Historical Accuracy: How Important Is It to You?

How important do you find historical accuracy in games? Or more particularly: How important is it for you that Total War games, expansion packs and mods be accurate? Do you think you'll only play a Total War game that's been modded to make it accurate, or do you even like a bit of a artistic license to make the game more interesting?

Me: Historical accuracy and realism are nice, but as long as the gameplay's good, I can cope with some fantasy units. I think there are bigger problems in Rome: TW than historical inaccuracy, such as ultra-fast movement and fighting (admittedly also a realism issue), bad AI and a small amount of units that don't have much variety.

(I voted 3)

It's quite important for me.

For me it's between 2 and 3. But I chose 3.

Quote:

---

I prefer accuracy to fantasy, but I'm more worried about gameplay

---

This is not quite strong enough for me, but option 2 is a little too strong. So somewhere between 2 and 3.

I certainly want my games to be accurate, but I'm not anal about it.

I accept that in any strategy game there will be compromises and simplifications, there has to be otherwise the game would take forever to make and might well be unplayable and/or tedious.

So for the sake of gameplay, I accept that 100% realism is impossible. I think STW and MTW had the balance just about right. But like many, I think RTW took a big step back in this regard.

I don't see how accuracy can damage the gameplay
It is Rome total war , that is , rome , so , make it as historical as you can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

I don't see how accuracy can damage the gameplay
It is Rome total war , that is , rome , so , make it as historical as you can

---

Agree!!

But question was "games", not Rome total war ~;)

I say 3.
Prefer realism.
(this is truth from guy who suggest Fantasy Total War!! ~:cheers: )

I chose three. I like games to be accurate to the historical period that they were in, but not if it sacrifieces gameplay. This is the main reason why I do not like realism mods. Sure they have fancy names that you can't pronounce without googleing it, but IMO they detract from the gameplay that got me into RTW in the first place. Yes, realism mods do have some features that make the game more entertaining and somewhat more realistic, but overall, they just take away from what made RTW so great. Minor tweaking is all you need. You don't need a total reconstruction of the game to achive favorable results. In fact, when you do completely remake the game you are more than likely taking away something that made the game such a fun and entertaining game. Maybe it's just me but I don't want my battles to last 2 and a half hours. The speed right now is fine. Sure maybe it is a bit faster than I would put it if I made the game, but it makes you think on your feet (if you don't pause) and keeps your adreniline pumping (again, if you don't pause).

I have said it before and I will say it again, Starcraft is the best game of all time because it is so balanced (along with other great features). Sure it is unlikely that super advanced aliens will have melee infantry as their first line infantry. Or that we will still be using machine guns when we have intergalactic empires. But all of that dosen't matter because the gameplay is so incredible. The diverse roster of units on all sides are still perfectly balanced. It's gameplay, not super-realism that makes a game into a great game.

true but the theme in starcraft IS fantasy, science fiction. RTW claims to be historically (quite) accurate, but the battles don't give me a realistic feeling at all. So much for gameplay over realism.

I remember about a year ago there was a flamewar going on at a gamespy forum: RTW fans VS BFME fans. I myself thought "how can those BFMErs diss RTW when CA has released both MTW and STW while no one has a clue how BFME will play". How wrong was I to think that CA would continue to build on their experience of the previous TW games (which I loved). It's such a shame that so much potential has gone to waste, especiallly considering the ancient world was my favorite theme.

Choices 2 and 5 seem awfully similiar here, no?

I prefer accuracy to fantasy, but I'm more worried about gameplay

I like trying to set up battles and situations that occurred in history, and trying to see if I can change or reproduce the outcome depending on the battle situation. I cannot do this properly if the game is not as realistic as possible, therefore it is number one for me! ~:)

In the case of a game like RTW I can't quite see how accuracy and gameplay are mutually exclusive. If the basic strategic gameplay is nailed who needs fantasy units? Just as the real history is often far more interesting than Hollywood inventions.

On the flipside, there are always going to be abstractions. Armies were massively larger in real life, battle plans couldn't be changed the way they can be in the TW series, and there were many minute details which were important to events. Until these can be accurately modelled no matter how many period units are faithfully recreated gams will always be inaccuracies.

Anyway, I went for number 2.

I chose option three. Whilst it is nice to have historical accuracy and I hate unnecessary inaccuracy, when I buy a game, I expect it first and foremost to be a good game. And if this involves some necessary inaccuracy, then I can accept it.

Somewhere between number 1 and 2. I choose 2 because I can appericate good gameplay, just I prefer historical accuracy. While I enjoyed vanilla at times, its accuracy(or should I say inaccuracy) made me hate it with an intense passion.

Wouldn't be fun to have some tanks shooting the romans down ? yes it would !!! but , is this what we want ?
Hanibaal smashed some 80,000 Romans and Latins (imo , the best army ever) with only 20,000 Celts , Numidians , and Spaniards , did he had tanks ? there you have it - accuracy is gameplay !!! :book: = :duel:

Whereas I would far prefer a game that is 100% historically accurate, I can still manage to enjoy the Total War series. They are not completely accurate but they are the best series of strategy games on the market and it is even possible to make them more accurate. In MP it is even possible to fight realistic battles if you play with like minded people

.....Orda

Quote:

---

In MP it is even possible to fight realistic battles if you play with like minded people

---

Or better yet, like moded people ~;) *cough* Chivalry total war *cough*

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52624

In a game as moddable as Rome...very little.

If I buy a game called Rome: Total War, I expect to be fighting with spears and swords, not laser guns. Laser guns would give me pause. But as long as the basic spirit is intact, I'm good.

This goes double for the TW series, because I know that the game is highly moddable, and that people will quickly be launching into 12 page debates about the exact dimensions of a particular helmet a certain warrior would have used. A million mods will then arise, and out of the multitudes will come a few really really good ones that cater to every particular taste.

I want CA to keep making these games. If that means sticking horns on Viking helmets to keep the marketing guys happy, so be it. Horns can be ignored or even removed. The TW series cannot be replaced.

I like my games to be as historically accurate as possible w/o sacrificing gameplay. I'm a military buff, though I must admit that I'm know alot more about modern armies (1800-present) then the more ancient ones. I find the total war games realistic enough for a great game. One of the things many people seem not to realize is that history, especially ancient history, is more often than not muddled. Any view of history is going to be distorted, simply because nobody from the present time was around back then. History is written by the victor and they will often distort facts and include bias in order to make themselves seem better (ex: Roman views on Gauls). There are many books and studies on ancient times, but many are conflicting. The reason the TW series seems so unrealistic to some is that they take some liberties with interpreting historical info. So called "fantasy" units are usually units that actually existed in small numbers or units that were fabled to exist and realistically could have. There are also some common sense units (such as the carroballistae) where it makes sense that they could have used them. I have no problem with units such as these. It only becomes truly unrealistic if you use whole armies of them. I'm fine with the historical accuracy of RTW, but as for the battle map size and AI - that's another story.

BTW - For some reason I can't see the poll, so I can't tell you which one I would vote for. My profile has been screwing up lately. Somehow my sn got cut in 1/2, so its just Kitty208 instead of Kittykiller208. Took me 2 weeks to figure that one out. It would always say I had the wrong password when I tried to log in. Oh well....

For me a historical game with historical inaccuracy that cannot be excused by present research is tantamount to blasphemy. Gameplay is important, but I originally went for Rome for the history and realism, which included usage of tactics.

I can cope with small inaccuracies that the game itself doesn´t let me change otherwise I like realism and accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitty208

BTW - For some reason I can't see the poll, so I can't tell you which one I would vote for. My profile has been screwing up lately. Somehow my sn got cut in 1/2, so its just Kitty208 instead of Kittykiller208. Took me 2 weeks to figure that one out. It would always say I had the wrong password when I tried to log in. Oh well....

---

You are a junior member - junior members can't see polls - it doesn't take too long to get promoted, promotion is based upon generally being a good member - not post count (I think there is at least one person with 1200 posts who is a juniour member).

Oh...that sorta makes sense - ty

I choose game play as historical accuracy has always seemed to me to be an unatainable goal. For one there is almost always differences of interpretation as to what existed/happened due to lack of credible histories (usually written by the victor so almost always biased.) Secondly I'm looking to 'change history', and so historical accuracy applies less stringently.

Now if you meant would a Sassinad empire in RTW bother me, or perhaps a dragon living in eastern Gaul, then yes, that would bug me. But then one of the reasons I like the TW series is how moddable they are. I can always mod out that which I dislike or dont agree with. So game play is number one issue.

I agree with magnum, I want to see a fair amount of realism, but not at the expense of gameplay. if the game was completely realistic, the roman faction system wouldnt exist, and the other factions wouldnt be powerful at all, as each of them were strong at different points in time. Troop selection for the non romans would be pretty vanilla too. Doubt the germans would have sreaming women!

a 100% historically accurate game would be pretty predictable and boring, as there would be no randomness. All you need to do is have a history book open to know what happens next.

I chose 2 but I'm somewhere between 2 and 3. Wardogs and screaming women are fine. Egypt is not. Warrior monks are fine. Kensai are too much. To me, if it still believably fits the theme of the game and is plausible, I can stand inaccuracy. If you need to do a double take to find something is inaccurate, it's ok. If you know something is completely inaccurate at first glance, that's too much. RTW, to me, has too many mistakes in this regard.

A lot of the historical mistakes also affect gameplay. I find cavalry too powerful and phalanxes too weak. Romans have too good a cavalry selection, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

Wouldn't be fun to have some tanks shooting the romans down ? yes it would !!! but , is this what we want ?
Hanibaal smashed some 80,000 Romans and Latins (imo , the best army ever) with only 20,000 Celts , Numidians , and Spaniards , did he had tanks ? there you have it - accuracy is gameplay !!! :book: = :duel:

---

Hannibal had 40,000-50,000 men at Cannae, the Romans had between 60,000 and 70,000.

Historical accuracy is nice, but gameplay takes priority in my opinion.

Quote:

---

a 100% historically accurate game would be pretty predictable and boring, as there would be no randomness. All you need to do is have a history book open to know what happens next.

---

I think it is important to tell the differnce from "Scripts" And "historically accurate"


i've never understood why people seem to think that if the game had more Celtic/Germanic units, no "Head hurlers", Romans that were not over powerd, and cavalry that couldn't charge through a phalanx it would be scripted and the player wouldn't be able to do anything but sit there and watch ~:confused:

I frowned at Wardogs, but was more upset by Urban Cohorts (Which admittedly I only ever encountered in MP, and doesn't Urban Cohort translate as Town Watch or something like that?)

However I could quite happily play Lord of the Rings:TW and so went for gameplay over accuracy, because as long as no unit has a stupid head start/advantage and the game is balanced I really dont care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

It's quite important for me.

For me it's between 2 and 3. But I chose 3.

---

took the words right from my mouth

Historically Accuracy doesn`t really count much for me, it dependes what games we`re talking about. I like the way it`s done in RTW, like having a unit of head hurlers or incendiary pigs is ok for me as long as heads actually has been thrown in battles, or pigs actually set on fire, if only in one battle. Hence I think the battle priests is a bit on the edge, while the head hurlers is just a fun addition to the game.

I play to relax, not to study history, and I don´t want to have to study history in order to be able to play a game, so I couldn´t care less. As long as there´s a logic behind it, it´s fine with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Historical accuracy is nice, but gameplay takes priority in my opinion.

---

It's pretty clear that something else is taking precedent over both historical accuracy and gameplay. Both of these things have taken big hits in Rome Total War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciaran

I play to relax, not to study history, and I don´t want to have to study history in order to be able to play a game, so I couldn´t care less. As long as there´s a logic behind it, it´s fine with me.

---

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I find historical accuracy to be somewhat necessary if games are to be entitled ROME Total War or MEDIAEVAL Total War, at least close to accurate. There seems to be a view taken by some people here, that accuracy equals boring, in that history is mapped out and therefore cannot be changed. The Total War series are ' what if ' games so this should not be the case. Some elements have been adjusted for gameplay reasons and this is both understandable and acceptable but some border on the ridiculous to some of us. Having said this, I am willing to appreciate the target age of this game and units like headhurlers, pigs and screeching women offer some entertainment for those who want it. Perhaps a simpler method of removing these units other than modding them out would be a nice user friendly feature, since once the game is modded in any way, MP issues arise. So on the whole, a game that resembles history in some way is probably what we all want to see. At the end of the day there is no way to please everyone all of the time but for me, CA and Total War come closer than anyone else

........Orda

All games require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. I know a little about this historical period, but I'm far from a history buff. So maybe some elements like the screeching women don't bother me as much as they do others.

The things that do annoy me are more common-sense violations of reality, like the fact that it can take two years to sail across the Med, when I'm trying to move my armies from Egypt to the Italy. That's ridiculous. They could sail to the South Pacific in that amount of time. I think I remember reading somewhere here, that the dev's slowed down movement speeds on the strategic map to adjust the progress rate of the campaign, but it still doesn't feel right.

Other:
when a mod or game is suposed to be hist. accurate I want it as accurate as it can get. point
But if a game/mod is a fantasy I really don't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

All games require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief.

---

Yes, and when the battlelines charge that's where my suspension of disbelief gets blown out the window. It's so damn jarring that it's physically upsetting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

I think I remember reading somewhere here, that the dev's slowed down movement speeds on the strategic map to adjust the progress rate of the campaign, but it still doesn't feel right.

---

MikeB posted about that over at totalwar.com, and he said they tried longer movement distances but it turned the gameplay into a blitzkrieg. Now what I find strange is that the battlefield gameplay is a blitzkrieg. Why is there an inconsistency between the strategic game design and the tactical game design?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Hannibal had 40,000-50,000 men at Cannae, the Romans had between 60,000 and 70,000.

Historical accuracy is nice, but gameplay takes priority in my opinion.

---

You see , you did not read my post , never said "Cannae"...

"Finally on the 15th day, after a journey of five months from Cartagena, with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and only a few of the original 38 elephants, Hannibal descended into Italy, having surmounted the difficulties of climate and terrain, the guerrilla tactics of inaccessible tribes, and the major difficulty of commanding a body of men diverse in race and language under conditions to which they were ill fitted. Hannibal was subsequently able to increase the size of his army to about 30,000 by recruiting Gauls"

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/index.htm

"Hannibal's successes convinced the dictator of the Roman Senate, Quintus Fabius, that he could not defeat Hannibal on the battlefield. He decided instead to conduct a campaign of delays and harassment. Hannibal enticed the Romans, but few accepted the challenge. Rome began to gather a large army of about 80,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry to attack Hannibal in one large onslaught."

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/...dPunic.CP.html

Well ?

Well apparently I cannot vote 'cause I'm junior. However were I able; I would have voted for historical accuracy. I would even settle for plausible. It wouldnt have hurt anything to call the greeks running Egypt Ptolemaics. Skirmishers work beautifully against elephants, flaming pigs are almost insulting.

I voted "other", since it is perfectly possible to create great mods outside of historical accuracy. However, in a game pretending to simulate history (RTW) I desire the highest accuracy possible.

Ellesthyan I think hit it on the head. I really enjoy fantasy and sci fi games. However, in a game that's about history, I want it as historical as possible.

I think is a good added bonus. Especially being a history buff that I am...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

I shall indeed hope so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

All games require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. I know a little about this historical period, but I'm far from a history buff. So maybe some elements like the screeching women don't bother me as much as they do others.

The things that do annoy me are more common-sense violations of reality, like the fact that it can take two years to sail across the Med, when I'm trying to move my armies from Egypt to the Italy. That's ridiculous. They could sail to the South Pacific in that amount of time. I think I remember reading somewhere here, that the dev's slowed down movement speeds on the strategic map to adjust the progress rate of the campaign, but it still doesn't feel right.

---

I agree on that, sea travel takes ages, plus the fact that you have to do it in steps, as you can always order only two to three turns ahead.

I voted 3, as many here.
However, although i do play games for fun, i do like how history inspired games tend to stimulate my curiosity and i always end up learning quite a bit about the period.
I doubt i would know exactly what was a Janissary had i not played MTW, and it turns out they were so much more than well trained troops, for instance.

Historical accuracy is important, but i will settle for historical believability.

Now gameplay is what kept me away from RTW. Since i play only single player, i found the campaigns bland and dull compared to the diversity i was used to in MTW. One would have more diversity, and more to look forward as time passes.

Making it somewhat similar in Rome might not be historically accurate, but i find it lacking in that regard.

As big a cheater that I am, I prefer realism over historical accuracy unless the game is specifically about historical stuff.

Rome Total War is, despite carrying the name 'Rome' in it and the (relative) complexity in the Roman faction, is not a historic game. If it was really a historic game, you'd never be allowed to invade Arabia, or Ireland, or the Germanic areas East of the Rhine, or the Scythian regions. The very fact that you have the ability to do this as Rome totally shatters whatever historic accuracy it can have.

Further more, the ability to play as other factions than Rome, many of which are totally impractical and historically impossible, are another bit that causes me to have less care for historical importance in Roma Total War. In reality, it would have been completely impossible to be able to command (for example) the German tribes as one, because they were all tribal! And they were all too busy arguing and fighting each other to really be united. In fact, Germany was never a united nation until the 1870's when Prussia unified them all after a series of wars.

So because of this, in Rome Total War, I would care for realism most of all, but since I'm a cheater, I can't install the 1.2 patch to have the latest Rome Total War (I have the 5.1 version so far)... not until someome comes up with a way to unlock the cheats in that version, then I'd get it glady! ~D

If you're talking about games in general, then all I'm going to say is, it depends... greatly, I might add. On what intention the games hold (is it meant to be historical), and on what premises (is it in the real, contemporary world, fantasy, or in the future), and to whom the game actually caters to. As much as I like all sorts of stuff in games, many people of different age groups and walks of life have different wants in regards to games, and on many occasions, I have to suck up what's intended for them and not me. :duel:

Historical accuracy does not mean doing exactly what happened in history. That is what CA says it means, but it does not. It means trying to replicate the start of the game as close as possible as how it was, then letting the player go and create and change, or try and replicate history as they choose.
It also means having units that have proof, are researched, are logical, and were actually used on a regular basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Historical accuracy does not mean doing exactly what happened in history. That is what CA says it means, but it does not. It means trying to replicate the start of the game as close as possible as how it was, then letting the player go and create and change, or try and replicate history as they choose.
It also means having units that have proof, are researched, are logical, and were actually used on a regular basis.

---

Must say....INDEED !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Historical accuracy does not mean doing exactly what happened in history. That is what CA says it means, but it does not. It means trying to replicate the start of the game as close as possible as how it was, then letting the player go and create and change, or try and replicate history as they choose.
It also means having units that have proof, are researched, are logical, and were actually used on a regular basis.

---

Steppe, you're a man after my own heart. :balloon2:

Boy that is a lot of replies. I rather like Fantasy... when it is not MARKETED as accurate. But in the case of all the TW... I want my accuracy thanks (well.. except for warrior monks ~;) )

Azi

Again , about the combination between accuracy and gameplay - playing the game for a year and never ever saw a Punic invasion in to Italia ! Again I say - NEVER !
The Punics invaded Italia , just a history , but , a very big but , I want them to invade Italia not just for the sake of history but for the sake of gameplay !OK , I am playing as the Romans , I have killed the Barbarians , I have conquered Gaul , Germania , Hispania and so on , and the Punics are just seating there in near by Sicilia and doing nothing ! :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: for me it is a BUG , let them come to Italia and fight there way to Rome !

Yesterday I saw that RTR moders noticed this problem , they are intending to change it in v 6.1 by making some king of bridge between Sicilia and Italia , the bridge is not the issue but the possibility of an invasion by the sea , which , as I have said , is impossible in the game (you have conqured all of Europe and the Asian factions are just waiting for you to come , they never ever cross the Helaspontos in to Europe , why ? Because it is a bug ! [B]DAMN[/B])

Can't edit , so...
Even if you are invading Cisilia , the Puncis are just trying to defend the island , they never will send an army to Italia to open a second front for the sake of game play

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

Steppe, you're a man after my own heart. :balloon2:

---

I try. ~;)

I bought the game because of the historical angle, but I enjoy the game because of the gameplay. Sacrificing a bit of history for the benefit of the game is OK by me. Especially if the game turns out to be pretty darn good.

You can be picky about a lot of things, but Im sure the developers thought it all through when they made it.

Like many, I went with 3.

Historical acuracy is as much about oppinion as fact. Much of the minutia that people argue about (stirups for example) have been documented both ways over the years. The important thing is to:

1 Make the game fun
2 Make the game challenging
3 Be historicly acurate
4 Replayable from all sides.


If you ignore the first 2 to be more "historicly acurrate" the only people who will play are the masochists who play Romanians in WW2 games.

I like to be accurate in games, but, I like fantacy also. So i'm 50-50.

Quote:

---

Historical acuracy is as much about oppinion as fact. Much of the minutia that people argue about (stirups for example) have been documented both ways over the years. The important thing is to:

---

Opinon? What? It's not about opinon. There is proof about stirrups not being around until the Avars introduced them to the West, or at least not widespread.
It's about fact, not opinon. Sometimes people disagree how to interpret facts, but it doesn't make it an opinon question.
You could say "I think that Romans were supermen who could beat every enemy and everyone else sucks", but even though that is your opinon, you're still wrong.

Quote:

---

If you ignore the first 2 to be more "historicly acurrate" the only people who will play are the masochists who play Romanians in WW2 games.

---

Historical accuracy improves the first two, not lessens them.

Yes, historical accuracy is a definite plus to the overall game experience, provided that the modifications needed to make it accurate don't detract from the gameplay, then it isn't worth it. You can make the battles last two hours and have the names that they would use in that time, and redo the units, but if it detracts from the gameplay that made the game exciting and fun to play in the first place, then it just isn't worth it.

Another topic that has been brought up in this thread is minor details. And that is what they are, minor details. They do not have an impact on gameplay and have little or no impact on the realism portion of the game because they are so minor. Stirrups are a great example. Yes it is true that there were no stirrups for a good while after the game period. But does it really matter? I would say no. It is an asthetic detail that a game designer mistakenly put in. It is not the end of the world and the fact that it has been argued about for this long is almost embarassing. The fact that they are there doesn't really matter. They can be ignored or removed. I for one, never even noticed them until the subject was brought up.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutly love a game that was completly accurate and still be fun and challanging at the same time, however, I can't imagine that anything that good in the near future. So for now I can live with some inaccuracies and unrealistic units as long as the game is a fun, challenging game that keeps my intrest.

Hey, stirrups are important. If someone puts them in before they are used, it shows their foolishness and ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Hey, stirrups are important. If someone puts them in before they are used, it shows their foolishness and ignorance.

---

This begins sound pathetic now. Why are stirrups important but all men looking same like identical twins is ok? You don't like game yet you speak all this calling foolish and ignorant. This I think is foolish, if you want accurate game you can make accurate game. My guess is CA want to sell games.

I am helping to make an accurate game, thank you very much.

Perhaps you don't think stirrups are important. I do. I find it extremely irrating when people assume stirrups are needed for cavalry warfare, or have stirrups before they were used. It is like having a 17th century musketteer equipped with a 19th century repeating rifle.

Oh, and how by not having stirrups would CA lose money? In fact, they loose money by having stirrups, do to people like me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dulsin

If you ignore the first 2 to be more "historicly acurrate" the only people who will play are the masochists who play Romanians in WW2 games.

---

That would be me. I play Romania in HoI2, but on the easy level; even so, I still don't tangle with the big fish. I just whip Bulgaria and Turkey's asses. It's fun. ~D

See? Historical realism can be fun.

voted number two...

A unit of 82 clones in legionary gear is only slightly bothersome to me. I would prefer something more individuated, but would also prefer a computer that can play the game at something resembling 24+ FPS.

Stirrups are not annoying on an aesthetic level -- though I would prefer their absence for accuracy -- but could be a concern for implied game values. If CA didn't check for this one, they may have assumed stirrups were in use. This would explain why RTW Vanilla cavalry is so overly effective, especially when charging. The kind of shock charge possible with stirrups was virtually non-existent before that time -- or Rome would have been known for its cavalry instead. I hope it was a mistake on the part of the graphic artist, and not the values/historical team.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Stirrups are not annoying on an aesthetic level -- though I would prefer their absence for accuracy -- but could be a concern for implied game values. If CA didn't check for this one, they may have assumed stirrups were in use. This would explain why RTW Vanilla cavalry is so overly effective, especially when charging. The kind of shock charge possible with stirrups was virtually non-existent before that time -- or Rome would have been known for its cavalry instead. I hope it was a mistake on the part of the graphic artist, and not the values/historical team.

---

Sadly, I don't think CA tied the two together - they put stirrups in because it looked "right" but made cavalry powerful so you can conquer all of Gual with a general's bodyguard unit.

I'm exagerating, but not by as much as I would wish.

I did not vote, and agree closely with what Steppe Merc said and Puzz3D, commenting on how both gameplay and accuracy took hits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I am helping to make an accurate game, thank you very much.

Perhaps you don't think stirrups are important. I do. I find it extremely irrating when people assume stirrups are needed for cavalry warfare, or have stirrups before they were used. It is like having a 17th century musketteer equipped with a 19th century repeating rifle.

Oh, and how by not having stirrups would CA lose money? In fact, they loose money by having stirrups, do to people like me.

---

Fine, carry on and make the accurate game. There are things like this over and over and it will not change so why keep bringing up such things? It will not change. You do not like the game for sure so play the accurate game.

CA are interested more in sales than little points such as stirrups is what I meant but I think you knew that already.

Seamus Fermanagh, stirrups weren't needed for a powerful charge. Heavy cavalry was in used in the East hundreds of years before stirrups were in use.

IIRC stirrups are especially usefull so you can stand up in the saddle, making it easier to attack infantry when they get close. I don't think it has much to do with charge. I mean they don't use their feet to hold the impact of a charge do they ? You'd still be blown out of your saddle if you did just that. I think it's the special saddle that makes a charge possible or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Hun

Fine, carry on and make the accurate game. There are things like this over and over and it will not change so why keep bringing up such things? It will not change. You do not like the game for sure so play the accurate game.

CA are interested more in sales than little points such as stirrups is what I meant but I think you knew that already.

---

The hun ,
For me , accuracy is very important but mainly in the diplomatic and the strategic levels . EB ? they wants their accuracy , it is their right...I will bett you that in their mod you even going to see the horses making their body wastes...I don't know about the smell... ~D

Quote:

---

Historical accuracy improves the first two, not lessens them.

---

Only to some does it improve.
RTR is proof that historical accuracy doesn't improve gameplay or make it more fun for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Oh, and how by not having stirrups would CA lose money? In fact, they loose money by having stirrups, do to people like me.

---

Most people don' care about stirrups since it doesn't affect gameplay.
Yes maybe CA would lose money over historical nit-pickers but lucky for CA that is a very small group. The money they lose from you they easily make up by the mainstream audience so you can see that you are in a very powerless group.
CA is making a game that is profitable, you may like it or not but that's the way it is. Without it, no more TW and we are all back to Warcraft and other resource gathering games.
However you should consider yourself very lucky that CA has made the game moddable enough for this tiny group to mod the game so that they will get their accuracy.
CA has tried to make the game as accurate they can be and still make the game fun enough for the mainstream audience

Quote:

---

IIRC stirrups are especially usefull so you can stand up in the saddle, making it easier to attack infantry when they get close. I don't think it has much to do with charge. I mean they don't use their feet to hold the impact of a charge do they ? You'd still be blown out of your saddle if you did just that. I think it's the special saddle that makes a charge possible or not.

---

Agreed. And it's helpful for horse archers as well, but hardly necassary.

Quote:

---

However you should consider yourself very lucky that CA has made the game moddable enough for this tiny group to mod the game so that they will get their accuracy.

---

Oh, yeah, it's so moddable. :dizzy2:
If CA had made it moddable, I wouldn't be complaining. But the amount of hardcoding idiotic things that CA has created gives everyone the right to complain.

Quote:

---

Only to some does it improve.
RTR is proof that historical accuracy doesn't improve gameplay or make it more fun for most people.

---

So, by looking at one mod you can proove than all historical mods are boring? Good job.

Quote:

---

Yes maybe CA would lose money over historical nit-pickers but lucky for CA that is a very small group. The money they lose from you they easily make up by the mainstream audience so you can see that you are in a very powerless group.

---

Very small? Do you have any idea the amount of people intrested in EB, RTR and similar mods?

Quote:

---

CA has tried to make the game as accurate they can be and still make the game fun enough for the mainstream audience

---

Bull shit. History makes a game more fun, not less. Only CA denies that, and you've bought their lies. Stirrups will not make a game less fun. Having no screaming women or vampire slaying priests make a game more fun.
CA is out for money, yes. So don't claim that they try and make a game accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If CA didn't check for this one, they may have assumed stirrups were in use. This would explain why RTW Vanilla cavalry is so overly effective, especially when charging. The kind of shock charge possible with stirrups was virtually non-existent before that time -- or Rome would have been known for its cavalry instead. I hope it was a mistake on the part of the graphic artist, and not the values/historical team.

---

This reminds me of something that happened in MTW due to the artist's rendition of Knights Templar. All the cav knights were depicted with lances except the Knights Templar who were depicted holding a sword. It was the artist who took it upon himself to depict them differently than the other cav knights. LongJohn didn't want them depicted that way, but it was too late to change the artwork. So, LongJohn reduced the charge value of Knights Templar from 8 to 4 and lowered the cost slightly because they were depicted with the sword. He said that players might be confused if he had left them with the same charge as knights armed with lances. However, the players who knew something about the history of the Knights Templar were confused, and didn't understand why these knights were weaker than other knights. So, the graphic renditions which are at the whim of the artist can affect the final combat stats of the unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Oh, yeah, it's so moddable. :dizzy2:
If CA had made it moddable, I wouldn't be complaining. But the amount of hardcoding idiotic things that CA has created gives everyone the right to complain.

---

CA has their reason to hardcode certain things but most things you need to make it accurate is open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

So, by looking at one mod you can proove than all historical mods are boring? Good job.

---

That is pretty much the only one there is for the time being.
Most mods don't aim to be 100% accurate like RTR.
EB isn't out yet so I won't comment on the fun factor on that mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Very small? Do you have any idea the amount of people intrested in EB, RTR and similar mods?

---

Yes I do and they are in the minority of the buyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Bull shit. History makes a game more fun, not less. Only CA denies that, and you've bought their lies. Stirrups will not make a game less fun. Having no screaming women or vampire slaying priests make a game more fun.
CA is out for money, yes. So don't claim that they try and make a game accurate.

---

I never said having stirrups would make the game more fun, I said it won't increase or decrease anything.
Screaming women and other of the "fantasy" units are no fun to you and you can remove them if you like it but they are fun to others.
And yes I do claim they tried to make a game accurate, the flaming pigs, germans that can form phalanx are accurate, sure the pigs were only used once and that the germans didn't form a perfect phalanx but they were actually used and that is what makes them fun.
But the majority of the buyers aren't here to state their thoughts of the game so this will remain the battle among the minorities.

to me its very important bcuz i prefer to have the most authentic feel to the game. :balloon2:

accuracy is important to any historical game, but I think we should not focus too much on the little things. The best educated historians will always disagree on something.

When you ask for a great deal of accuracy you may not like what you see. The cities stink, people die daily of common ailments and bad water. Armies are made up largely of ill equipped ill trained men.

Most of your casualties will come not from battlefields, but from the invisible enemies that kill from within.

None of us want to spend money recruiting because of losses brought on by whores, bad water, bad food, and the sicknesses that are so easily transmitted when people live so close together.

The stirrups can go, and some of the fantasy units should be an option if they are included at all. Complete accuracy wouldn't be a great deal.

[QUOTE=Maedhros]
The cities stink, people die daily of common ailments and bad water. Armies are made up largely of ill equipped ill trained men.
Most of your casualties will come not from battlefields, but from the invisible enemies that kill from within ...want to spend money recruiting because of losses brought on by whores, bad water, bad food, and the sicknesses that are so easily transmitted when people live so close together...

Yes , me want this me want this :indian_chief:

I voted 3. because 2. was too strong, but I was thinking of R:TW in particular here. Even if the game was painstakingly accurate, the turbo-speed, cavalry-dominated battles still would not be enjoyable to me.

I don't mind fantasy in a game like age of mythology, but I do in a game that tries to recreate realistic battles. I bought this game to see history recreated, and, forgetting the Egyptians, the game does do a good job at this. But when it comes to the fine detail, and I am confronted with Screeching women, Bull-warriors and Head-hurlers, the fun pretty quickly goes of. This is not how it went. This is comic-book history, not what I was looking for.

I understand that we cannot have total realism, and that a game that drowns you in details for the sake of realism will be very boring indeed, but that does entitle the developers to add head-hurlers in my opinion. If they promise to deliver realistic battles, they shouldn't not add fantasy soldiers.

Ludens, that is what many see when they think of realism. We don't want (nor can we) and exact replica of history.
We want realistic units that existed, and we want to aproximate the military, social and political reality as close as possible the beggining of the period, and approximate as close as possible future unit, social and political evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

and approximate as close as possible...social and political evolution.

---

Please , some examples if you can :bow:

The Egyptians are still a jarring mistake to me, after all this time. Most of the other units are kinda minor to me but druids seem stupid to me even though I know next to nothing about old Celtic culture.

The inaccuracy most affecting gameplay for me is in the battle mechanics. Cavalry charges are way, way more powerful and the killing rate is too high. I took an around 6-chevron 45-man General's Bodyguards with Germania and defeated a Macedonian army with around 700+ units. Included in those units are around 300+ phalanx pikemen and around 150 or so of Macedonia's cavalry units. It was just basically charging and routing a cavalry unit immediately, running around and charging phalanx units while they're reforming and turning around, then disengaging and running away again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewt

It was just basically charging and routing a cavalry unit immediately, running around and charging phalanx units while they're reforming and turning around, then disengaging and running away again.

---

I did that with a single Hun cavalry unit in the BI demo's Chalons battle, and I won the battle.