Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Realism vs playability

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Research Shinobi Senior Member Tamur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    #2 Bagshot Row
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Realism vs playability

    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.
    "Die Wahrheit ruht in Gott / Uns bleibt das Forschen." Johann von Müller

  2. #2

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    They can use head hurlerz
    Common Unreflected Drinking Only Smartens

  3. #3
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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

  4. #4
    What did I do? Member Lonewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    In the land of the free, Mars
    Posts
    640

    Wink Re: Realism vs playability

    Quote 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
    "Never rely on the glory of the morning nor the smiles of your mother-in-law."-Japanese Proverb

  5. #5
    Tired Old Geek Member mfberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NC, USA
    Posts
    757

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    Quote 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
    It is not complete until the overwieght female vocalizes.

    Pinky : Gee Brain, what do you want to do tonight?
    Brain : The same thing we do every night Pinky. Try to take over the world!

  6. #6
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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).

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  7. #7
    Tovenaar Senior Member The Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,348

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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
    "It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."

    Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul

  8. #8
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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.

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  9. #9

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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

  10. #10
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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

  11. #11
    robotica erotica Member Colovion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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
    robotica erotica

  12. #12
    Provost Senior Member Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,762

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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.

    Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.

  13. #13
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: Realism vs playability

    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.

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO