http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...?topicID=19529. There will be 7 unplayable faction so it gives 17 new faction slots in total.
Printable View
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...?topicID=19529. There will be 7 unplayable faction so it gives 17 new faction slots in total.
17 "new" factions. What a coincidence, eh? LOL.
Hmm, the link doesn't work.
Why the hell can't the Sassanids "horde"? Or the Berbers? ~:confused:
Mmm, oh I love CA. :furious3:Quote:
We think aiming for complete historical accuracy would also have been utterly boring for everyone except the dozen or so people who want a painstakingly accurately depicted Vexillationes Equites Sagitarii Seniores and a complete list of tribal factions and nations, all behaving like they were stuck on historical tramlines, with no choices for the player. Instead we create a start point that is a close approximation of an historical situation and then allow the player to alter history by their actions, thus probably creating a counter-factual outcome.
LOL, indeed. Their blatant disregard for historical accuracy would be forgiveable (they're just computer game developers) if they werent so damned PATRONISING towards their biggest fans.
It's like they don't want us anymore :embarassed:
EDIT: incidently, when RTR is released tomorrow, and when EB is released, we'll see just how many that 'dozen or so' turn out to be.
Celts, unplayable?!?!?!? :(
*silent weeping*
I also find it funny how they stereotype all people wanting historical accuracy as wanting a game bound by the course of history when all we really want is a game with a historical starting point so we can lead the same people we fell in love with in the history books and not fantasy ripoffs, and poorly made fantasy ripoffs at that.
Just because the Greeks must use hoplites doesn't mean they eventually have to be conquered by the pantheon-damned Romans, you know. We want historical accuracy not so we can sit and keepp ending turn to see the Peloponnesian War playing our before our eyes, but so that the Greeks actually used damned hoplites, and the Thracians actually use lancer cavalry, and not, for example, gaesatae. Is that a crime?
Let's just count the number of supporters and posters on this EB forum. Does it look like a dozen or so to you? Take that, CA! *throws a cataphract column at the guy who made that comment*
The history books are the best stories ever told; better than any 'approximation' we can give it, for the very fact that it was REAL. It behooves us to look at the possibilities based on REAL facts, not 'approximations'. Why then I could say that I scored a B in my tests, which is 'approximately' an A. Bah humbug.
RandyKapp - i am sure that it will be possible to unlock the non-playable factions so dont worry.
the bastards, I'm not going to buy BI anymore unles EB's also giving BI a facelift, then I will consider(sp?)
I love that quote, it is like CA never noticed that RTR and EB are the two biggest RTW mods. RTR's and EB's mission? Make RTW more historical. Hmm...Quote:
We think aiming for complete historical accuracy would also have been utterly boring for everyone except the dozen or so people who want a painstakingly accurately depicted Vexillationes Equites Sagitarii Seniores and a complete list of tribal factions and nations, all behaving like they were stuck on historical tramlines, with no choices for the player. Instead we create a start point that is a close approximation of an historical situation and then allow the player to alter history by their actions, thus probably creating a counter-factual outcome.
We certainly agree there. "Dozens"? Yeah, that seems like a purposeful slap in the face to both mods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabolous
Even worse, my man. "dozen" was in the singular.
Hell theres more than twice that many actually involved in making the mod, never mind the countless fans.
I mean I know they're making a fairly valid point, that actually even if all the fans of EB and RTR went out and bought a game that fulfilled our hopes and dreams, that wouldn't necessarily make it a success as a game, and the rest of the world might not give a damn. Just look at how well RTW sold compared to shogun or MTW, and the reviews it got.
But DAMN, do they have to be so rude to us?
WE WANT TO LIKE YOU, CA!
Why do you make it so hard?
:laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
who want a painstakingly accurately depicted Vexillationes Equites Sagitarii Seniores
I posted one of Prom's Equites Sagitarii Seniores in the colleseum, comparing it to their new units. They really do pay attention to us.
The EB release notice is going to have a nice jab at CA regarding this, right at the top. I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabolous
CA is a game company and they must sell thir games (in great numbers) in order to thrive. This said, as far as i know, historicall accuracy does NOT sell.
Why ? Because most people are not interested in that. Period. I feel it's a shame, i'd like it to be another way (partly because history has much to teach us) but it is a fact that can be hardly worked around.
I guess we should be happy with a game that allows players to modifiy it so that they can turn it to the kind of game they'd like to play.
Now, this said, i am sure there is a way to be historically accurate and fun. Perhaps EB will do the trick; i hope so.
In my humble opinion, this won't lead anywhere but to more lack of understanding between you and them. Perhaps a well rounded "opened letter" to CA explaining how hard, unfair and ridiculous their statement is and asking why they allowed themselves this low blow to their most dedicated fans would be more efficient. This could be published on most (if not every) fan site to maximize its impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Making people feel guilty is better than kicking them in the balls.
The thing is, why do you have to advertise that your game is historically accurate? If the Egyptians were made less ridiculous, sugar-high nine-year olds wouldn't give a wooden nickel - because they wouldn't notice. In fact, to avoid problems, call them the Ptolmeaic (can't spell) Empire. Just don't advertise it as historical. Then there are no problems, and slightly less ticked-off historical nerds.
I hope what EB does doesn't cause problems. If I thought an open letter would help, I would advocate it. But that particular front in the war on ahistorical junk looks very grim.
Probably because a marketting yuppie decided so. I work in the gaming industry in Europe and believe me, those useless morons are the worst bane of players everywhere : they don't play games, they don't know their product, they don't even really know what a game, senso lato, IS and still they come and tell you what to put in it and how to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Burn 'em.
PS : in this event, telling the game is historically accurate while it is not was most propably made to give the company a kind of "serious" appearence while the content was made to appeal at players, considering they are a massive bunch of morons unable to realize that egyptians from the 3rd century bc were VERY different from the ones 2 thousand years before. In fact i don't know wich is most insulting : the comment aimed at historical accuracy or the way they considered the majority of their clients like complete spatz.
I don't think that was khelvan's idea - rather merely continuing the jocular banter and poking fun in the way that has developed between CA and EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrhyl
Both sides are well aware of each other's priorities and these little "shout-out" references are just little tips of the hat to the community. It's all in good fun :beam:
.
This is so silly. You have a game that allows you to Mod and you have attacked CA many times. Now you are upset? You will dig at CA? Not clever. What if CA say Hell with you we make game Mod unfriendly? How long you guys work on your Mod? How many will play your Mod compared to RTW? Why do you need to call names? This is silly we are better nonsense.
the game is mod unfriendly.
without fan-input all EB coudl do was unit-tweaking and micro-scripting teh campaign.
all editors (.Cas for skins) are released by fans, not CA. btw, CA already stated the game would be more moddable than rtw. it claimed to be 'most moddable ever' or something like that. but i'm not getting my hopes up thAt much
Guys...dont Forget The Faction Wicth Emerge Over Time Out Of Over Factions..... ~d
I think you guys misunderstood what CA said.
I think they ment very few people would want a "TOTALLY historically accurate" game.
Do we really need painstakingly accurately depicted Vexillationes Equites Sagitarii Seniores?
DO WE REALLY NEED THAT?
Don't get me wrong, I am into historical accuracy.
I love history of that period.
But seriously, do we really need that level of accuracy?
Who the hell is going to notice it anyway except for those "fdozen people"?
The guy is exaggerating in order to belittle those of us who are frustrated with the nonsense present in the RTW series. Besides, that's just a name; it means nothing on its own.
I wouldn't say I'm angrry over this, but I do think it's kind of typical.
Well, these people for a start:Quote:
Originally Posted by KSEG
http://img282.echo.cx/img282/7016/ebmembermap7ed.th.gif
That's the locations of relatively current EB membership. A few new ones aren't on there yet and a few older ones probably should be dropped off, but as you see there are far more than a dozen who are contributing to such a mod right now.
Do you really care if the length of the gladius is 1 inch shorter then real?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Or if there is 1 more iron plate in the lorica segmentata then real?
I'm talking about that level of realism.
Lorica segmenta wasn't still used much in the time periods for either game, I think...
Besides, that isn't the level of CA's wrongness. It's like comparing a mouse and an elephant.
Quite a large team; probably more than most game studios get anyhow. How's the workload split? As in, what percentage of the group works on models, how many on coding, and how many on the historical research?
I know that, but I think what I said was what CA meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Well, it varies greatly. It's all voluntary of course also, so we take what we can get. You can't count on an 8 hour workday every day from any single person, but some turn more than that in each day anyhow. Others drop in with text or skins or other things to help from time to time. No real way of quantifying things, but I love maps, so I've tried to keep track of where folks are at. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Wow, who's the team-member in northern Iraq? Is he a serviceman or an Iraqi? Of all the places in the world I wudn't've expected that.
Actually Teleklos's maps are used to keep track of EB members, so the dreaded EB deathsquad* can keep the lazy ones motivated.
*zooming in and around the globe using double arsemode
Hah, that's funny. What you fail to realize is that they've already done this, to a good extent, even after promising that the game would be the "most moddable ever" or something equally hope-inspiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hun
Check out the new unit profile
http://www.totalwar.com/community/rtwbi.htm
Gallowglasses, woot =D
Yes, because everyone knows Hiberno-Norse mercenaries from the Hebrides in the high middle ages were used as the elite of Celtic forces during the fall of Rome.
So when did those pesky Celts get a timemachine?
this really cracked me up
btw, it looks very very medievil. am i right?Quote:
it is the gallowglasses task to hack away at the enemy battle line
Jerby, they were mercanaries from the 1200 to 1300. ~;)
CA does it again....altough teh unit description rocks
But all the Units shown to us imho look at least better then in Current RTW ~:)
That's true. they could have had "flaming war dogs" ~D
Well, partly correct; they appeared between 1200-1300, but were used as late as the 1700s. It's also notable, when they originally appeared, they used a 'sparth' axe; two-handed swords weren't that popular among them until the 1500s, except among some captains and such. So they're even further out of period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Im not careing because they look goood and have big swords. Just the kind of unit i likes for my fantasy games.
Can anyone answer whether description on BI site correct or not?
It is not as stated above ^
In terms of equipment its on the markish, 2 handed sword etc. But its out of time period and such.
The description is way, way, way off. Real gallowglass were 'galloglaidh' or 'galloglaich'; it means 'foreign warriors'. They were a mixture, armament-wise, of Gaelic and Norse traditions that were cultivated in the Hebrides. They were no 'elite' of any actual kingdom; they were mercenaries. They fought for the Scots, English, French, and a huge list of others, but most notably the Irish. They resembled, in many ways, a mixture of Gaelic 'Ridire' (Knights) and old viking 'Huskarl'; with Gaelic clothing, a style of Gaelic chain, with a viking inspired helmet, and with the sparth, a long handled axe of viking design; they later adopted, largely, various Irish and Scottish two-handed swords, or the shorter Irish and Scottish longswords, with a two-handed grip (which predate the larger greatswords). The Irish hired so many of them to replace their badly decimated ridire; the retainers of the flath (chiefs) and other arras (nobles). They were given, by the Irish, lands in Ireland, but everyone else who hired them generally gave them some parcels of land too (they generally wanted a lot of land; the Hebrides weren't exactly the greatest position to be in economically). Gallowglass weren't some Celtic elite of a king; they worked for anyone who'd pay them. Real elite Gaelic soldiers were generally the arras, or their retainers, the ridire, and in some cases, around Dublin generally, the Ostmen, though they were also generally mercenaries, and the distinction between Gaelic Dubliners and Ostmen had pretty much ceased by this time. Even in the period that gallowglass were hired by the Irish, they were generally placeholders until they could train themselves local heavy infantry again, though many chiefs, in latter periods, steadily relied more on gallowglass, since, without the support of an actual king (since many chiefs no longer had a king; the Irish kings were mostly replaced by Norman lords, though some Gaelic kings still held some claimancy), training and equipping their own heavy infantry was usually too expensive. As an aside, 'ridire' is actually of Saxon origin; it's what they refered to the Gaelic heavy infantry as; said infantry were generally armored in chain or bronze scale armor, with a metal helmet, likely with cheekguards, and generally an axe, but sometimes a sword.
The 'gallowglass' unit is also ahistorical equipment wise in that, they're wearing trousers; they'd be wearing a knee-length shirt, be barelegged, have a longsword as a sidearm, as well as probably a hand axe. Otherwise the equipment isn't that bad; they did use two-handed swords (as noted above), and they did wear cloaks.
I thought that the plaid was a post-medieval development ~:confused: Could you esplain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Plaid, no, kilts, yes. Plaid would be worn on cloaks; Celts had worn plaid for centuries and centuries, kilts were a renaissance era invention. However, wealthier Gaels didn't tend to wear trousers regardless. I explained above; they wore a knee-length shirt. It comes from Iberians, who settled Ireland and heavily affected the subsequent Gaelic culture. While poorer Gaels wore 'trews' (skin-tight pants that stopped just above the ankle), wealthier Gaels (including the Gallowglass, who were very wealthy mercenaries) wore the 'leine', the knee-length shirt.
Gaelic soldiers were generally split in two classes; 'proper' soldiers wore the leine; indentured servants, slaves, and militias wore a shorter, similar shirt, along with trews; however, in west Ireland, almost all soldiers wore a leine by the late dark ages, but in the west and Scotland, levies still wore trews. Gallowglass would've fallen in the upper echelon of soldiers though, and would've dressed like a 'proper' soldier; a knee-length leine shirt, bare legs, and leather boots. It is presumed by many that the difference between levies and real soldiers started when Ireland was originally conquered; pre-Iberian/Celtic soldiers would've been grouped as levies, and would wear the trews to distinguish them from the emerging Goidilic culture soldiers.
Aren't there pictures of Gaelic soldiers in the Book of Kells wearing what looks like a pair of natty bermuda shorts with a sort of dinner jacket looking thing? It's the guy crouching down with the spear and tiny shield.
Those would be light levied Gaelic infantrymen, wearing a padded jacket (called a cotun or acton) and trews (as described above). The trews were made to stand out more than they really would have, so a viewer would actually see them. Alternatively, it could've depicted said infantry in warmer weather, in which case they would pull the legs up over the knee, and tie them there, making them more a pair of light, baggy shorts. Also, I'm aware Ireland may seem like a bit of a cold place, however, if one lived there their whole life, and was in an occupation that required a lot of physical exertion, they would feel hot a lot sooner than most people, and get cold a lot later.
Thanks for the explaination. By "plaid" by the way, I didn't mean the English pronounciation "plad" as in tartan pattern, but the kilt itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
besiedes the obvious better look of the units, im not finding too much in BI...hopefully i will be surpised (doubt it tho :)
well they got one part of teh description right: it's their job to hack away at enemy's
Later than that, actually. It was more like a modern-era invention. The Scottish Romantic period was a little later than the rest of Europe's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
that unti description just gets betetr and betetr when you keep reading it:
-It's their task to hack away at teh enemy's battle line
-the people or teh north and west of the britisch isle have a long tradition of producing heroic warriows
Yes, I said renaissance, but I suppose it'd come later; in any event, the kilt wasn't a piece of clothing used by early Gaels, however, that doesn't mean they all wore trousers, and certainly not upper-class mercenary soldiers like the Gallowglass.
And Gallowglass were more meant to kill enemy heavy infantry, and light horsemen (a sparth axe or greatsword could incapacitate or kill a horse). Not to attack their 'main battle line', which would, at the time, be composed of spear or pikemen a lot of the time; lighter infantry and skirmishers existed for that. The gallowglass were also used to storm fortresses.
edited out slightly off-topic post
"When we grew up to school, there were certain teachers who would hurt the children any way they could...Quote:
We think aiming for complete historical accuracy would also have been utterly boring for everyone except the dozen or so people who want a painstakingly accurately depicted Vexillationes Equites Sagitarii Seniores and a complete list of tribal factions and nations, all behaving like they were stuck on historical tramlines, with no choices for the player. Instead we create a start point that is a close approximation of an historical situation and then allow the player to alter history by their actions, thus probably creating a counter-factual outcome.
By pouring their derision upon anything we did, exposing every weakness however carefully hid by the kids."
There's a Pink Floyd quote for every occasion. ~D
Unless EB does something really incredible with BI, I'm not even going to buy it. If I want to play a historically accurate depiction of that era, I will play Maximus's Fall of Rome mod for MTW: a highly accurate depiction of the fall of the Roman empire, plus it lacks RTW's disadvantages.
What blows my mind is that CA will release a game set in history and at the same time cover it with a thin veil of fantasy.
I'm not sure why they would not go that extra mile and just make the game historically sound. Their best excuse, and also their only defense, is a poor excuse and no defense at all. They go on about how only a small number of fans actually care about history, they then ultimately taper off in to some BS regarding the destruction of game play and fun factor.
So they leave it up to the modding community who has brought the game closer to historical settings and not at the risk of game play. Sure the mechanics are not perfect, but that's only because CA will not allow that with all this secert hardcoding mumbo jumbo.
I think it should almost be illegal to micky mouse history like CA has done. I'm sure right now some kid or adult is trying to impress somebody with their extended knowledge of ancient Britan, and how they use to have a designated head throwing freak who tied heads around his waist.
Sure, you can argue that the any one trying to score dinner conversation from a video game is a twit, but I'm sure we all have at one point, and CA needs to come to grips with this, they're just setting up poor bastards around the world with hidesouly inncorrect BS.
much better ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester
well ive played the demo and seen the campaign map and its not that unrealistic, infact its more realistic than ud think!
Priests in battle, Steppe Swordsmen, Steppe Spearmen, Carriage Ballistas (Ballistas on wagons??).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
But maybe more realistic than vanilla yes.