Printable View
Considering that the most famous wars or battles happened before 1080, like the Battle of Tours, Manzikert, Charlemagne against the Lombards, Otto I against the Magyars, and the next 'set' of famous battles and wars come during the late period; the three famous English victories of the Hundreds Year's War, the French Loire Campaign, the Spanish Reconquista, the Italian Wars, the Thirty Year's War etc, perhaps the present timeframe of M2TW isn't so ... exciting?
Discuss please.
Well, the game isn't about recreating history. It recreates the starting conditions for the period, and then the player and the AI take off from there. We're constrained by more-or-less historical tech trees for units and weapons, but it's pretty open-ended otherwise. This is similar to RTW, where many famous battles in the classical period had already occurred, and Rome was just starting to develop from a series of small tribes into a major power.
It's a "what if?" game. If the real history wasn't that interesting, then you can make it more interesting. :beam:
I don't know. I've always thought the Crusades were fairly famous.
nonsense in my opinion. It was a period of war, treachery, diplomacy, love, romance, did I mention war? If any time period could emcompass what Total War is about, I'd have to say it is the medieval period. Of course, medieval Europe and Medieval Asia are both equally fertile grounds for a good total war game.
It's the Crusades. They are the big selling point. And the Mongols. And the panzerphants. How many random people on the street even know that Manzikert was a battle? I didn't even know that the Muslims made it to France until I started reading about the Crusades.
Haha, you'd know if you were French and born in the late 70s, let me tell you :laugh4:. They just wouldn't let go of it when I was a kid. Probably school books issued during the Algerian war...Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
God, I don't know how many times Poitiers-732, Charles Martel and his hammer came up in my grade school history classes and subsequent tests, year after year. That and bloody, bloody Charlemagne with his bloody flowered beard and his bloody missi dominici...
He was easier though. Crowned emperor in 800, nice, round number, easy as Marignan 1515 :laugh4:
or the french revolution here in german schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
I would prefer a time period maybe a little earlier..covering pre norman invasion era..and like MTW the viking period..up to the english civil war...
But as ever so far the TW games cover a larger ish period. I liked the Roman ere myself..as that had more diversity....
I think gunpowder makes it interesting in the MTW2 era....but there are lots of similar troops.....
Overall it doesnt bother me a lot....Rome was a better period..but that is just my take.
I would like to see CA do a specific and more detailed period in the future..smaller maps and concentrate on great detail in a particular period...
I read mostly English histories, so I knew about Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror and Henry V. I never heard of Charlemagne and certainly not Charles Martel (I thought he was that insane Swedish fellow that tried to conquer all of Europe and nearly succeeded).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
There are quite a lot of famous battles in the 11th and 12th centuries, though a lot of them were during the crusades. Dorylaeum and Antioch are both up there; Guiscard and Bohemond's battles against the Byzantines in Italy and Greece before that.
I guess a lot of the history we're taught in high school (in the US, anyway) sort of dances around the crusades. It's OK for Europeans to kill Europeans (goooo English at Crecy/Poitiers/Agincourt et cetera) but not Turks. Antioch seems to me a much more impressive battle even than Agincourt, though perhaps impressive in a different way.