Historical accuracy vs game balance

[PBI]

I don't know how people can complain about historical accuracy and balane at the same time.

Because we want to have our cake and eat it too! Gamers are a fickle bunch.

In truth, though, it's possible to complain about both at once because its possible to take both too far. Glaring anachronisms which are obvious even to an historical illiterate like myself can be pretty grating, whilst at the same time I am of the opinion that since real warfare is not fun at all, considerable liberties do need to be taken to make a fun game of it. In general I tend to err on the side of balance, largely because it's easier to make a mod to improve the accuracy than it is to do the same to improve balance (which is a pretty subjective concept anyway).

Playing a faction w/ the OP'ed units makes for an easier game. If you want a challenge play a faction that will have to fight the OP'ed units.

The problem here is while that's all well and good for the player, all the computer factions are lumbered with the same AI. Thus if some factions are overpowered they will always steamroller their neighbours. I always thought it was a shame in RTW that I would never get to fight the interesting and varied unit roster of the Seleucids, because they invariably got slaughtered by the Egyptians, so I ended up fighting the same tedious endless stacks of chariots and foot archers every time.

Either the factions should survive long enough against each other to let you fight a decent cross section of their roster (a la M2TW) or the game must be balanced enough that pretty much any faction can become an all conquering behemoth (a la MTW).

I don't mind balance so long as it's not overdone. For instance, I like that in Shogun and MTW, some factions are inherently easier than others, and some are inherently more difficult. The trick is to still make it possible for all factions to win, despite some being obviously more/less powerful than others.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Having some factions be doomed from the start may be historically accurate on some level, but it does result in a campaign which can never surprise you (which I suppose you could argue is a far more egregious historical inaccuracy; real historical figures didn't have the benefit of hindsight after all).