Pedantic but i like it:
http://www.wargamer.com/article/2688...pective?page=1
Printable View
Pedantic but i like it:
http://www.wargamer.com/article/2688...pective?page=1
I gave up reading after the first 10 million words or so, with the primary thought in my head as follows: "i sure hope that guy never gets the chance to design a game".
I read it to the end, and enjoyed it. He did a great job point out the screw ups CA did in making a "historical" game, and pointed to other games that got it right.
As for Daveybaby, and other players who think CA got it right, here is what he says about CA, SEGA and you:
"I hate to admit it, but in this case I think SEGA and The Creative Assembly may have actually gotten this part of the game right, at least from a business perspective.
Most Americans have a minimally passable knowledge of the American Civil War and World War II, in part thanks to movies like Gettysburg or Saving Private Ryan. However, try to discuss the War of Spanish Succession and you’ll probably get that “deer in the headlight” stare. "
and at the end:
"OK, now I get it, and if Empire: Total War is any type of success it’s because SEGA and The Creative Assembly got it as well. Bravo, and I sincerely mean that. The animation, exquisite landscapes and other graphics are superb, and believe it or not, I continue to play the game just to watch this part of the contest unfold. My bet is the majority of gamers who pick up the game will agree, as they will not be infected by the blemish of prior knowledge of the period. For the rest of us, think of the game not as history, but rather, historically inspired. Doing so will allow you to enjoy a game that is a real hoot, both competitive and eye pleasing.
This game is Hollywood History at its finest, so shelve Churchill’s bio of Marlborough and enjoy!"
I'm not as detailed obsessed about the reviewer, I couldn't care less about the uniforms (though it would be nice if CA actually implemented true historic units and uniforms). I'm more bummed out about the strategic-level AI issues, which hopefully the next couple of patches will fix.
And yes, I still play and enjoy the game.
I stopped reading at this: "while I noticed the British continued to put troops on ships which then disappeared into the Atlantic, only to reappear in North America."
I agree with the reviewer. If people are ignorant of history then why not make the game accurate, rather than ahistorical, after all non of the casual players will not even notice.Quote:
"I honestly don’t think game play and exciting competition would have suffered had SEGA and the The Creative Assembly designed this portion with history in mind. I"
Dam I hate how everything is dumbed down these days...~:doh:
He certainly has a unique view on things and is clearly well educated regarding the period of history in question.
However he does show some substantial gaps in knowledge. In "The Tactical Game" section he bemoans’ the behaviour of infantry forming a square in front of his cavalry which then got shot to pieces by his artillery at range...
...please note this is classic tactical behaviour and the infantry did exactly what it should have. Dying by round shot in your 2's and 3's (on average) is a lot slower than mass destruction by cavalry charge. This at least gives you time as the infantry commander to try and find a solution.
As for game play and not having the massive French fleet and port available at the start of the game...well I'm pretty sure the CA guy's know about this, but for game play reasons decided not to make one nation clearly a super power over and above everyone other faction with regards to naval power.
That would make the AI predictable and leave very little room for anything other than total domination of the seas by France at the start of every single game. Which I'm totally sure would get them crucified here on the boards.
I do see his point regarding the graphical opportunity missed. PC games really are cutting edge technology when it comes to graphical presentation. CA could have done a one for one mirror of the time period and had a total winner on it's hands, and I'll certainly defer to his position on this as he certainly knows his stuff.
I dont think CA necessarily got it right, i just think the guy is a fatuous bore who can't understand the difference between a game and a history lesson.Quote:
As for Daveybaby, and other players who think CA got it right
Maybe i should log onto amazon to review some history books and complain that there isnt much gameplay and the graphics arent very good? "Nothing i do makes any difference, the end of the book is always the same".
Well I suppose it depends if your interested in history.
Personally, I am, and I've been a wargamer since the age of thirteen when I bought my first set of wargame rules for the 'American Civil War' from the Wargames Research Group.
My views are therefore biased as from my point of view if you are going to produce a game and sell it on the basis of its portrayal of a historical period then you ought to damned well get it right. To do otherwise is incompetant and an insult to the intelligence of your customers.
Its really as simple as that. However, I am constantly dissapointed that with all this technology at their disposal game designed still can't reproduce the most basic elements of a historical period accurately.
No, it's not. History isnt interactive. History doesnt have a limited budget and tight timescales. Compromises are a requirement. And by the way, if you can show me one period of history where all historians are in agreement on one undisputed chain of events then i'll eat my hat (cavaeat: i dont own a hat).Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I know one thing for a fact, it doesnt matter how much time and money you waste on historical accuracy youre never going to satisfy every armchair game designer and all of their personal hobby horses.
I'm not sure that's the basis theyre selling it on, any more than 'last of the mohicans' was sold as a historical documentary.Quote:
if you are going to produce a game and sell it on the basis of its portrayal of a historical period
And.... dude, youve been here a while now. Presumably youre familiar with RTW and M2TW, so if you still expect ETW to be some kind of interactive historical fact dispenser, then... i dont know what to say, other than that you might want to seek professional help for your chronic masochistic behaviour (that goes double for all of the regulars on here that bought the game at release and are shocked and horrified at the number of bugs) :wink:
I thought it was a well balanced view, considering the site it is posted on and the admitted priorities of the reviewer.
It had some interesting points...such as:
If it were possible, would it be "fun" to code the AI into modelling the "balance of power" system? a capture of certain lands would trigger most of Europe declaring war on you...or something similar. I can hear the moans now
(I deleted the rest...they weren't actually interesting!)
His final point is probably right. The game industry is designing the equivalent of Holywood films. The dedicated wargame industry may be designing the equivalent of documentaries. There's no point pretending otherwise...It's just annoying when people mistake the two
The great truth from studying history and politics for 8 years...
...very little is black and white...most of it is grey.
And before anyone quotes me an example of something being black and white, ask yourself the following question.
Who wrote it?
And is there someone else out there who also wrote about the same thing?
If the answer to the second question is yes, I'm pretty sure you will have at least two different versions of history.
Then my arguement would be if you haven't got the time, the money or the backing to do it justice, then don't do it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
You can make a game based on the 'Hyborian Campaign' or 'Warhammer' and it will sell. That way you aren't going to get arguements about the effective range of you muskets and can scrimp as much as you like.
I've been here since Shogun Totalwar and I've bought every title since (except Spartan TW) and no I learnt very early on to treat the CA designers ability to reproduce history with a large pinch of salt. However, that doesn't stop me being dissapointed every time I notice they have failed to do their job properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Sorry Didz, but you will need to show me where CA said this game will be historically accurate (to who's definition would also be nice to know) before you can take that view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Doing their job "Properly" seems a bit of a harsh statement when you take this into consideration.
But why should the rest of us be denied a potentially great game (once the bugs are fixed it might be) because it doesnt match your requirements for historical accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Seriously dude, 90% of the people that buy the game wont even realise anything is incorrect, and 90% of the ones that do realise wont care. If they code a game to keep the 1% (a generous estimate IMO) that do care happy but that makes the game less fun to play for the other 99% then what sense does that make? The TW series are mainstream games. There are niche (and very low budget) wargames out there for the people that want them. There aren't enough of those people to fund development of a big budget game like ETW.
Are you sure about that? Fantasy/sci fi nerds arguing about what's canon or not? Ouch. :grin:Quote:
You can make a game based on the 'Hyborian Campaign' or 'Warhammer' and it will sell. That way you aren't going to get arguements about the effective range of you muskets and can scrimp as much as you like.
See the thing is, i think they *are* doing their job properly. I dont think it's a lack of ability, I think it's a conscious development decision to spend a certain amount of the budget on historical research, and then after that work has been done, start designing units and maps etc, and start coding the game.Quote:
I've been here since Shogun Totalwar and I've bought every title since (except Spartan TW) and no I learnt very early on to treat the CA designers ability to reproduce history with a large pinch of salt. However, that doesn't stop me being dissapointed every time I notice they have failed to do their job properly.
I suspect that during the initial phases of development, things are a lot more historically accurate. But as the development goes on changes have to be made for gameplay/balance/time/budget/processing reasons, and at that point changes get made, and historical accuracy gets compromised. And since there clearly isnt the time and budget to fix gameplay and CTD bugs before release, there probably isnt enough to go go back and re-do all of the historical bits again (even if it was possible to do so without adversely affecting gameplay).
I have to agree w Daveybabey- CA *is* doing their job properly. Didz' problem is that he wants them to be doing a different job. Its the old "going into a hardware store and complaining they don't sell fruit." The problem isn't the hardware stores' - its Didz's. Which (dropping the analogy) could be easily solved if there *were* other game companies selling games that really matched what Didz' wants in a game. He'd buy that, be playing to his heart's desire, and not bothering with Empire. But that game (evidently) doesn't exist. So he's frustrated b'c it probably feels like "damn, so close, but again, not quite what I want!" Given that none of us have resources to make our own game from scratch (heck, most of us can't even do the most basic modding, and some of us have trouble even figuring out basic computer stuff), we're left to chose the best of what's available, and wish it aligned more closely with what we want it to be. :embarassed:
The perfect game for me would be a sci-fi, with tons of politics and social order. It would be like a MMORPG, but it isn't imbalanced with a levelling system that is stupid (like WoW/etc) but is based on the actual skill of the player. There are numerous different civilisations you can join, or even attempt to create your own, or cause a revolution, or destroy. It would be a totally open ended game with the ability to do practically anything. (realistic limits obviously apply)
I think this sums it up nicely. It IS a game, not a history documentary. If I want historic facts I go read Wikipedia... :clown: (that was a joke)Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Eeehm... or a history book ;) :laugh4:
I think the best a game like this can accomplish is to interest people in the time period and make them read up on it more.
I really like the game the way it is, the setting is more or less historic and after that I go out and write my own history! :2thumbsup:
Hey, Wiki is great if you quickly need to know the date of a battle or treaty, or whatnot!
The game obviously is a simulation, and we'll get some mods that properly flesh it out. Nothing is so glaring as say....Egyptian chariots and ironskinned axe horsemen.
You're basically saying that if the C/A got the uniforms and units mostly accurate you would have been "denied a potentially great game" .Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
If you don't know much about the time period and have know interest to learn then how the hell would you know that the units and uniforms were historically accurate to be anoyed by it and how could you find accurate uniforms and units in an historically based game offensive ?
Don't bother pretending that it is terribly expensive to do the research either .
Any respectable and reputable minatures company {whom typically have vast amounts of knowledge from years of careful research that would be applicable here} or even various quality museums would happily do it for them for a small fee and a large listing in the credits .
Free advertising is valuable currency . Large corporations whom already have multi million dollar marketing campaigns actually pay large sums of money for product placements ; paying the information provider and visible listing in the opening game credits would be plenty enough to get the information for very little cost compared to the overall game budget {which was in the millions} .
The C/A clearly made such a deal for the ship plans they used {fire up the game and read what is presented before the menu comes up} .
It sounds like you are a tad solopistic . That elements of historical accuracy that would still allow the same sorts of large battles and gameplay as the game has now which would please gamers like us whilst having absolutely zero detremental effect on the average "doen't care about history" gamer bothers you is quite telling .
Much more than merely the uniforms and military units could have been changed to something more accurate for the period and the game would have been just as much fun for the average gamer as now whilst pleasing the Grognards and all without blowing the budget .
Who's to say that any book under the sun is completely accurate?
Anyway I applaud CA's attempts at combining fun and history to an extent. I still like playing historical mods though because they add balance and the historical strengths of nations. I mean if anything mods like RTR prove that you can have a fun game and at the same time be historical so it makes me wonder CA doesn't attempt it? I'm aware they have time constraints but it'd be nice.
Is ETW mod-able, the way RTW & M2TW are? If so, then I presume those who prefer accurate uniforms & unit types will get the job done.
At the moment it is a bit of a pain to mod as we are still waiting for the promised mod tools to do it {It can still be modded , but colour me annoyed} .Quote:
Originally Posted by Interlocutor
When the modding tools are released , it should be at least a moddable {from what I've seen so far} and perhaps more so , but considering how many W.T.F. mistakes that could easily have been avoided is anoying .
For example needing to actually research bayonets and fire by rank , when both were in common use throughout Europe by the start of the 18th century and there is a vast wealth of military innovations in that period {Horse artillery for example should need to be researched} that could have been used instead . A quick google followed by a visit to a public library during lunch could have given them that information for free .
In my opinion looking for historical accuracy in this title is a flawed viewpoint, just as it has been in the total war series as a whole.
Consider the distances an army can walk or a navy travel at the default time scale. Consider that any engagement in the current battlesystem takes place over the span of an hour or less (even with the timer displayed no more than a day).
I'm a fan of historical accuracy in titles, but for that I'd recommend John Tiller's Napoleonic Wars, or Birth of America 2 if that's your interest.
I believe they struck "the right balance". There are things that bother me, but in the interest of gameplay and the inherent limitations given the current strategic and tactical systems; how realistic can the product be anyway?
I see this argument time and time again as I'm also a huge fan of the Silent Hunter Series. There are fans of this title that complain that: a submarine cannot maintain a constant depth at 0 kts, They can't directly manipulate the trim of the boat, players using auto torpedo calculations play on easy mode, the deck gun being a viable weapon on any target above a fishing boat is unrealistic, if the simulation were realistic a captain would be lucky to see, much less sink an enemy vessel, the list goes on and on. But in the end would the addition of all these things really make the game fun to a broad audience?
You wouldn't be....if you don't give a flying fart whether its accurate or not then you would buy it anyway. Even if the armies were full of Orc's and Elves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Thats actually not true. There is a huge untapped market for accurate and playable wargames. The Napoleonic period alone has a devoted wargame following in the millions world wide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Lol! how can you say that....even ignoring the history debate and the woefull lack of proper research, they can't even make what they have produce work. Thats NOT doing your job properly, would you get a plane flown by a guy who hadn't bothered to study the flight manual and didn't know how to work the controls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Oh! come on you were the one who said that right from day one with Shogun TW these games were never historical accurate, in fact the developers have said in the past that they are not meant to be historical simulations. So, basically they are not even trying to get it right. Which is fair enough, as long as they don't expect people like me to be impressed with their efforts. Personally, I just think its shoddy work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Incidently, @nafod - Tiller's games are crap - and are recognised as such by most of the online wargame community, even though they are forced to use them due to lack of alternatives. I actually believe they are less historically accurate that the TW titles. Not only that but they are full of expliots which allow gamesmanship ploys to be used during play.
Indeed the reason the wargame market could be so lucrative is that there is really no current competition for a company willing to produce a historically accurate game. Wargamers at present have to make do with the shoddy games that are currently on the market simply becuase there is nothing better.
Off the main thread topic: Anyone making those arguments doesn't know a thing about WWI and WWII submarine history then. The majority of kills were made with the deck guns, including large cargo ships and tankers.Quote:
Originally Posted by nafod
For documentary evidence, the easiest place to look at for the U-boats is http://www.uboat.net/.
The record holder for any side in any war ever is Kptlt. Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière in WWI, with 195 ships sunk or captured (459.679 tons) and 7 ships damaged (31.810 tons) - almost all with deck guns.
You're kidding us. In WWI, deck gun kills were commonplace, but deck guns in WWII were nearly useless. U-boots usually did not get to go into position to attack lone vessels, and the amount of deck gun hits would be minimal simply because it could run away. Use against convoys is plain suicide. Moreover, U-boots are dreadful gun platforms, and vulnerable to small-arms fire, so getting into good range means a chance of the pressure hull being ruined, which would be an absolute killer. Obviously, it is you, who does not know a thing about submarine history.
@anweRUQuote:
Originally Posted by anweRU
I'm quite familiar with uboat.net, as my interest in submarine warfare dates back to Silent Service on the IIGS. Also Aces of the Deep and the predecessor to Ubisoft, SSI's Silent Hunter II (I completely missed silent hunter I). My question to you would be did he in fact engage with the deck gun? Or simply finish wounded (or surrendered-a much more common occurence in WWI than WWII) targets off.
The difficulty with naval artillery is not only are you firing at considerable range at a moving target, but also from a moving platform on all three axis. Of course the platform will move less dependent on the seas (but I here the North Sea and the Atlantic around the British Isles tend to be quite choppy) and the size of the vessel.
We would agree a submarine tends to be quite small no? Even the Type IX's and the US fleet boats.
Also thanks for bringing WWI tactics into a discussion about WWII naval warfare.
Agreed 100%. With the move to convoys armed warships would simply annihilate any submarine offering resistance through naval artillery. It was simply suicide to enter into a gun duel with a surface vessel with even less then competent crewmanship.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
Realize the later models of the German U-Boat Flotilla the VIIC-43 and the all too late XXI did not have deck guns. American vessels continued to use them because as the war progressed more and more of the Japanese surface fleet was destroyed, leading to more unescorted vessels, and of course we loved to bombard junks and fishing boats as William Tecumseh Sherman brought total war back to the modern western world.
I will move that further discussion of submersible vessel warfare be moved to another forum.
Greetings!
The sad thing is not that they dont realise the game is incorrect when they start to play, it is that thay still dont realise after playing the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
From the review:
Quote:
Honestly, I’ve been there myself. When I was stationed in Europe and was starting my adventure into miniatures wargaming, I got a chance to phone Minifigs UK to order 12 packs of Roman Legionaries in 15mm. I actually got the owner on the phone who replied, "So do you want early Etruscan Roman, Velites, Hastatus, Princeps, Triari with spear, Triari with Pilum, Late Republic, Augustin, 1st Century, Early 2d Century, Mid 2d Century, Late 2d Century, 3d Century, 4th century, 5th century or 3d/early 4th century Praetorians?" I flustered a bit and replied I was looking for the Romans who carried the rectangular shields. The owner responded, "OK, you want the Hollywood Romans."
@ nafod: My interest pre-dates any submarine computer game. My father was a submarine skipper, and my home was full of submarine history & memorabilia. I've added many other books to the library myself.
Read "Iron Coffins: A Personal Account of the German U-Boat Battles of World War II" or any other U-Boat captains memoirs yourself. Note that Kapt. Werner was a late addition to the U-Boat fleet. Also Doenitz's memoirs. If you want a pictorial account, Buccheims U-Boat War, he was a journalist/propagandist who went on a patrol with a U-Boat. Read the USN's own WWII submarine warfare history.
The WWI tactics were very much relevant to WWII. The majority of the U-Boat kills were made up to June 1943, almost always on the surface in night convoy battles. In March 1943 two convoys were almost completely obliterated by 20+ U-Boats attacking on the surface. You are forgetting that up until then escorts were sparse, and ASDIC & radar technology were not sufficiently developed. And most of the escorts were the Flower class corvettes, which were probably even worse gun platforms than the U-Boats.
During June 1943 the Allies finally gained superiority, with more frigates (DEs in USN parlance) and destroyers joining the convoy escorts, dedicated H-K groups with jeep carriers for air support, better radio direction finding & finally Enigma decoding. Then the U-Boats gave up their deck guns to hide beneath the surface (including obtaining snorkels, and developing both Walter-engines and massive battery packs for the more advanced U-Boats).
Finally: Consider the number of ships sunk by the U-Boats & USN submarines on individual patrols, and their limited number of (dumb) torpedos. That in itself should convince you that deck guns were a major component of the submarine arsenal in WWI & WWII. Acoustic-homing torpedos were not introduced until 1943, and Germany could afford only a limited amount per submarine.
No, I'm saying that if they didnt release the game because it wasnt historically accurate to the level that Didz requires then we would have been denied it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Frost
How does didz being annoyed at a lack of historical accuracy equate to me being annoyed if it *is* accurate? :dizzy2:Quote:
If you don't know much about the time period and have know interest to learn then how the hell would you know that the units and uniforms were historically accurate to be anoyed by it and how could you find accurate uniforms and units in an historically based game offensive ?
What's going on here? Does everyone here have a poor grasp of basic logic or is it just me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
not being angry because the game is not accurate != being angry because the game is accurate
Jesus. :confused:
The point is that we wouldnt EVER get the game if we had to wait for the approval of every grognard before CA was allowed to release it.
And all I'm saying is that if instead of producing a sub-standard historical game they had dropped the pretence and concentrated on making a good fictional game, it would have made no difference, and they would not have made themselves look so stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
It doesn't your imagining things again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
The game isn't historically accurate end-of.
Yep! your definately confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Of course we would, it just wouldn't be a shoddy attempt at a historical one. I fail to see why this is causing you so much of a problem to grasp. Command and Conquer does not pretend to be a historical game but its still a good game. Why are you obsessed with the idea that CA have to pretend to make a historical game for it to be good. Stick a few wizards in and make it even more fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
@AnweRUQuote:
Originally Posted by anweRU
I'm staring at my copy of Iron Coffins right now. I think we'd find our views on this topic to be remarkably similar as opposed to that much different. Nonetheless I'll see you at Subsim:)
Does a historically "inspired" game not count at ALL, Didz? because (although I assume you are being deliberately simplistic) there is a lot of ground between a historical simulator and a fantasy game.Quote:
Of course we would, it just wouldn't be a shoddy attempt at a historical one. I fail to see why this is causing you so much of a problem to grasp. Command and Conquer does not pretend to be a historical game but its still a good game. Why are you obsessed with the idea that CA have to pretend to make a historical game for it to be good. Stick a few wizards in and make it even more fun.
Given that it is all but impossible to make a game that is completely accurate in every detail, you are always going to be arguing over MORE or LESS accuracy. Therefore, the whole argument is about HOW MUCH accuracy is the right amount...for you...or any of us. There's not going to be a right answer to that...
Do I find the game enjoyable in its current state?
Yes.
Do I think making the game more accurate would make it even more enjoyable?
Yes.
Do I think E:TW could be a GREEEAAAAT game if it were more accurate?
Hell yes!
That's it from me.
@Didz: not going to discuss this with you any further because either i'm not making any sense or youre failing basic comprehension skills. I have my opinion on which it is as i'm sure you do, but this isnt going anywhere.
Well its clear that we are not even on the same wave length, and I'm at a loss as to why you can't grasp simple logic. So I'm inclined to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Yep! that about sums up my thoughts too, a missed opportunity in my opinion. It seems ironic that according to thier own developer blogs they wasted huge amounts of time and energy getting to sea to work, and then couldn't be bother to get simple things like the uniforms right, which would have take 10 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by anweRU
I love it how people relate to their own opinion as if it is the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
For example the uniforms hey...
I wonder if I can find another historian who has a different "opinion" on what the uniforms should look like. :idea2:
What happens then? Who's right, who's wrong, how long do we debate, and then finally which uniform gets to go in the game?
So many issues so little time, so many "opinions" to consider.
Well if you look hard enough you'll find a historian who will swear that anything is true, they are no better than politician's in that respect. However, fortunately this period of history is very documented and in most cases uniforms and weapons still survive from the period so it's not a matter for debate merely a case of picking up a book and looking. Hence why it would only have taken ten minutes to get right.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Anway, I have no intention of getting drawn into a protracted debate on this subject. Obviously, any critism of CA is offensive to some people on this forum so I suggest we let the matter drop.
All of this angst has arise from a simple statement that 'I personally' am dissapointed that CA didn't make more effort to get the important historical details right. But in truth, CA have never claimed that their games are historically accurate, they are in fact just games based on a historical theme. I can enjoy them at that level, whilst still being dissappointed they are not more accurate.
That's a little contradictory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
You agree that historian's will swear that anything’s true. And therefore they will think they are correct.
Yet when it comes to uniforms and weapons it's all black and white and would have taken 10 minutes.
As an example, on this board alone, the debate and counter arguments on the range and effectiveness of Long Bows is beyond description.
My suggestion is that while some uniforms can be regarded as more than likely wrong, I'd say once you do a bit of reading on any particular unit and cross reference various sources to determine accuracy of decsriptions, you are left with a few "judgement calls" to make.
These decisions of course will please those that agree with them and these people (historians) will more than likely say this is true. While on the other hand the same decision will displease some and those people (historians) will more than likely say it is untrue.
The individual in the review knows many things.
Whether he is correct or incorrect with regards to uniforms and their colours and styles would need to be corroborated by 2nd, 3rd and possible 4th points of reference from "different" historians. This is not in my experience a 10 minute job. Having written history and politics papers at university for 6 years gives a person a direct insight into just how much historian's "agree to disagree" on so many things. It makes the mind boggle. :dizzy2:
You’d think it would be easy, but my opinion is those "simple things" that are in fact not that easy to confirm.
No its not...but like I said. I am dissppointed that CA didn't put in effort where it was needed. But thats my opinion. End of.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Well it was not in uniforms where the effort was needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I rather have them spend 6 months getting sea battles to work(which is does thankfully) or even spend a year getting land battles to work perfectly then spend wasting 10 minutes making sure the soldiers shoelaces are tied in a historically correct way.
True, but the blog I watched was not about either getting the naval battles to work, or getting the land battles to work. It was about getting the sea to work, or at least look pretty. And I have to say they did an amazing job, the sea looks wonderful, its probably the most accurate part of the game. Really looking forward to fighting a naval battle in a storm. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
Getting back on topic for second...I think the thing to remember is that Colonel Bill is a wargamer writing a review for fellow wargamers on a wargaming site. Therefore, he is providing people who care about the history with an insight into whether ETW is the game that the millions of wargamers out there have been waiting for, and basically, he saying 'forget it'.
That doesn't stop ETW being an enjoyable game to play, it just means its not going to be adopted as the standard wargame platform for online wargaming groups. No doubt they will continue to struggle with modified versions of John Tiller's rubbish. Not sure how many copies of Battleground games get sold annually but it seems to keep him in doughnuts anyway.
And we continue...:2thumbsup:
I think everyone has a point.
And as long as no one say's they are "right" and others are "wrong" then there is something for everyone to take on board as part of understanding another perons point of view.