that the mystique would prove a lure and, in their minds, it didn't. So, we get Civ3* with real time battles for the sequel.

I bring this up because if anyone is or was a player of this game they know their boards were filled with similar posts as this one in the months leading up to its release. People were incensed the Americans were included, people were incensed the Germans were included, people were incensed the Spanish were left out, etc., etc. And everyone could back up their point with pages of historical facts - but none of this changes the fact that all the designers care about is making a good game that is more or less (less http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif historical with plenty of creative license for entertaining the public.

[Leet Eriksson]

Just adding another faction to the iberian peninsula and it would be impossible to kick the mohads out becuase you will not be dealing with the mohads but with the spanish also(judging from the games nature you will not be allied with any faction in the start of the game).keep in mind the smaller your territory the less income and population you will have.

[nmdca30lx]

To Sword_Monkey:
Well, I can accept that a game with purely entertainment purposes can be tottaly inaccurate as in this given example. But then, it shouldn't be sold as an "historical" wargame. Calling "Spain" to the whole of the Iberia Peninsula is wrong today and is even wronger in 1049-1453. In fact the country didn't exist until 1469. It's the same situation as playing with the United States army in 1530...
The "game_must_be_recognized_by_the_average_joe_to_sell" is somewhat doubful because we should see the profile of the average gamer for this type of games. Nevertheless, it could be an instrument to teach a bit more about history...

To Faisal:
As I said I understand the playability argument. Thus my proposal is changing the wrong "Spain" to the much more correct "Iberia" or "Iberian Kingdoms" or "Iberian Christians". Above all, Portugal, Castille and Aragon played a very importante role in the Reconquista.

[Jaguara]

I might agree, if we had a massive game map and a hundred factions.

If this was a game during the colonial period, I would agree wholeheartedly. By then, even 'small' nations like the Portuguese and Dutch were major players on the world stage. However, during this period...

Quote Originally posted by nmdca30lx:
They were major participants on the Iberia Peninsula Reconquista with the Kingdoms of Leon, Castille, Aragon and Navarra.[/QUOTE]

I think you made the point yourself here. To include Portugal as an independant nation, you would need to include the others as independants as well.

I think the best solution is to combine the four as a single entity of allied states. And I agree that the name should not really be Spain.

[nmdca30lx]

Thanks for your support.

I have sent a message to the CA webmaster, I doubt it will do anything, but even though I would ask if anyone knows any other e-mail to where I could report this matter in order to reach the game developers?

Thanks a lot.
All the best

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by nmdca30lx:
To Sword_Monkey:
Well, I can accept that a game with purely entertainment purposes can be tottaly inaccurate as in this given example. But then, it shouldn't be sold as an "historical" wargame. Calling "Spain" to the whole of the Iberia Peninsula is wrong today and is even wronger in 1049-1453. In fact the country didn't exist until 1469. It's the same situation as playing with the United States army in 1530...
The "game_must_be_recognized_by_the_average_joe_to_sell" is somewhat doubful because we should see the profile of the average gamer for this type of games. Nevertheless, it could be an instrument to teach a bit more about history...
[/QUOTE]

I'm not defending the choice of "Spain", per se, just giving you my input on why I believe they've gone for a glossing over of history. The game is still historical if not 100% historically accurate.

Real historically accurate games are published by independent developers and sell 10K copies if they're lucky. Whether or not their choices bug certain history buffs, it will make the game more accessible to a wider audience and that should be their goal from a business perspective.

I don't care if they call it Spain or Christian Iberia, or if the include 20 countries I've never heard of - I'll play the game and learn the setting. But, if you want to see what a familiar versus unfamiliar setting can do to a game witness the Civ2->Alpha Centauri->Civ3 progression. Civ2 was the big dog and considered a classic. Sid and Brian decided to do something different for the sequel. For it's time, Alpha Centauri was by far the most innovative, ambitious, well executed 4X turn based game ever, and it sold squat relative to the effort that went into its development all because most gamers couldn't get into an empire building game set on a distant planet with political factions that were idealised 20th century political factions and technology straight out of Asimov. Then comes Civ3, maybe half of the effort that went into Alpha Centauri (no movies, no real political system, no divergences within the technology tree, lots and lots of bugs and ommitted features of AC, etc.), no real innovation, but it outsold Alpha Centauri by many fold just in its first few weeks. A superior game can be totally overlooked if it's not perceived as appealing by the mass public. These folks don't play the game online for 2+ years, and they don't write mods, and they don't frequent websites, but they do pay the bills. A game publisher ought to care just as much about the sale he makes from the guy who plays your game for month casually and is happy as he does about the guy who plays it non stop for 16 months - because the game publisher makes the same money from both.

When I play a "historical" game I don't really care that Germany as a country didn't really exist for most of the middle ages or that Spain didn't technically become a country until 1489. Similarly, although the U.S. didn't officially exist until 1776, it's not as though we consider the colonials of 1766 to be English. It feels more right (even if its wrong http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif ) to play with Spain and France and Germany in a game like this. I think that MTW will advance the popular perception of the historical wargame light years more than anything since Age of Empires/Kings (and we know how accurate those are).

I'm just trying to get across the point that you cannot please everyone, particularly not with this game which is treading into waters which many people may be very familiar, certainly moreso than with Shogun. At some point, game play and balance have to come before accuracy. OTOH (read my opening line), this is going to bring the grognards out of the woodwork.

[ShadesWolf]

Hi nmdca30lx (again)

Now I dont want to build up anybodies hopes, but

Havent we read somewhere that there will be 12 payable factions and a number of smaller kingdoms - to which they have mentioned Ireland, Scotland and hungary.

Know I heard somewhere that there would be about six of these. Know looking at the map and trying to understand the idea of the four campaigns - (i.e 100 year war, Mongols, crusades and Reconquest)

Wouldnt it seem a logical thing to expect these other 3 missing nations to be Portugal, Burgandy and Lithuania. These would seem to fit nicely into the campaigns.

Any comments ?

[nmdca30lx]

Dear ShadesWolf

Plese apologise for using your comments, it is just for making my points clearer.

"I'm not defending the choice of "Spain", per se, just giving you my input on why I believe they've gone for a glossing over of history."

Of course I know what you mean. The game developers main objective is selling to teaching history. Nevertheless I doubt the game would sell less for being correct in the nations names, but, of course this is just my opinion. You have, for instance, Europa Universalis, a very accurate game with high selling numbers. Moreover, when you say the game is historical but not 100% accurate you are being kind to the developers as it uses countries that, in fact didn't exist.

I don't think Sid Meier is an example of precision in those games. On the contrary, you have the example of "Colonization" where the colonizers of actual Brazil are the Dutch and the Portuguese don't even exist on the game. Nonetheless I agree entirely with you in what concerns to Alpha Centauri being an very well designed game.

My points:
- I agree with the fact that the developers want to sell games and need to make them widely "reachable";
- I doubt the game would sell less if it didn't have the perfectly avoidable errors I mentioned;
- In case I am wrong, we don't have to agree and or defend something we know it's incorrect just because an some an entity called "market" says so. Many time people from Marketing are correct in their opinions other times they just make wild guesses like "If you call it the Iberian Kingdoms Spain the game will sell more". Once more this is just my opinion...

All tje best for you and the other forum members.
Nuno (Lisbon, Portugal)

[Bohemond]

If there were more naval aspects in the game, Portugal (and Venice) should be included. But I'm afraid this won't be the case.
The Portuguese were the greatest Explorers of all time, no question about this. Spain and England later made up in this respect, but only with the help of Portuguese Knowledge. I would like to play as the Portuguese very much!!
But I'm afraid this is not planned by CA.

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by nmdca30lx:

Of course I know what you mean. The game developers main objective is selling to teaching history. Nevertheless I doubt the game would sell less for being correct in the nations names, but, of course this is just my opinion. You have, for instance, Europa Universalis, a very accurate game with high selling numbers.

My points:
- I agree with the fact that the developers want to sell games and need to make them widely "reachable";
- I doubt the game would sell less if it didn't have the perfectly avoidable errors I mentioned;
- In case I am wrong, we don't have to agree and or defend something we know it's incorrect just because an some an entity called "market" says so. Many time people from Marketing are correct in their opinions other times they just make wild guesses like "If you call it the Iberian Kingdoms Spain the game will sell more". Once more this is just my opinion...
Nuno (Lisbon, Portugal)[/QUOTE]

Well, while EU and EU2 have been bestsellers in much of Europe, they've done nothing more than make a blip on the American shore. I know we're not the whole market and, by and large, we're a historically and culturally dense lot, but we do spend a lot of money on frivolous past times http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

I suspect with the right marketing, it wouldn't make bit of difference whether they chose to be 100% accurate in their names or not because the casual gamer isn't going to analyse beyond "medieval" + "European" + "castles" + "big freakin cool battles" http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

That aside, the comments made about game balance/mechanics that have been brought up probably have as much to do with it as being accessible. In the absence of a tactical naval engine, many of the very things that made the Portugese an international power are simply glossed over in the game and I don't see that as being much fun to anyone.

[Siena]

Sword_Monkey,
I think you make wrong assumption, if you think that - if MTW will try to be more like Age Of Kings - then it will sell more.
Age Of Kings sold so well because it was best RTS of its time. RTS still sell well (look at Empire Earth), but AOK also was well marketed by Microsoft. They knew in advance that they are making this for teenagers, they always said: "it is not istoric, it if for fun" - or something like that. They made good multiplayer, and toy - like units and that was enough. Teenagers only wanted to be able to click on units, control them like toys and beat each other up.
It was not historic at all. The only thing historic there were names - like "Franks", "Mangudai", but even those were just made up to sound "cool" - I mean: "berserk" as Viking unit ("Vikings" as a state), axe thrower as Franks unit.
It was complete nonsense from historic point of view. The only realisting thing were that arrows fly and horses run faster than infantry.

Total War is completely different game. It is more tactical and way more strategic. It is also way more realistic. I bought STW by accident - just run out of games to play - needed new. STW was not advertised at all. But as soon as I started playing it had completely different feeling than RTS. In Total War you actually expect units to be historic. It would look stupid otherwise. You cannot control each unit, you control groups, so if group was some magicly moving catapults, or axe throwers, you would probably not play Total War for long.

I think it actually befits this game to have historic countries, otherwise it will feel plain stupid.

That said, I think it is obvious that they cannot make simulation of Medieval Europe's politics. The game would take forever to make, and then it would take forever to finish a campaign with all European states.

As for Iberian peninsula, it seems logical to make Portugal ronin province and make Castille playable. Castille would include other Spanish kingdoms as provinces.

Although Portugal had similar culture, same religion and same enemies as other Iberian kingdoms, so it would not be too contradictory to put them together, but naming that lump would be tough.

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by Siena:
Sword_Monkey,
I think you make wrong assumption, if you think that - if MTW will try to be more like Age Of Kings - then it will sell more.

I think it actually befits this game to have historic countries, otherwise it will feel plain stupid.

That said, I think it is obvious that they cannot make simulation of Medieval Europe's politics. The game would take forever to make, and then it would take forever to finish a campaign with all European states.
[/QUOTE]

That's not quite what I had in mind with these posts. I don't think MTW should in any way try to be more like AoK. The amount of time I've played Shogun is pretty much proportional to how much it's not like AoK.

OTOH, there aren't game sales in trying to be too accurate historically speaking. There's going to be William Wallace as a character - how much you want to bet he'll be more like Mel Gibson than the historical guerilla warrior/thief?

As you say, they can't accurately model European politics in the scope of the game, nor should they try. If you want to play a game that does that, go play EU. More specifically, my post wasn't what I think about the issue specifically, just why I think these decisions get made. Given the number of small territories that made the region up for the duration of this game, what do you do choose for the name as a game designer being that game design mandates you consolidate the territories? Castille? Who's heard of it outside of some historical fiction? Portugal? Brings up images of explorers but certainly not medieval conquerors. Spain, oh yeah, spent centuries warring with the English and driving back the Moors.

The people who know the difference are miniscule next to the number who don't and probably don't care one way or the other. You stick to history where you can, you make a good game where you can. When there's some glossing necessary, better to choose the most accessible option then lock yourself into a choice that won't be accepted by the sticklers no matter what you do.


[This message has been edited by Sword_Monkey (edited 02-26-2002).]

[Leet Eriksson]

we discoeverd asia before the europeans did http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Red Peasant]

Of course you did, you're in Asia!! LOL!! We discovered Europe before you!!

------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[nmdca30lx]

Jut to make a point on this discussion because it was getting a bit away from the initial subjects.
1 - If the game wants to be historically accurate, Portugal should be a playing faction.
2 - However in order to be playable the Iberia Peninsula kingdom should work as one faction, and that's perfectly understandable.
3 - What I always proposed was changing the name from "Spain", as it didn't exist between 1049-1453 to "Iberia". It is a change with very little significance for the pprogrammer and very important from the historical point of view.
4 - I doubt the game would sell less for that. Maybe it could be less encouraging for some 'Joes' but much more appealing to many strategy wargamers.
5 - These are just my opinions even though I am pretty sure they make sense. Nevertheless I think that sword_monkey makes a point and has good arguments. Of course we don't have to agree with that situation and should report these problems in forums and to the game developers, that's what I did. I sent an e-mail to CA, probably it will be useless, we'll see...

Cheers,

[Leet Eriksson]

we controlled the mediteranian and of course our trade reached from england to japan so we discoevred europe before the europeans did.you europeans were more into fighting and killing each other than wasting your time in dicovery http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[nmdca30lx]

Yes, and the Romans discovered the Asia before... Oh, yes,... Alexander the Great discovered the Asia before the Romans. Well, Daryus discoverd Europe before Alexander... Have I told you about the Hebrews that crossed the Red Sea? They also have discovered Asia before all those... By that criteria have all have been discovering each other http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Cheers

[Siena]

Sword_Monkey,

ok, I understand what you are saying.
But don't you think that game actually loses a bit if it tries for the lowest possible educational denominator.
I mean you cannot possibly make a game that everyone will like.
So you have to choose your crowd.
What I was trying to say in my previous post was that Total War crowd is not the same as Age of Kings crowd.
Actually, Age of Kings was in advantage because it was the best RTS of its time. If there were competition like Total War, it would not have sold as much. And if it would - then it would be not because of nice sounding pseudo-countries, but simply of vastly superior marketing.

So what crowd would buy Total War?
I think these are mostly people in their twenties, thirties and above.
Teenagers that would buy it – would not be bothered by historical country names. Teenagers are fast learners, and are quite open to new things.

So we are talking about ones in majority: people in their twenties, thirties and above. Now, if we are talking about European market – I don’t think they would be bothered by historical country names. Just look at Europa Universalis. As you said, it sold very well in Europe. And Total War is much less historic and burdensome, even if it had historical country names.
So the ones really in doubt – are Americans.
I think Americans suffer from being pampered by all industries. Many industries release special products for Americans – easier to use, easier to consume, easier to understand. They assume that Americans cannot handle something new or something controversial or something historical.
Unfortunately, this becomes self-fulfilling prophecy: since Americans are not used to things that makes brain work harder, it becomes difficult for them to handle it.

But still, I think this is overreaction - to try making castrated product, so that “average Joe” could handle it. “Average Joe” probably will not even bother with strategic game, he will buy some Sims: Hot Date game. I cannot imagine “average Joe” getting a nosebleed or brain overheating over names like “Hungary”, “Lithuania” or “Iberia”. It he already bought the game, names will not make him return it. “Average Joe” buys games for gameplay, not because he sees “Spain” in it.
Do you think there were people that returned Shogun: Total War just because the found names like “No Dachi”, “Naginata” in it? I don’t think so. Do you think they would have sold more if they used names like “Guy with big sword” or “Heavily armored guy” instead? Or if they names Japanese provinces “Texas”, “New Jersey”, “Italy”?
I hope not. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by Siena:
ok, I understand what you are saying.
But don't you think that game actually loses a bit if it tries for the lowest possible educational denominator.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see what I'm talking about as aiming for the lowest common denominator. The issue was whether it was better to have chosen a name other than Spain for the territory of the Iberian peninsula. To me, this seems like a lot of nitpicking. You cannot be strictly historical with this or many other territories (that haven't yet found their nitpickers to champion them) in the game because any given faction must be strong enough to be a player. Odds are, once the finished product comes out the more history laden people will be able to fill these forums with all the things "wrong" with MTW. No matter how much is done right in the game there's going to be plenty which by necessity or convenience is done wrong for a more rounded game.


Quote So what crowd would buy Total War?
I think these are mostly people in their twenties, thirties and above.
Teenagers that would buy it – would not be bothered by historical country names. Teenagers are fast learners, and are quite open to new things.
[/QUOTE]

You are probably correct in this assessment (I'm 31) and I've been playing games of all sorts since my early teens. It's not age group, though, it's that "gamer" categorisation which is ageless..


Quote So the ones really in doubt – are Americans.
I think Americans suffer from being pampered by all industries. Many industries release special products for Americans – easier to use, easier to consume, easier to understand. They assume that Americans cannot handle something new or something controversial or something historical.
Unfortunately, this becomes self-fulfilling prophecy: since Americans are not used to things that makes brain work harder, it becomes difficult for them to handle it.[/QUOTE]

Pampered is the wrong word, pandered is a more apt term. We are the nation of the LCD when it comes to marketing "strategists". You can't change the fact that the gov't has strived for the past three decades to stop people from thinking and cling to homogeneity. Further, you can't change the fact that marketing has tapped into this desire for homogeneity. Still, the people who are going to really like MTW fall outside this gov't/media lobotomised group by a wide margin.

Still, I reiterate, the idea is not that they should be making MTW more like an AoK but rather that historical but still inaccurate names for territories too complicated to represent accurately is not an issue in my mind. If I look up the history of Spain, it doesn't start in 1469, but extends farther back because; just because the name and the more or less modern borders didn't become official until 1469, the culture, the history, the military tradition, etc., did begin earlier. Countries don't just rise de novo for the most part even if you can point to date in the history book and say "This country was officially recognised on January 14, 1352".

If the designers call it Iberia, it is still no more historically accurate than calling it Spain since that wasn't the correct title for all the territory in the game, either. Now, if they decide to call it "Don Quixote's Backyard", there might be cause for alarm http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif, but choosing the most accessible of the possible candidates does not seem so great an error to me.


[This message has been edited by Sword_Monkey (edited 03-01-2002).]

[Leet Eriksson]

they did not exactlly discovered its our poeple that discovered we kept maps not just went their and "discovered".. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Whitey]

Quote Still, the people who are going to really like MTW fall outside this gov't/media lobotomised group by a wide margin. [/QUOTE]

Sword_Monkey, you are wrong - we are all lobotomised automons http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

'do you think thats air you're breathing?'

[nmdca30lx]

Sword_monkey, you are trying to justify the injustifiable. Of course the history of Spain come from much before, the traditions, the military discipline, etc. It comes from the Christian kingdoms, the Moors, the Ostrogoths, the Sueves, the Romans, the Cartaginians, the Lusitans, the Turdetans, etc, etc, etc. With that criteria you can't say when any country has been founded. You could call yours United States because its history, habits, traditions come from the first colonizers. Every country as a day or period of time to which one can call its foundation usually are criterion like "King independence proclamation", "Pope kingdom acceptance" or even more familiar to you "Congress independence proclation", etc. If one would follow the traditions inheritance, at the limit all the countries in the game should be called "Pangea", when the earth was only one.

Another topic: The problem with americans, even with their very agressive market, is not lower interest on subjects or dumb conclusions like averega lower IQ but a large standard variation. You have a lot of the best and of the worst in the world and, as everywhere else, the "worst" has more impact.
Cheers,

[nmdca30lx]

I revised my last post. Sorry for my mistakes. We write this posts rapidly and, as english is not my home languade I tend to write with errors. I hope you understand the meaning.
In particular I meant to say "you can call yours "United States" from 1560 or so..."

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by nmdca30lx:
In particular I meant to say "you can call yours "United States" from 1560 or so..."[/QUOTE]

And you know what, we largely do. Not "United States", per se, but certainly America, which is the more colloquial term for the country. The way it gets taught and discussed in the history it's more of a technicality that we were a British colony http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[nmdca30lx]

Ok, but that's assuming something wrong. We can understand it, we can live with that but we should never agree with it, that's the difference.
There's a very good book of a Psicologist called "The general theory of human stupidity" (I mean no offense at all, it's just the title). And in what consists the theory? - Stupidity is not a lack of intelligence but an active resistance to intelligence. Any "Joe" or people from where else can't be criticized for not knowing history, in fact that don't have to know it. But they should be criticized when they have a "I_don't_know_I_don't_care_I_don't_want_to_know" attitude. That's the definition of stupidity.
Please note that I find your arguments plausible and very well expressed, I just don't agree that we should let some "Joes" rule and try to live with that, Of course, in practice, it will keep rulling but at least I'll be much better for trying. Even the economical arguments can have a weak support as we have been expressing in this discussion.

All the best for you.

[Bohemond]

Quote There's a very good book of a Psicologist called "The general theory of human stupidity" ... And in what consists the theory? - Stupidity is not a lack of intelligence but an active resistance to intelligence. ... But they should be criticized when they have a "I_don't_know_I_don't_care_I_don't_want_to_know" attitude. That's the definition of stupidity.
[/B][/QUOTE]


This is very interesting ( I think I'm surrounded by "Average Joes" ). Who is the Author of this book, I would like to read it !!

[nmdca30lx]

Hello,
The book's author is
Vitor J. Rodrigues.
Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Anssi Hakkinen]

My opinion of the issue of the Iberian Peninsula is pretty much the same as my opinion of lots of other things MTW and MI before that. It won't be different kingdoms because that'd be too complex. It could be named Iberia, and there's no reason not to, but it's well possible they'll name it Spain. And it's not a big deal, but I get to be (once again) positively impressed if they do name it Iberia.

The latter option would contribute to the atmosphere of the game, however. Just like the amount of Japanese "decor" added to the atmosphere and therefore the appeal of STW (and to say the "foreignness" of STW's theme was detrimental to sales is a bit strange - I bought it precisely because it had an interesting subject unlike most RTSs).

But on a related note, I found this quote by Sword_Monkey-san highly appealing. Quote The amount of time I've played Shogun is pretty much proportional to how much it's not like AoK.[/QUOTE] http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
"A person who does not want to be struck by the enemy's arrows will have no divine protection. For a man who does not wish to be hit by the arrows of a common soldier, but rather by those of a warrior of fame, there will be the protection for which he has asked."
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo: Hagakure