Realism vs playability

**Tamur** · 08-20-2004, 15:40

hi all,

I know I'm hitting a hot topic here, and this may have been covered in depth already, but...

I notice a lot of people telling Creative Assembly, "Keep it historically accurate."

I also notice a lot of people saying, "Don't overpower the Romans."

It seems that, when we're talking about the time period (250 BC - 15 AD) that these two are a contradiction. The Romans were beatable, certainly, but they basically mowed over everything in their path and sowed salt on top of the ones they REALLY didn't like.

I'm not trying to get on anyone's bad side here, just wondering:

What techniques can a game designer use besides historical inaccuracy to balance gameplay?

Tamur
Si vales, valeo.

**Sjakihata** · 08-20-2004, 15:51

They can use head hurlerz

**CBR** · 08-20-2004, 16:02

One big thing they did for RTW was to divide the Romans into 3 playable factions that in the end will compete for the ultimate goal of becoming emperor.

That is a nice way of simulating the different factions of Rome that eventually destroyed the republic.

As I understand it RTW is going away from the old (and simple) gameplay of just conquering the whole map, By adding more diplomacy and other (more limited) goals the gameplay is different and IMO better.. and one could say even more historical accurate.

CBR

**Lonewarrior** · 08-20-2004, 16:43

Originally Posted by CBR

One big thing they did for RTW was to divide the Romans into 3 playable factions that in the end will compete for the ultimate goal of becoming emperor.

That is a nice way of simulating the different factions of Rome that eventually destroyed the republic.

As I understand it RTW is going away from the old (and simple) gameplay of just conquering the whole map, By adding more diplomacy and other (more limited) goals the gameplay is different and IMO better.. and one could say even more historical accurate.

CBR

One word, NICE

**mfberg** · 08-20-2004, 16:04

Originally Posted by Tamur

What techniques can a game designer use besides historical inaccuracy to balance gameplay?

Supply lines, homesickness, desertion, (unit morale off the battlefield), unit upkeep costs, famine, illness, drought, and of course rebellions and assassination.

mfberg

**Steppe Merc** · 08-20-2004, 16:10

Balance? Frankly, I'd just rather them respect the other factions rather than make them stronger. Give the Gauls there unique units, give the Germans theirs, and the Celts theres. Don't smush them all together. Frankly, I don't care to much about balancing, and would rather have the game that respects all the factions and has historical accuracies than a game that has all the factions equal (since, as you pointed out, they weren't).

**The Wizard** · 08-20-2004, 16:25

Ah, but Steppe Merc, that is the problem with games. Who will buy RTW, when any other faction than the Romans they play will get totally annihalated by the Romans, over and over again?

Gameplay and the correct balancing are extremely important part of game development. That is the line CA must walk over after they chose to make a historical game.

It must be said, however, that they chose quite a good starting date for the game - 270 BC. At that time, every faction that will be playable in the game had about equal chances to come out as sole master of the Mediterranean and beyond. A reason one could think up for CA having only one single starting date would be that any other starting date would have the Romans in a grossly overpowered position. In 270 BC, they had just made themselves master of all of Italy and were but an emerging western Meditteranean power.

~Wiz

**Steppe Merc** · 08-20-2004, 16:37

Mabye I have a different deffinition of balancing. In my oponion, a normal game has factions, some harder, some easier, but all can win. But balancing ends up giving one of the harder factions an easier win. After seeing your agrument, I agree with you Wiz, because I strongly dislike the Romans and don't want them to ever win (I can't stand them). But I just wish they had a more historical and less... kiddie. But it seems that the Romans got way more time spent on them on the other factions. The rest kind of just get pushed off to the side, and given idiotic units.

**Orda Khan** · 08-20-2004, 16:56

I understand how Steppe Merc feels and it definitely appears to be going the way of Romans plus rabble and that can't be good IMO. I've seen the argument for Mongol supremacy being the fact they were blessed with good generals while other countries possessed none. Does the same not apply to the Romans? They were certainly beatable and this should be the case with the game. I appreciate what CBR says about a 3 way race between Roman factions for overall rule and that it's no longer a case of conquering each province but will fighting the ' barbarians ' just deteriorate to slapping an unruly mob?

SP is surely a case of enactment and this being the case we should be able to alter the course of history

As for balance, it is very important indeed, don't forget there is a MP side to the game also. I don't want to see another case of the MTW/VI cav/sword armies

.....Orda

**CBR** · 08-20-2004, 17:14

RTW will have nearly 600 turns from start to finish and AFAIK you can continue to play after 14 AD, so I dont think its gonna be easy to conquer all the barbarians.

CBR

**Colovion** · 08-20-2004, 18:48

just because of the turn number doesn't mean that it'll take you that long

I mean I've yet to see gunpowder when starting from the beginning of MTW and that's playing conservatively

**Nelson** · 08-20-2004, 19:57

The factions can be strategically balanced AND historically accurate. The Romans had a very hard time building their empire. They didn't simply march around and accept surrenders. Varro, Crassus, and Varus would all disagree with the notion that the world was theirs for the taking. Even winners like Scipio and Caesar would admit that outcomes were often close run things.

The fact is we have no reason to believe as yet that it will be easier to win with the Roman factions than with any other.

**Steppe Merc** · 08-20-2004, 20:04

I agree with that that is how it should be. But look at the evidence. The Romans get more units, more attention, and you have to start out playing as them. Now look at the rest of the faction. They've been butchered to a mockery, most aren't even playable, and are called barbarians.