mods: history vs gameplay

[caesar44]

hi
a question
what is more important in modeling
is it historical accuracy or gameplay ?
i prefer the first option 70 to 30

[khelvan]

In my opinion, you need make no compromise. You can have both.

[caesar44]

ok
but you know , tw is the best strategy game ever and even so its far away from being historical
some examples
1.the celts never had a unified kingdom
2.the britons and the germans - the same thing
3.the romans were a unified republic until the civil wars , a period of not more than 40 years
4.the carthginians had a semi republic and not a monarchy
5.the "greek states" were not a kingdom but several (many) sity states with different agendas
ect ect
so i wish i can have them both...




"i played my role" (augustus)

[Myrddraal]

But, imagine what would happen if they had split up all the smaller nations. For those who aren't very good at the game, they would be limited to the romans. All the other factions would be too hard to play.

[Suraknar]

I thnk personally, a balance between the two, since, even if this is a simulation of tactics and strategy, it is also a game.

3.the romans were a unified republic until the civil wars , a period of not more than 40 years

I think a compromise here to merge the realities of pre-civil wars and post civil wars.

Besides I do play considering that the other two Roman Factions are mine, it just happens that I don't conrol them.

The game does help in that regard in that when you follow a senate mission to declare war to another faction the Senate and the other two roman Factions will follow as if all 4 were one.

It also hapened that in my curent Campaign playing as the Scipii, the Brutii had an alliance with the Thracians, and when I attacked them the Brutii did break their alliance, and over a couple of turn even the senate changed their stance towards that faction (simulating lots of debates in the senate and the influence the Scipii had in it at the time).

So its the little things here that when looked at from a certain angle are actually part of a more global effort. The design does take them under account, and I am happy of that.

5.the "greek states" were not a kingdom but several (many) sity states with different agendas

Actually these are Post-Alexander Era Greeks, and there were Kingdoms and not only City States as per the Classical hellenistic Era, roughly 300 years prior to the Game's Timeline.

As for the Celts, well, even if anachronistic the moment the game starts, lest not forget that Vercingetorix was able to unify the Gauls, so its a Design decision from my perspective as Myrddraal said, it would be very dificult to play the other factions if they were not united.

And besides, it does open the way for moding ;)

[caesar44]

I thnk personally, a balance between the two, since, even if this is a simulation of tactics and strategy, it is also a game.



I think a compromise here to merge the realities of pre-civil wars and post civil wars.

Besides I do play considering that the other two Roman Factions are mine, it just happens that I don't conrol them.

The game does help in that regard in that when you follow a senate mission to declare war to another faction the Senate and the other two roman Factions will follow as if all 4 were one.

It also hapened that in my curent Campaign playing as the Scipii, the Brutii had an alliance with the Thracians, and when I attacked them the Brutii did break their alliance, and over a couple of turn even the senate changed their stance towards that faction (simulating lots of debates in the senate and the influence the Scipii had in it at the time).

So its the little things here that when looked at from a certain angle are actually part of a more global effort. The design does take them under account, and I am happy of that.



Actually these are Post-Alexander Era Greeks, and there were Kingdoms and not only City States as per the Classical hellenistic Era, roughly 300 years prior to the Game's Timeline.

As for the Celts, well, even if anachronistic the moment the game starts, lest not forget that Vercingetorix was able to unify the Gauls, so its a Design decision from my perspective as Myrddraal said, it would be very dificult to play the other factions if they were not united.

And besides, it does open the way for moding ;)

ok
about the greek cities
in the post alexander era the greeks had several semi republics like the aetolian alliance , achaean alliance , lacedaemonian alliance , athens ect
they were not monarchic
vercingetotix united only the independant celtic tribs and only for 2 to 3 years

[caesar44]

But, imagine what would happen if they had split up all the smaller nations. For those who aren't very good at the game, they would be limited to the romans. All the other factions would be too hard to play.

why ?
you still have the eastern empires , the numidians and the carthaginians
beside , the harder the play will be - the better
historicaly , establishing an empire from a small tribe is very very hard

[General_Sun]

why ?
you still have the eastern empires , the numidians and the carthaginians
beside , the harder the play will be - the better
historicaly , establishing an empire from a small tribe is very very hard

Huh why? Ever heard of Cyrus the Great?
Ever heard of Gengis Khan?