Jolly good EB is not involved in the gaming industry then...Originally Posted by Ninefingers
Also, I think that probably EB's policy, or, perhaps bettr, "philosophy", is not "history before gameplay" or "history before balance". Rather, our motto could well be something like "History IS gameplay". Or "History IS balance".
History is chock full of trade-offs, constraints, limitations. All factions had weaknesses and strengths historically. How well they did depended on how astutely they exploited the latter and minimized the former. Our belief is that, if you're willing to go the extra mile, that system of checks and constraints can be brought into this game.
So, we are convinced that by bringing history in, we also bring "balance". Of course, this "balance" is not of the "Let's give the Sarmatians the onagers they never had so they won't be disadvantaged at sieges compared to the Romans" kind. Instead, we turn sieges into one of the challenges that the Sarmatian player will have to overcome. A, totally historical, hard time at city-taking is one of the elements that will balance out the equally historical advantages the Sarmatians do have (good, varied cavalry at prices they could afford very well, for example).
That is just one example of many, but I hope it will demonstrate how, if you look for it, history is a true mine of gameplay and "balance" at all levels of the game. Even within all the limitations of the RTW system. Also, I would hope that example will show that EB's search for historical accuracy encompasses many things besides the depiction of troop types. And the beneficial effects of it in the "fun" department (such a fuzzy and subjective concept, in any case).
Bookmarks