Review of Empire for those who like historical correctness

[Didz]

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.

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.

How does didz being annoyed at a lack of historical accuracy equate to me being annoyed if it *is* accurate?

It doesn't your imagining things again.

The game isn't historically accurate end-of.

What's going on here? Does everyone here have a poor grasp of basic logic or is it just me?

not being angry because the game is not accurate != being angry because the game is accurate

Jesus.

Yep! your definately 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.

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.

[nafod]

@ 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.

@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:)

[Unhinged_Loon]

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.

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.
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...

[anweRU]

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.

[Daveybaby]

@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.

[Didz]

@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.

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.

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.

[AussieGiant]

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.

I love it how people relate to their own opinion as if it is the truth.

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.

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.

[Didz]

I wonder if I can find another historian who has a different "opinion" on what the uniforms should look like.

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.

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.

[AussieGiant]

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.

That's a little contradictory.

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.

You’d think it would be easy, but my opinion is those "simple things" that are in fact not that easy to confirm.

[Didz]

That's a little contradictory.

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.

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.

[TB666]

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.

Well it was not in uniforms where the effort was needed.
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.

[Didz]

Well it was not in uniforms where the effort was needed.
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.

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.

[AussieGiant]

And we continue...

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.