Historical accuracy vs game balance

I don't know how people can complain about historical accuracy and balane at the same time. I've noticed some griping about both. Those too ideas are in conflict w/ one another. You know how Ghengis Khan swept through europe w/ superior thechnology and tactics, not very balanced. You can lok at it this way. Playing a faction w/ the OP'ed units makes for an easier game. If you want a challenge play a faction that will have to fight the OP'ed units. Man if you balance guys amde a WWII game your Tiger tanks wouldn't be any better than your Shermans, as for you hard core historical accuracy guys, It would take as long to play the game as the acctual events took. Anyway I've noted who's be arguing for what and if you complain about both, I will deliver you a smack down.

I can't wait for Tetris Total War. I love that square peice, but from what I understand it's overpowered and the rate of the drop for it is historically inaccurate.

I don't care about game balance at all. I like certain factions to be more powerful than others. I don't want "broken" units, but I want them to represent dominance if in fact they owned.

Historical accuracy is FUN to me in itself. I think developers get a little carried away by gameplay, gameplay, gameplay, and I'm by no means a hardcore gamer. I own an Xbox360!

I don't mind balance so long as it's not overdone. For instance, I like that in Shogun and MTW, some factions are inherently easier than others, and some are inherently more difficult. The trick is to still make it possible for all factions to win, despite some being obviously more/less powerful than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabuti

I don't know how people can complain about historical accuracy and balane at the same time.

---

Because we want to have our cake and eat it too! Gamers are a fickle bunch.

In truth, though, it's possible to complain about both at once because its possible to take both too far. Glaring anachronisms which are obvious even to an historical illiterate like myself can be pretty grating, whilst at the same time I am of the opinion that since real warfare is not fun at all, considerable liberties do need to be taken to make a fun game of it. In general I tend to err on the side of balance, largely because it's easier to make a mod to improve the accuracy than it is to do the same to improve balance (which is a pretty subjective concept anyway).

Quote:

---

Playing a faction w/ the OP'ed units makes for an easier game. If you want a challenge play a faction that will have to fight the OP'ed units.

---

The problem here is while that's all well and good for the player, all the computer factions are lumbered with the same AI. Thus if some factions are overpowered they will always steamroller their neighbours. I always thought it was a shame in RTW that I would never get to fight the interesting and varied unit roster of the Seleucids, because they invariably got slaughtered by the Egyptians, so I ended up fighting the same tedious endless stacks of chariots and foot archers every time.

Either the factions should survive long enough against each other to let you fight a decent cross section of their roster (a la M2TW) or the game must be balanced enough that pretty much any faction can become an all conquering behemoth (a la MTW).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I don't mind balance so long as it's not overdone. For instance, I like that in Shogun and MTW, some factions are inherently easier than others, and some are inherently more difficult. The trick is to still make it possible for all factions to win, despite some being obviously more/less powerful than others.

---

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Having some factions be doomed from the start may be historically accurate on some level, but it does result in a campaign which can never surprise you (which I suppose you could argue is a far more egregious historical inaccuracy; real historical figures didn't have the benefit of hindsight after all).

some weaker factions should at least be able to bloody your nose and affect the changes and actions of the factions more stronger and that 'stepped upon' the weaker factions to get where they are now...no one goes down without a fight...unless they are weak!

To CA I say this: Make an all-gameplay empire, then hand the beta over to the EB team and let them do the history.

The problem with historical accuracy, especially in this era, is that the Great Powers only ever got into a serious knock-down, drag-out, life-and-death fight ONCE, and during that time, the French had one of the greatest military commanders in history on their side.
You can't really say, with absolute certainty, that any of the great powers were 'better' than the others. In their previous conflicts, one side usually surrendered when the other gained enough allies.

The same can be said of individual units. The Old Guard are talked about extensively, and highly regarded, but they rarely saw battle when compared to the Russian Lieb Guard.
Sure, the Old Guard won a higher percentage of their battles than the Russian Life Guards, but they usually weren't committed unless A) Napoleon was present and B) Victory was already likely.
While B indicates more intelligence on the part of their commander, perhaps, it doesn't really indicate that the Old Guard was superior in a straight-up fight. Since the two never met in combat, its all speculation.

Hence, 'historical accuracy' would be based on opinions. Which would, in turn, be based on the opinions of people at the time. Which would probably be based on the opinions of military commanders of the era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

The problem here is while that's all well and good for the player, all the computer factions are lumbered with the same AI. Thus if some factions are overpowered they will always steamroller their neighbours. I always thought it was a shame in RTW that I would never get to fight the interesting and varied unit roster of the Seleucids, because they invariably got slaughtered by the Egyptians, so I ended up fighting the same tedious endless stacks of chariots and foot archers every time.

---

That can be compensated by having different levels of AI depending on the faction leader's management stats. Like, the AI by default functions at 100%, if the faction leader has 10 scrolls (or whatever icon that's called) of management. If the faction leader has only 5 scrolls of management, then the AI only functions at 50%.

That way the devs (and later on, modders) could tweak and modify the "difficulty" or expansion speed of AI factions by assigning them faction leaders of different stats at the start. And since AI factions rarely kill each other's faction leaders in AI to AI battles (at least, I think so), then this kind of balance of AI based on stats of initial faction leader could last quite many decades. And the devs could plan even further by hard-coding successors of faction leaders, and their successor, and so on, with stats. That way, for example, France's AI could be hardcoded to be excellent under Napoleon I (with 10 scrolls of management), but with way worse AI under Napoleon III (with only a few scrolls of management). ETW's time era doesn't go till late 19th century. This is just to give an example.


-and, random comment, I think I saw an early version of ETW's map. I was somewhat excited to see it, but I also really didn't want to see it, because it was a great spoiler, and I really wish whoever posted it, didn't. It just really dampens the excitement.
If that was ETW's map, then I wish the Mercador projection of the world map wasn't used, because it stretches the dimensions with further increase in latitude. So that it's very distorted in the very north and very south, and Greenland would look like bigger than the entire Europe, when it isn't.
The Robinson projection is more geographically accurate.


Also, suggest that either in the expansion of Empire: Total War (who knows what it will be called), or perhaps in the game after Empire: Total War (Rome II?), the campaign map be made with either

Polar projection or gnomonic projection (a type of polar projection), invented by Thales in 8th century BC

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tion_Polar.jpg

or two-point equidistant projection

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...stant-asia.jpg
of course, extending the Africa and Europe part on the second map.

It reduces the distance between continents on maps, like how it is on a curved globe, and more map area can be put on the campaign map than with the rectangular version. It also makes a total change in the gameplay even though those are the exact same regions, because the coastline will appear totally different and the usual "shape" of the countries will be at a slightly different angle (Europe is almost vertical in the second map), and relative positions to each other, and it would be a complete fresh impression of the world.

This is, by the way, a suggestion about either the expansion to ETW or the game that would be after ETW. This is not a suggestion or a demand about the current development of Empire: Total War. And I apologize to the devs if any of you read my previous "demands" (written perhaps a week ago, or more) about the game that would be after ETW, with all those over-the-top thinking about new interfaces, etc. Those weren't "demands" about ETW, they were imaginings of the game in the future, after ETW, with some years of development of gaming technology in-between. It takes a lot of time to make games (and I learned to appreciate some of that after I took a lot of time just to learn how to do an extremely simple modding of a txt file), so I don't want to be over demanding on the limited time and resources of the devs, and I am specifying between suggestions towards future games, and suggestions towards ETW.

Interesting idea about projections; of course when the game is just focused on the relatively small area of Europe it's not too inaccurate whichever projection you use but once the game is truly intercontinental you do get all sorts of problems like giant Greenland and such. Actually though I think they already do take some liberties, I've noticed that the area around the Caspian in M2TW is quite different looking to my Mercator projection wall map.

I wonder though, given that the campaign map is already 3D, how possible would it be to simply model it as a globe rather than a flat plane? Would solve all the problems with perspective, but maybe it would be a lot of extra work for little reward. It would also open the door for weirdoes like me to make really bizarre campaign maps on the surface of a torus or some such thing.

Quote:

---

Man if you balance guys amde a WWII game your Tiger tanks wouldn't be any better than your Shermans, as for you hard core historical accuracy guys, It would take as long to play the game as the acctual events took.

---

I don't think so. If a balance guy made a WW2 game, the Tiger would indeed be better, but it would cost significantly more meaning the other player could buy several Shermans for the same price. The skill would come in making sure you use your numbers to beat the superior Tigers, and as the Axis the challenge is to fight the Shermans were they cannot use numbers effectively. (Unable to flank, fighting at long range etc.) See, historical accuracy and balance are achievable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marius Dynamite

I don't think so. If a balance guy made a WW2 game, the Tiger would indeed be better, but it would cost significantly more meaning the other player could buy several Shermans for the same price. The skill would come in making sure you use your numbers to beat the superior Tigers, and as the Axis the challenge is to fight the Shermans were they cannot use numbers effectively. (Unable to flank, fighting at long range etc.) See, historical accuracy and balance are achievable!

---

Exactly. Many people seem to think balance and accuracy are enemies of each other. They are not, when done right they go hand in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I don't mind balance so long as it's not overdone. For instance, I like that in Shogun and MTW, some factions are inherently easier than others, and some are inherently more difficult. The trick is to still make it possible for all factions to win, despite some being obviously more/less powerful than others.

---

I like this. I especially liked how in MTW, the game does tell you that choosing certain factions makes things easier or harder than the difficulty level you chose. Of course, the descriptions are not totally accurate, but they're nice to have. The campaign game isn't a multiplayer game. Having different factions have differing difficulty spices things up.

CA could always randomize the AI difficulty somewhat. Say, the player chooses hard difficulty. The AI are set to the hard difficulty AI but there's enough variation wherein one AI faction plays better than another. Thay way, it's not always the same factions winning. The stronger factions should be winning more often, but not always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

I wonder though, given that the campaign map is already 3D, how possible would it be to simply model it as a globe rather than a flat plane? Would solve all the problems with perspective, but maybe it would be a lot of extra work for little reward. It would also open the door for weirdoes like me to make really bizarre campaign maps on the surface of a torus or some such thing.

---

That would be great, provided the computer processing can handle a 3D campaign map. And that's if they make the whole world in ETW vanilla. I still think they should do the original ETW map rectangular, then with even more creative gamplay ideas, made a whole world map in ETW expansion.

Just like how ALX.exe was better than RTW.exe, so the expansion gameplay always improve upon the vanilla one. And I'd rather have the whole world with an even-more-upgraded expansion, than have the whole world in the beginning. I do think that a 3-D globe map would be great, when they do make the whole world.

I would have thought a truly 3d world map would be far-future stuff, I imagine they'd probably have to rewrite the whole campaign map engine in order to do it so seems unlikely that it will be in an ETW expansion. At best I would have thought such a system might appear in the next "revolution" game after ETW's successor, that is if they decide the system is worth the effort to implement at all. But it has always annoyed me since I first played Civ I that the 2d map is a poor representation of a globe, and I wonder whether the technology has yet reached the point where it would become unnecessary. For ETW and expansions I imagine they will either use Mercator projection and hope no one looks too closely at Greenland, or else some other 2d projection as you suggested.

I doubt there will be a whole-world map in any of the ETW expansions, since the expansions tend rather to narrow the focus in on a specific period and area of the main campaign rather than expand it. Then again, no need to have a whole-world map in order to model the world as a globe; you can still have arbitrary map-edges on the surface of the globe, they would be no more arbitrary than the edges of a 2d campaign map.

Fully 3D (as in spherical) world maps have been done before. Populace: Tribes did it, and that was quite a while ago :P
Not exactly the same, of course. P:T was an RTS and all that.
So...while it probably isnt a good idea (for various other reasons) its certainly possible.

Oh I don't know. A X-COM style geoscape would work. Basically the same type gameplay, and it worked quite well.