Historical Data for Bi??

[player1]

Ok, I give up...
We agree to disagree.

[Colovion]

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken. In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

[King of Atlantis]

Thank you

[BobTheTerrible]

R:TW never claimed to be a historically accurate game. BI isn't claiming to be a historically accurate expansion pack. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game. So I don't see what the big deal is.

If R:TW claimed to be a historically accurate game, and was released as it is, I can see a problem. Likewise, if BI was marketed as a historical accurate game and was released with major flaws in historical accuracy, I can likewise see a problem. The fact is that none of you have to buy the game if you don't want to. If the game looks too ahistorical and that really bothers you, then you don't have to buy it.

Arguing about the historical accuracy of Catholic Priests in armies is not going to accomplish anything except for raising tempers and post counts.

[King of Atlantis]

R:TW never claimed to be a historically accurate game. BI isn't claiming to be a historically accurate expansion pack. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game. So I don't see what the big deal is.

Actually the whole concept of RTW makes itsself claim to be accurate. How do you make a game about the waging war in the Roman time period and then make it total fantasy

If R:TW claimed to be a historically accurate game, and was released as it is, I can see a problem. Likewise, if BI was marketed as a historical accurate game and was released with major flaws in historical accuracy, I can likewise see a problem. The fact is that none of you have to buy the game if you don't want to. If the game looks too ahistorical and that really bothers you, then you don't have to buy it.

Most of the people complaing were either big shogun or medieval fans and we are just sad to see rtw go this way

Arguing about the historical accuracy of Catholic Priests in armies is not going to accomplish anything except for raising tempers and post counts.

It makes you wonder why CA would choose this as the first units, cause you know they expected this kind of reaction.

and raisng post count is good

[Duke John]

The first impression is always the most important one. What does CA choose to show first? Chanting priests with big clubs. I think it couldn't be a more clearer statement. People who were dissatisfied with R:TW shouldn't buy BI, unless they are gambling for mods being developed for it.

I will certainly buy it simply because it allows the Lordz to introduce the square formation for NTW2.

[Viking]

The first impression is always the most important one. What does CA choose to show first? Chanting priests with big clubs. I think it couldn't be a more clearer statement.

Actually my first impresssion was that RTW would be more historically accurate with BI. Why?

Every faction in the game has a ‘signature’ unit that is unique to them, such as the axe-throwing Francisca Heerbann of the Franks to the ultra-heavy Sassanid Clibinarii cavalry.

Those were the first units CA revealed and they`re both historically accurate, so it came as a big surprise for me when they chose those doubtful priest for the first 3D unit profile.

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken. In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

Well, I guess CA chose either-or, and since RTW is a game for the masses they decided to make a own unit with women, in this case priests.

[SMZ]

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken.

Whether that statment is true or not is merely a product of the religion the priest worships. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant christian priests in this time period. Because, quite honestly, you would appear to be quite ignorant if you tried to claim that priests have not been integrally tied to military matters (yes, including dealing death to the damned, not simply blessing the righteous) at many points in history in many cultures. I'll admit quite openly that I do not know whether Roman priests entered battle or not. With my cursory search the closest I found was a description of them as being "militant". Which of course could simply mean that they encouraged others to go fight from the safety of their chapels. However I do know that priests before their time went to war and that priests after their time did. Therefore I don't find it a great leap of faith to imagine that a priest and his underpriests accompanied soldiers in this time period either.

In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

You make the same error almost everyone complaining about them does. You say "they were never used in the context they will be in BI". Yet who controls how they are used? You do! If you send four groups of priests along with every army, that is your decision. If you train a couple groups of priests and attach them to certain armies specially made for them, once again this is your choice. You decide how to use them. So for them to be used in the wrong context requires you to use them wrongly.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

How the AI acts is an entirely different issue, and one that will not be solved anytime in the near future.

[King of Atlantis]

Yet who controls how they are used? You do!

The AI contolls them too and thats why this matters.

[Zenicetus]

The AI contolls them too and thats why this matters.

Bingo!

If I can ignore the unit, and build armies that work better for me without it, then that's fine.

But if it confers some kind of magical morale bonus.... and the AI is packing its armies with this unit... and that means I'm forced to use a "micromanagement time-sink unit" like this to counter the advantage... well, that's something else.

I was kind of hoping the new BI expansion would give me interesting new units for KILLING THE ENEMY in my 20 slots for an army.

[Horatius]

Bingo!

If I can ignore the unit, and build armies that work better for me without it, then that's fine.

But if it confers some kind of magical morale bonus.... and the AI is packing its armies with this unit... and that means I'm forced to use a "micromanagement time-sink unit" like this to counter the advantage... well, that's something else.

I was kind of hoping the new BI expansion would give me interesting new units for KILLING THE ENEMY in my 20 slots for an army.

It does, the priest is just one out of many many new units.

[HarunTaiwan]

Bad news for Catholics.

the new pope will excommunicate you if you buy and play BI.

[Colovion]

Whether that statment is true or not is merely a product of the religion the priest worships. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant christian priests in this time period. Because, quite honestly, you would appear to be quite ignorant if you tried to claim that priests have not been integrally tied to military matters (yes, including dealing death to the damned, not simply blessing the righteous) at many points in history in many cultures. I'll admit quite openly that I do not know whether Roman priests entered battle or not. With my cursory search the closest I found was a description of them as being "militant". Which of course could simply mean that they encouraged others to go fight from the safety of their chapels. However I do know that priests before their time went to war and that priests after their time did. Therefore I don't find it a great leap of faith to imagine that a priest and his underpriests accompanied soldiers in this time period either.

You make the same error almost everyone complaining about them does. You say "they were never used in the context they will be in BI". Yet who controls how they are used? You do! If you send four groups of priests along with every army, that is your decision. If you train a couple groups of priests and attach them to certain armies specially made for them, once again this is your choice. You decide how to use them. So for them to be used in the wrong context requires you to use them wrongly.

How the AI acts is an entirely different issue, and one that will not be solved anytime in the near future.

You must have missed my previous idea which was injected into this thread and, predictably, lost

Someone is deciding to invade a territory and wants something to bolster his troops. Plenty of strong arms are found but the foes ahead will be savage and some men may be prone to flee. Moral Units are nice dimension to add to the battlefield but we can probably all agree that the concept is both ridiculous and also believable. How so? It's the way it's implimented is all. A solid mass of civilians partaking in the fighting of an army was a practice which almost never happened, and was never planned for except for an endeavor such as a Crusade-type practice. It is true that it happened on smaller scales though.

It should really be, as others have said - merely a retinue unit of your General. Or alternatively - a Standard Bearer. I'll explain:


In the timeframe we're dealing with here there were times when a battle would ensue and, indeed, individuals whom had control over a fighting man's mentality may find their way onto a battlefield. Be they Religious Leaders, Women or particularly ruthless warriors, there were people who affected the bloodthirst of an army. Usually this was probably done through a General or otherwise leader leading their troops through a battle with chanting, war-songs, displays of might and words of encouragement to his fellows. Priests and Women would have a very limited ability to be even near a battle seeing as 95% of War is travelling to the battlefield and thus would either have to be with the army or have the enemy be invading their territory.

If you build any of these statically produced Moral-Increasing units they should deffinately increase/reduce moral. However - they should be attached to the army in some way such as being the one who carries the Standard of a given faction or with gather around a said standard. A Priest would hold the cross and be attached to some unit or other and perhaps if you build one Priest unit and you attach it to your army once you get into the battle they would disperse amongst your soldiers, increasing the moral of your entire army.

That would certainly help suspend my disbelief. Sure - you should have a feature which calls all Moral increasing men/women to a certain area of the battle which is in dire need of help for those fatigued sword-swingers.

Simple ideas like this - they would go a long way to smoothing the rough edges of such great ideas of Moral Units into a more realistic and believable fashion.

[Productivity]

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

For those who missed this fine statement the first time. Nobody is denying the existance of priests, just the portrayal of them.