Printable View
Yes CA has really outdone themselves this time around. ~:eek:
From the obvious typo in the name - it should read NUMIDIAN Camel, yadda, yadda...
To the lame Birka inspired graphics...
To the TOTALLY made up unit description = "Camel lancers", "The Kings of Numidia are wise indeed to exploit this pool of skilled fighters." (who never actually existed ~:joker:)
Thank god the game is coming out soon because this one may be the nadir of CA Unit Chicanery.
Barkhorn.
we're having the same problem at the .com
They may have Camel riders, they may not have camel riders.
We don't know, you don't know.
Yes - I'm so impressed with those posting at the .COM. Care for some samples (not corrected for spelling or punctuation)??Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
"oh calm down, camels are cool"
"Why do you guys have to be Perfect. If it was up to you, you guys would delete all units and then replace them with "accurate" units." - this from a guy named Hasrubal - did he mean to call himself HASDRUBAL perhaps??
"if some of these ppl had there way the game would be 100% accurate."
"Those uneducated and illiterate people (like myself) will enjoy seeing camels riding around Numidia because it provides a good counter to cav AND in the average joes mind.. camels exisit in North Africa...."
"The 'historical accuracy' people don't give a damn about historical accuracy. They want it to look like their personal vision, and anything that goes against that must be bad."
"I'm not sure about which period or who did this, but I definately read somewhere that rhinos have been used in battle. They just stampeded them in the general direction of the enemy."
"You could say Iberian Bull Warriors look silly, but the same could be said with the Corintian Helmet, the falcata, the falx!
These things could be said to look silly, but were used."
**********************************************
You know the saddest part about ignorance is that you don't even realize that you are ignorant. ~:joker:
Barkhorn.
I'm sure you would know. ~:)
What a bunch of childish ignorant jerks... ~:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkhorn1x
Preciselly. They should just avoid making fools of themselves... ~:rolleyes:Quote:
You know the saddest part about ignorance is that you don't even realize that you are ignorant. ~:joker:
Barkhorn.
hmm, maybe we can get camel smokers, too...and they can be in any part of europe or africa or middle east... ~:p
That's why I no longer go to the com. Good lord are they annoying. And Amyar, long time no see. Hmm... I guess I should get rid of my thread about this same unit then.
I want to scream again, but a short shout will suffice:
"OH NOES!!!CA WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!!"
ok now i can cool down, friggin numidians always mistaked by arabs, how about relying on historical sources rather than watching the gladiator movie CA? ~:p
God Damn... i just wanna :bomb: right now....
Jeeze, I don't think thier ignorant.
They could have camels, we don't know that and neither do you. Its like the African Bush Elephant (north african, can't remember correctly) that went extinct from the gladiator games. We wouldn't have known about them if there wasn't documentation of Hannibals elephant use.
for if there was no documentation of the elephants, you would be saying the same thing about elephants.
First off, it's not nice to tell anyone to shut up. Second off, it's not so much of the fact it's in there (at least for me) as the looks and the description. If they were like the camels in MTW, slow, weak things that were good against horses, that'd be one thing. But superior?
I would say thier superior to the cavalry of the period (Lydians vs. Persians.
I'm sorry for saying shut up, however, he (barkorn) seems to enjoy the putting down of .com people with thier ignorance.
I don't really understand your point. How can Lydian camels be better than Persian cavalry?
~Wiz
Yeap. The holidays and the way RTW is going has despirited me enough not to post that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
What post? :confused:Quote:
I guess I should get rid of my post then.
Actually, after a Delphi Oracle prediction, the Lydian King thought he would win against the Persians. However, the Persians had camels that scared the heck out of the Lydian horsemen, and they lost.
Sorry, I meant my other thread about this same unit. I didn't mean a post about you or anything. ~:p
It never crossed my mind... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
This seemingly never-ending feuds about historical accuracy vs. developers freedom has worn me tired a long time ago. Well, there were some things people could argue over, whether they are accurate and in what percentage, but I believe that “Macedonian” camel riders are a creation of someone who seriously needs vacation. In spirit of that, I’m off to a wedding celebration (you are right, just celebration; the couple ran off and wedded secretly a year ago, and broke the news to everyone only month ago!) and I’m somewhat content that Rome is only a month away from me. Then, I’ll see it for what is worth! Good day to you, gentlemen! ~:cheers:
Hell, he will probably get a severe repremand (hahaha) and then get the boot.
Also, the feud going on is between the "Historically accurate" vs. The Game. They complain about the Spartans, the Bull warriors, the Camel riders, and other things. ~:handball:
I think you're on to something there Murat - the use of elephants in battle is well documented. Show me a passage that mentions Camels (or rhino's ~:joker: ) and I'll withdraw my objection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
BTW = here is another quote in full that - well - says soooo much;
"Dude, stfu, you are obviously too stupid to realize its simply a game not a exact description. You talk about people who are raving fanboys, well guess what? Your a raving troll who if they had "historical" units you would probably find another reason to rip on the game.
If you wanted the game to be 100% historical i guess we would only have 1/4 of the units that are in the game now.
so "get your panties in a uproar" and bitch and whine some more, its not going to change anyhing. Getting a paycheck from blizzard?
In case you didn't notice the total war games have historically chose fun > accuracy. Your obviously new and wont like the series so you should leave or your ignorant of this."
Barkhorn.
.....Erm.....What are you trying to say here???Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
After reading the quotes from .Com there is no need to ask the question.
Fantasy units belong in a fantasy game
......Orda
I'm trying to say that there may have been camels, maybe not. The zoological books simply speculate as to it, as there is no documentation of the camel in North Africa.
Macedonian Camel Riders? *sigh* I hope it's easier to edit the build list in RTW than MTW
Hey, Murat!!! Nobody is winning about Camels, people are mumbling about Macedonian Camels. Just like CA's depiction of Cataphract Camels is incorrect. There were only Cataphracts riding Camels. The Camels weren't armoured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Well, whoever said "if the units were historically accurate, they'd rip on it as well" was right.
The companions and spartans were accurate, although y'all still were bitching about it/
I wasn't. Don't make generalizations. The fact that some guys think they were wrong doesn't mean it wasn't Historically accurate. Those units were very good. Read my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
wtf that's all i can say, i'm not asking for my vision, i want reality
Barkhorn is right. The .com is full of nitwits and fanboys. There are a few intelligent people over there, like Gregorious and Psycho...but most of those people originated here.
Still, it is fun to drop in there sometimes. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure, like watching an episode of Jerry Springer. Stay too long however in the company of imbeciles, and you'll begin to leak brain fluid.
It's not so much that it's not 100 percent accurate that we, or at least I get pissed. It's just that they completely make shit up or do something incredibly stupid like make macedonian camel riders. How did they get Macedonians on camels in Numidia? This isn't nit picking on uniforms or colors, it's just blatantly made up.
I'd love to be able to mod the game too and make it like I'd like but a problem for me is that I'm going to Iraq and to fill my down time I'll be playing comp games, reading, or sleeping which means I won't really have access to the accuracy mods on the internet that'll be made and much less time to research and mod it myself and will have to put up with macedonian camels, bull warriors, and Rameses Egyptians for a year and half or more.
It's too late for all this bitching and complaining but it's just plain frustrating. I'm glad that they delayed the game a year to tweak the campaign and battle engine but I wish that they'd have payed a bit more attention to historical accuracy as well.
And if you say that historical accuracy isn't part of the Total War series I recommend you go back and try out shogun total war. The only really "made up" unit was the No Dachi samurai and that's just because the no dachi were really uncommon not because the didn't exist.
Later they added the combat ninjas and kensai but they weren't that terrible to add in because they were offset by all the cool Mongol stuff.
Good post Smetla.
Most of us who have complained about some of the units are also not calling for 100% historical accuracy, or nitpicking with things like "that spear should be a little longer." That is a myth perpetuated by the fanboys so that they can dismiss our arguments, without having to address the fact that we have a point.
I'm perfectly fine for example with the native Egyptian units. Historically the Ptolemies didn't use natives until after Raphia, but no such constraint should be put on the player. After all, if he's playing the role of one of the Egytpian kings shouldn't he have the option of using native troops? My only complaint was the complete lack of Macedonian/Greek units as well.
There is also no need to completely make up units. History is interesting enough, and provided us with plenty of interesting units. I just don't know what CA was thinking sometimes. Take the Gauls or Germans for example. Compare the totally made up forester archers or Chosen axemen to the units suggested by Psycho, which unlike the foresters or chosen axemen...really existed! Can anyone honestly say that the foresters are more interesting than ANY of the units Psycho suggested?
Actually, battlefield ninjas was used on many occasions. Especialyl employed by Tokugawa Ieyasu, to whom the Iga ninja seeked refuge. He used them in battle, especially in sieges, so it is not uncommon at all. The kensai, however, is perhaps the most unnatural unit, but just think of Musashi ~:)
The no-dachi, as noted, were not overly employed, especially not in regiments. But they did serve in the japanese army. Also the warrior monks is a bit of, normally they were peasents or commoners wiht strong faith raising arms to invaders, no invicible super-duper warriors.
I am still confused. Did CA just make a massive typo, and put Macedonian instead of Numidian? Because Numidian is in the discription. I have stayed away from arguing unit accuracy, but if this is really Macedonian, than CA has really gone over the top. I will still buy the game ofcourse, but yeesh.
I believe it was a typo because - as you said. The description states Numdian.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyviking03
Barkhorn.
If it is truely a typo, why is everyone going so ape shit over the name? They obviously messed up the name, and I highly doubt they are just going to leave it like that.
After reading all of the negative posts in this forum... I've got to say that this appears to be an extremely intelligent and on target statement. ~:flirt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkhorn1x
But we do want historical accuracy. And while we do want our personal vision, it has a heck of a lot to do with historical accurarcy.
Well personally it has nothing to do with personal vision and everything to do with historical accuracy
........Orda
I suppose I am one of those for "historically accurate" units (I'd personally prefer the term "historically informed")
However, I also admit that "historical accuracy" does have a lot to do with "personal visions". Competing "personal visions" often, because we are all trying to come to a picture of how things actually were based on evidence (literary, iconographic, archaeologic...) which is not only scarce, but also rarely straightforward. What we have is typically in need of much interpretation and there is where the "personal" part enters...
So, does that make it equivalent to "since we can't be sure everything goes"? No, because at the core still lies the "evidence". Let's say that, influenced by how things are today and seem to have been for quite a while, one of us, who cares some for historical accuracy, had the preconceived notion that the Numidians probably used camels in war. However, just to make sure, you still go and try to check the evidence, just in case... And then you find that there is not a scrap of that beloved evidence of the Numidians using camels for warfare in the timeframe of the game. Actually, it turns out to be not just "using camels in war", but rather "having camels at all". Not one camel bone. Not a single literary reference, no matter how vague or indirect. And that's not just the Numidians. Same goes for Carthaginians, Libyans... (because historical evidence being what it is, arguments like "no proof for them, but their neighbors did have them" merit attention and carry some weight). But nope. Nothing.
A bit more of research would probably also show that, after all, it does makes sense because such lack of evidence does match very well the evidence that we do have. Evidence which indicates that the camel (the dromedary, the single hump one) had been domesticated only relatively recently in the Arabian Peninsula, that the species didn't occur in most Northern Africa (if at all) and that it only spread westwards later as the deserts in that part of the world got bigger. Then, after evaluating all that, you'd go and change your mind.
How could any one claim that such a process is no more valid that "Ah, since there is no proof we can't be sure. Maybe they had them" is beyond my understanding. I understand however, that such sort of "logic" (big euphemism here) is great because you cannot be proven wrong. "The Numidians fought with machine guns" If evidence happens to show up, fantastic, you were right. If it doesn't, well maybe they did, we cannot know for sure, can we?... Useful, eh?
Certainly, we can't be "sure". By the same token, we can't be sure the Numidians didn't have jet fighters, plate armor or fire-breathing dragons or that (as an English philosopher showed) the sun will rise again tomorrow. But we don't have/need to. Because we are reasonably sure. After all, even juries work on the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle.
That said, I understand that this a game and that CA wants to sell it to those who, perhaps influenced by the logo of certain brand of cigarettes, may think the Pharaohs had camels. Or if they did not it's really a pity because a Pharaoh on camel back looks "cool" and thank you CA for taking care of it... It's CA's money and they are entitled to try and make a profit producing the game they think will sell most... IMO, CA needs no further justification. What bothers me are those clumsy attempts at "defending" CA choices by attacking the methods and tools through which we humans can learn about our past. Well, that particular "defense" is not only totally unnecessary, but also an utter failure.
Cheers
A.
Good post Angadil
Long Read.
Great post, Angadil!!!
Excellent post... Angadil.
You know I was under the impression that Camels were not widely used outside of the Middle East/Arabia in this Era. I thought that Camel use only expanded into North Africa after the conquest by the Arabs long after this games timeframe.
Anyone know the truth about when Camels were introduced to North Africa?
tsk tsk, you'll learn what a long read is soon enough. A patron Rajput from India did an exteremly interesting well researched and informative post in the monastery a while back that makes this a brisk read which it actually is. Just think, in a book that post would *almost* be a page long. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
After a quick google search it seems that camels were introduced to North Africa after the Persian invasions around 500 BC. So for RTW they'd been around for quite a while. Seeing as the Numidians usually adopted whatever was adopted down the nile of them I wouldn't be surprised if they had came "technology" by the period RTW is set in.
That Macedonian part better be a typo, it'd be absolutely stupid otherwise. Just imagine Alexander the great with his Companian Camel Cavalry!
Thank you,
AFAIK, the earliest evidence of camels in Africa is camel dung from Egypt whose radiocarbon date has yielded an estimate of 600-780 BCE. Interestingly, these dates would neatly encompass the Assyryian invasion of king Ashar-Haddon (c. 675 BCE, IIRC) who recruited very numerous Arab auxiliaries from previously beaten tribes (attested camel users) for his Egyptian campaign.
However, the camel appears to have remained a sort of localized rarity, restricted to the Eastern end of North Africa and does not seem to have moved westwards until quite later. In the Saharan rock art of the Tassili (south eastern Algeria), representations of camels appear first around the 1st century CE, becoming progressively common since then. So, it is believed that an initial camel expansion in North Africa may have occurred under the Romans. It is worth noting, though, that the Tassili is thought to have been one of the first areas of the Sahara undergoing desertification and thus, could have provided a suitable home for camels relatively early (unlike the still relatively mild areas further north).
The real major expansion of the beast seems to have in fact occurred with the Arab conquest. Some have hypothesized that the destruction wrought upon the agricultural systems of North Africa by the Vandal/Alan invasion of the 5th century and the subsequent wars and invasions (the Byzantine reconquest etc...) may have contributed to a northwards expansion of the desert.
Cheers
A.
Barkhorn, I've been following the camel thread at .com and was surprised at the number of vociferous "screw history" posters there. I agree that an unusual number of the posts at .com have been rather juvenile of late. It is the official site and gets the most hits, Rome has enjoyed unprecedented media hype, and the new graphics will attract gamers that here to for would not look at Total War. Consequently, .com and the org both will see an influx of non-wargamer, console type fans. It is inevitable and we should expect as much.
That said, I bet they turn off morale and fatigue and go arcade... ~;)
Agg! The invasion of the noobs. Run! ~:shock: Hopefully they will stick primarily to the .com, espically the ones that need some serious manner lessons.