Re: The world's best army
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
Didz - I understand your point about historical accuracy, but you must admit that since 100% historical accuracy is impossible, the consideration for game designers isn't a binary factual/fantasy decision, but just how far along a continuum from fantasy to reality do they place their game.
I accept your point. I rememeber one respected wargame designer making the point that historical accuracy in a wargame can only be achevied by issuing the players with pistols and telling them to try and kill each other.
The issue as you say is how far along that continuum the designers should go in trying to simulate history. My arguement is that in many instances in both games and films this is not far enough and the result is not only inaccurate but blatantly misleading.
I am a firm beleiver in the old adage that
'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'
It therefore worries me when history is mispresented to those who are not willing or able to look beyond the smoke and mirrors. Particularly, when the marketing of these illussions is frequently based on the very accuracy of the historical content the product clearly doesn't contain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
Creating any 'historical simulation' is surely going to be the creation of a counter-factual historical simulation - giving the player control is necessarily going to create a historical situation different to that which actually happened. Arguing over the names and availability of a certain unit to a certain faction, when that faction has just conquered Rome and taken over the whole of Europe in 113 BC seems a bit, well, odd!
The role of a wargame is not to recreate the actual events which occurred in history but to model the factors that contributed to those events and to allow the player to expereince as far as possible the issues faced by the men of that era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
I suppose my point is that RTW can still be a hisotrical simulation, without having to be a slave to history.
Again we are talking about the point in the continuum at which the designers place their markers. My point is that if RTW does not place reasonable historical constraints upon the players options then it cannot claim to be a historical simulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
And I don't think the logical conclusion of Zorn's argument si that the designers should have allowed dragons
My view is that if the excuse for allowing players a-historical options is that it increases the 'fun' of the player then that same excuse is equally valid for allowing them to use dragons. If one sets out with the avowed intent of producing a historical simulation then abandoning that goal in order to appeal to a wider audience is a self-defeating policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
I 'm guessing from your posts (and the way you've demolished some of my arguments and helped me see the light...) that you are, or have been, some sort of historical scholar - or just someone with a keen interest in military history.
You flatter me, I would certainly not consider myself a military scholar, although I have been interested in military history since the age of 13 and have been wargaming for over 36 years.
It was certainly not my intention to demolish your arguements either and I apologise if it came across that way. I am merely trying to counter your arguements and make my own. I see it as a debate not a conflict. ~D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
If this is true, then I'm sure you can understand that your opinions are probably slightly differen to the vast majority of gamers, and that CA are obviously going to be aiming for them, rather than the hardcore war-gaming historical experts. I suppose, ultimately, one person's 'historical simulation' is another's 'fantasy wargame', and yet another's 'erm, where's the shoot button?'
Actually I am of the opinion that there is a huge untapped gaming market out there for someone willing to make a playable and enjoyable computer wargame.
Wargaming and military history had a huge following when I was young. There were wargaming clubs in almost every town and people like Brigadier Peter Young were actually presenting TV programmes on wargaming on the BBC.
That all fell apart when fantasy wargaming came along and dragged all the young members away to play Warhammer and other such games. But now computers have evolved to the point where they can support games like RTW there is a potential to revitalise the wargaming market by presenting accurate historical wargames on a PC.
The problem is that most so-called PC wargames are actually nothing of the sort. The vast majority are actually computerised boardgames based on the old Avalon Hill hex grid system. Such games were never considered wargames in the past and have only been reclassified since they appeared in computer format.
To the vast majority of people these games are boring and tedious to play and have given computer wargaming a very bad image. But if a company could produce a true computer wargame which could recreate the excitment of tabletop gaming whilst still retaining the historical interest then I think they would find a much larger market out there than is attracted by those games that currently claim the wargaming market.
Re: The world's best army
When I say destroyed my arguments, I mean you enlightened me - I think I was trying to argue something (about archery IIRC) from common sense, you used actual historical knowledge to trump me. You bastard.
Talking of old wargames - did you ever run across a copy of UMS - the Universal Military Simulator on old 808x pcs - probably about 10-15 years ago? It was awful - but a reasonable idea, it gave you a basic wireframe grid and some basic units (all editable in the game, and all represented by a flag with a slightly different monochrome pattern) and that was it - make your own fun. It did include some historical battles, however - Gettysburg, Waterloo etc.
It was, I suppose, like a very moddable TW without the campaign. As I say, it was terrible; but as an idea, it had its charms.
Re: The world's best army
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
When I say destroyed my arguments, I mean you enlightened me - I think I was trying to argue something (about archery IIRC) from common sense, you used actual historical knowledge to trump me. You bastard.
Sorry. Its a bit of habit. In fact I think I've just done it again.
I think I read too much :book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
Talking of old wargames - did you ever run across a copy of UMS - the Universal Military Simulator on old 808x pcs - probably about 10-15 years ago? It was awful - but a reasonable idea, it gave you a basic wireframe grid and some basic units (all editable in the game, and all represented by a flag with a slightly different monochrome pattern) and that was it - make your own fun. It did include some historical battles, however - Gettysburg, Waterloo etc.
It was, I suppose, like a very moddable TW without the campaign. As I say, it was terrible; but as an idea, it had its charms.
Yep! I still have it somewhere. There have been a few other attempts since then but as you say the ultimate would be something with the graphical qualities of RTW but the flexibility to be tailored to reproduce warfare in any time period.
However, as I recall, UMS was still very much a boardgame concept, as of course are all the Talonsoft games produced by Tiller and most of the current stuff being churned out by Matrix.
Re: The world's best army
You can never read to much, for knowledge is power and without power nothing is possible.
I think the main reason Rome is not 100% historically accurate is history is not accurate and basic marketing, they are working on a system that has not been working as soon as the are shown it is not the best way they may change. Another cause of change would be a loss of profits and a gain for hardcore true wargames.
Re: The world's best army
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
I think the main reason Rome is not 100% historically accurate is history is not accurate and basic marketing, they are working on a system that has not been working as soon as the are shown it is not the best way they may change. Another cause of change would be a loss of profits and a gain for hardcore true wargames.
My concern is that by trying to be all things to all men they may actually end up becoming nothing to anybody.
In my opinion RTW (more than both STW & MTW) has strayed too far towards the fantasy version of history. Whilst as a wargamer I am prepared to accept some gimmicks to keep the 'kiddies' happy, some of the stuff in RTW sets my teeth on edge. Further drift in that direction, especially in a period I like such as Napoleonic's, would get CA crossed off my Xmas card list for further purchases.
On the other hand if CA are hoping to capture a slice of the LOTR/WC3 market then this drift is just not enough to cut the mustard. Both my 10 year old and my 21 year old have taken a look over my shoulder as I've been playing and turned their noses up.
The 10 year old is a keen WC3 player and basically expects hero's, wizards and cool monsters in his games. The 21 year old loved STW but walked away from the Totalwar genre at MTW because he considered that CA had betrayed him by not including the cut-scenes and cool movies of the Geisha's.
He also considers the musical score in MTW and STW to be uninspiring, a point I actually agree with, compared to STW, VI and MI the music of RTW is appallingly insipid.
The net result is that instead of selling two copies of RTW, CA only sold one into my family. The drift did not convert my 10 year old, merely lost my 21 year old, if it continues the next release might lose me too.
Re: The world's best army
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
When I say destroyed my arguments, I mean you enlightened me - I think I was trying to argue something (about archery IIRC) from common sense, you used actual historical knowledge to trump me. You bastard.
Talking of old wargames - did you ever run across a copy of UMS - the Universal Military Simulator on old 808x pcs - probably about 10-15 years ago? It was awful - but a reasonable idea, it gave you a basic wireframe grid and some basic units (all editable in the game, and all represented by a flag with a slightly different monochrome pattern) and that was it - make your own fun. It did include some historical battles, however - Gettysburg, Waterloo etc.
It was, I suppose, like a very moddable TW without the campaign. As I say, it was terrible; but as an idea, it had its charms.
Wow Fridge, I used to have this or something similar on the atari 500. I spent ages trying to find it to download when I got an atari emulator on my PC, but for the life of me I couldn't remember the name. I edited a complete middle earth battle with dwarves elves orcs dragons etc. I loved this game a lot, it was as you say 'basic' but it was probably one of the first computer battle strategy games. Hail to the old school! (well 1985 anyways) :afro:
Re: The world's best army
Being the history freak I am, I can't but make my armies as historically accurate as possible. As City states or Macedonia, I would rely heavily on phalanxes, with some light and medium cavalry for the former and heavier cavalry for the latter in the mix, along with all the Cretan Archers and Rhodian slingers I can get my hands on.
When playing Seleucids, I go for mixed troops, tossing in an elephant too (although I think they are extremely overpowered). I don't play Egypt, of course (playing against the pharaonic abomination gives me the creeps, to play with them would cause instant stroke). With Parthia, I go for loads of horse archer types and almost no infantry (except for garisson). And so on.
Game is still fairly easy, but at least it doesn't smell fish.
Hey, if one wishes to play the game a-la Starcraft and enjoys it... be my guest. Use massed eles, eles and heavy cav, play with the Greeks with 15 units of Cretan Archers, or as the Egyptians only with pharaonic bowmen or whatever fishy combination you fancy, no problemo. I like my RTW heavy on history, that is fun for me.
Nice points Didz, btw.
Re: The world's best army
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
Nice points Didz, btw.
Definitely. There are lots of cases where a company decides to straddle a line to appease the hard-core fans and attract more casual players, and they usually end up doing neither. The hard-core consider it a sell-out, the casual don't think it goes far enough. And the game usually suffers from the compromises made.
I assume CA is planning on re-using/licensing the engine for this game, why not release a game based strictly on factual history, and another based in a fantasy world? There may even be cross-over, as players from both sides learn to appreciate the nuances of both games. Who knows, maybe kids might even learn a little bit of history on the way, although that might get the game banned here in the States. :dizzy2:
Re: The world's best army
I would like dragons. And elfes riding on unicorns and stuff.
I guess that makes me the boards fantasy-kiddy. :embarassed:
Re: The world's best army
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorn
I would like dragons. And elfes riding on unicorns and stuff.
I guess that makes me the boards fantasy-kiddy. :embarassed:
I don't see anything wrong with that, I don't want anyone getting the impression I'm some sort of eliteist military history freak.
I played Starcraft, Command & Conquer Generals, and Zero Hour. My family actually bought three copies of 'Dawn of War' so we could play over the home network.
My point is merely that a game designer should decide up front what he is producing and not try to tip-toe down some imaginary path that will satisfy everybody.
It doesn't exist.
History or Fantasy make the choice and stick to it.
Re: The world's best army
I agree, I myself own dawn of war and other fantasy games and FPS's like Operation Flashpoint and Rainbow Six for realism and Unreal 2 for some mindless fun. I agree that there should be less crossover, I was just trying to show some of the motives behind this problem. Licencing the engine is a good idea, but has not had much succes in RTS's that I know of. At least they did not stray extremely far off course, this seems more like a testing of the waters to see how much the more hardcore fans will tolerate. It would definately not be good for them to lose us because there is much more competition in the less realistic market and less tolerance of turn based games. Due to more competition fans of less realistic games seem to bounce back and forth more.
Re: The world's best army
Well as a hardcore fan I would say that RTW is tetterring right on the edge.
If somebody sneezed it would dissappear off my hard drive. ~;)
