FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

[Hurin_Rules]

A few things on the latest FAQ for BI seemed a bit... well... odd to me. See what you think:

Q: I was wondering, was artillary actually ever pulled by chariots so they could be moved quickly across the battlefield, or is this just pure fiction?

A: Vegetius mentions wagon-mounted artillery in his texts on the Roman army although, reading between the lines, there's an air in his works of writing about how things should be rather than how they are or were. So, yes, there's evidence of (reasonably) mobile artillery being built by the Romans. They weren't stupid people and had a good grasp of basic engineering, but they were hampered by the materials technology available and - in our opinions - by an inherent conservatism in using new ideas.


Q: Have you changed the pictures of the family members faces in BI? Most importantly, have you removed the face paintings from the "barbarian" factions faces?

A: There are new family portraits in addition to the existing set. And no, not all the face paint has disappeared!

Q: Are most of the Saxon units pure fiction? Oh, while we are discussing historical accuracy vs. fiction, what literary sources (ancient and modern) did you use during the production of BI?

A: The problem with any barbarian force is that their armies were not organised into nicely differentiated units. Most 'barbarian' units were really all the blokes who were prepared to follow a strong man into battle for what they could plunder. If we did them 'accurately' we'd end up with every unit in the game being a variably sized mish-mash of individually equipped warriors. And, at the moment, PCs simply won't handle this kind of level of detail (every man would count as a different 'unit'). So what we have to do is create a unit list that mirrors the type of warriors that a particular people were well known for employing. This also makes the game tactically interesting too, as the chances are that most barbarian battles consisted of both sides screaming 'charge' and then fighting until a victor emerged, which isn't all that satsifying...

A few things I would note:

Though artillery might have been pulled by wagon, it certainly didn't fire while being pulled.

Face paint is inaccurate.

Barbarians were not morons.

And on another note, anyone besides me a bit disheartened that Spartan: Total Warrior gets higher billing on the CA website than BI? To tell you the truth, I hope that game tanks so CA can concentrate on what they do best. Leave the FPS to the console designers. You're not going to outdo Halo, so don't even try.

[Puzz3D]

From the FAQ:

"So what we have to do is create a unit list that mirrors the type of warriors that a particular people were well known for employing. This also makes the game tactically interesting too, as the chances are that most barbarian battles consisted of both sides screaming 'charge' and then fighting until a victor emerged, which isn't all that satsifying..."

Well that's an interesting statement coming from CA considering that the gameplay is just like that with players smashing massive "snowballs" of units into each other. And yes it "isn't all that satisfying".

Also, CA doesn't mirror "the type of warriors that a particular people were well known for employing". Come off it! Pigs that are only known to have been used once? Egyptians from 1000 years before the game's time frame? Ballista chariots after just saying in another answer that it isn't know if they ever used such a weapon system?

[sapi]

You're not going to outdo Halo, so don't even try.

Halo is outdoable - it has been outdone time and time again on pc, and all it would take is a port of hl2/css with the same graphics to '360 to beat it :)

But yes, i am disheartened - spend more time on total war, it'll last longer for gamers anyway than a fps.

[Captain Fishpants]

Another person who needs the gentle rod of correction. Very Roman, the rod of correction.

Though artillery might have been pulled by wagon, it certainly didn't fire while being pulled.

Carroballistae didn't fire on the move? Maybe, maybe not. The basic design certainly wouldn't have made it easy or accurate, but you can bet they tried to use the weapon that way from time to time (sheer terror is the mother of many desperate tactics).

On the other hand, it doesn't make for a fun unit in the game. If you don't like it, don't use it in your battles.

Face paint is inaccurate.

Tattoos, facial scarification, piercings and generally slapping yourself with woad was common. The Huns were regarded as particularly scary people because they did go in an extreme 'look'. It was all about being as terrifying as possible before you engaged with the enemy. Better to stab a man in the back while he's running away than actually have to fight him!

Barbarians were not morons.

Barbarians are not morons. Barbarians are barbarous. This doesn't imply thick, dim, stupid, moronic or lax in any mental department. It does imply a lack of civilized accomplisments, such as an organised military structure or a staff college producing field manuals. It's the exceptional barbarian commanders who did understand that tactics were important who are remembered: Vercingetorix, Attila, Alaric the Goth and so on. The average commander had a loud voice...

And on another note, anyone besides me a bit disheartened that Spartan: Total Warrior gets higher billing on the CA website than BI? To tell you the truth, I hope that game tanks so CA can concentrate on what they do best. Leave the FPS to the console designers. You're not going to outdo Halo, so don't even try.

And finally, thanks for your good wishes on the success of Spartan: Total Warrior. Just to correct a couple of misconceptions, though: it's not an FPS, and it's not like Halo.

[Grey_Fox]

And on another note, anyone besides me a bit disheartened that Spartan: Total Warrior gets higher billing on the CA website than BI?

BI is only an expansion, Spartan: Total Warrior is a new game.

Anyways, if you don't want them to make games like Spartan, why don't you become a shareholder and tell them not to make it?

[Hurin_Rules]

Ok, the tone of my post was a bit bitter--sorry for that--but come on, you're twisting the facts here and being rather misleading:

Carroballistae didn't fire on the move? Maybe, maybe not. The basic design certainly wouldn't have made it easy or accurate, but you can bet they tried to use the weapon that way from time to time (sheer terror is the mother of many desperate tactics).

No, they didn't. Even tanks in WWII usually stopped to fire. This was with suspensions, rubber and advanced tracking systems. If you can site a single source saying carroballistae were fired on the move, I'll stand corrected. This isn't just about a game, its about historical accuracy. You're perfectly free to design whatever you want in a game, so long as you don't assert it as fact. I might even agree with your playability/fun argument. But pseudo-historical arguments produce only pseudo-histories. Please don't misinform people. As a professor of history, I have to deal with the consequences in my classrooms.

Tattoos, facial scarification, piercings and generally slapping yourself with woad was common. The Huns were regarded as particularly scary people because they did go in an extreme 'look'. It was all about being as terrifying as possible before you engaged with the enemy. Better to stab a man in the back while he's running away than actually have to fight him!

So you are asserting that Vercingetorix wore woad? What sources are you citing in defense of this revolutionary thesis? (Ack, sorry, being exessively sarcastic again; but you get my point.)

Barbarians are not morons. Barbarians are barbarous. This doesn't imply thick, dim, stupid, moronic or lax in any mental department. It does imply a lack of civilized accomplisments, such as an organised military structure or a staff college producing field manuals. It's the exceptional barbarian commanders who did understand that tactics were important who are remembered: Vercingetorix, Attila, Alaric the Goth and so on. The average commander had a loud voice...

Fair enough. But your characterization of barbarian warfare--viz., ''most barbarian battles consisted of both sides screaming 'charge' and then fighting until a victor emerged'--is highly speculative and indicative more of Roman (and Hollywood) attitudes to 'barbarians' than of the barbarians themselves.

And finally, thanks for your good wishes on the success of Spartan: Total Warrior. Just to correct a couple of misconceptions, though: it's not an FPS, and it's not like Halo.

Ok, that was a bit unfair-- I don't really hope the game tanks. But you must realize that many RTW players are intensely concerned that STW represents a reorientation of CA's priorities. This is a genuine concern, given some of the design decisions of RTW. It seems that CA is appealing to a somewhat different audience with both RTW and STW. If you can allay our concerns, please do.

[Simetrical]

Face paint is inaccurate.

I'm pretty sure some of the Britons used woad.

[Orda Khan]

If you don't like it, don't use it in your battles.

I've been applying this since original STW. It seems that historically inaccurate concerns have only surfaced since RTW. Perhaps less to do with 'carriage ballistae' and more with 'bandwagon'

.......Orda

[Zatoichi]

I've been applying this since original STW. It seems that historically inaccurate concerns have only surfaced since RTW. Perhaps less to do with 'carriage ballistae' and more with 'bandwagon'

.......Orda

Does anyone know if bandwagons can fire on the move?

[Puzz3D]

Historical accuracy and realism both decined in RTW relative to the previous games.

[KSEG]

Historical accuracy and realism both decined in RTW relative to the previous games.

Are you saying that seroisly?
STW, from a view of 1 Japanese history afficianado, is absurd, and I find it even insulting.
Super Ninjas, Geisha Terminators, stupid movies, wrong and wrong units.
STW, as a game, is superb but not so superb in the reallism department.
Let me tell you, IMO CA never cared much about reallism and historical accuracy.
Even in MTW, there was some obvious mistakes, although not bad as STW and RTW.
I really don't understand why peoples suddenly started screaming about historical inaccuracy with the release of RTW.
Maybe because there is much more people intrested in Ancient Rome then Medieval Japan.

[Orda Khan]

Are you saying that seroisly?
STW, from a view of 1 Japanese history afficianado, is absurd, and I find it even insulting.
Super Ninjas, Geisha Terminators, stupid movies, wrong and wrong units.
STW, as a game, is superb but not so superb in the reallism department.
Let me tell you, CA never cared much about reallism and historical accuracy.
Even in MTW, there was some obvious mistakes, although not bad as STW and RTW.

Not to mention units of Nodachi and with the introduction of the MI expansion it became even more absurd. I became bored ages ago with all the 'I hate RTW' threads and the constant bleating. Still, it's good to see this opportunity wasn't missed

.......Orda

[Hurin_Rules]

As I said, Its not the inaccuracies I mind--its trying to justify them by poor historical arguments. There is no evidence carroballistae were fired on the move. If you're speculating/inventing then just admit it, and I'm fine.

MTW had some inaccuracies, to be sure-- but it didn't have flaming pigs or screaming women. RTW does mark an important (and, to me and many others, an unwelcome) change in direction.

[khelvan]

Barbarians are not morons. Barbarians are barbarous. This doesn't imply thick, dim, stupid, moronic or lax in any mental department. It does imply a lack of civilized accomplisments, such as an organised military structure or a staff college producing field manuals. It's the exceptional barbarian commanders who did understand that tactics were important who are remembered: Vercingetorix, Attila, Alaric the Goth and so on. The average commander had a loud voice...

It depends on which "barbarians" you are talking about. Some "barbarians" had very well-developed military structures and tactics. Some had very strong cultural achievements (though we can agree that engineering, in general, compared to the Greeks and Romans, was not one of them).

However, not only "exceptional" barbarian commanders understood tactics. This is the same misconception that has existed for a long time; not unexpected, though perhaps a bit disappointing.

[Puzz3D]

Are you saying that seroisly?
I really don't understand why peoples suddenly started screaming about historical inaccuracy with the release of RTW.

Exploding rocks, flying horses, 5 second incineration by fire arrows, phalanx that can't stop cavalry, men being thrown 100 feet or more through the air, unrealistically fast movement, wrong weapon use by hoplites, chariots faster than cavalry, lack of downhill bonus, overly effective artillery, cavalry dominated battles, non-existant weather effects, only two speeds for infantry, only two speeds for cavalry, ranged units where either all men shoot or none shoot, unit stacking without combat penalty, factions from outside the time frame, suicide generals, excessive delay to movement orders, pikes ineffective on an upslope, ranged units that always charge into melee in cities, machine gun firing rates for city towers, all men in a unit incur fighting fatigue even if only a few are actually fighting, routers run toward the enemy on bridges, running infantry through a phalanx unit is more effective and attacking it.

I didn't say the other games were accurate. I said RTW was worse. It's at least worse for me in the sense that whatever impression of realism the game is giving while you march into battle is dispelled as soon as the fighting starts, and that didn't happen in the previous games. We don't know the full extent of what battlefield features have been lost. Some cavalry types can shoot on the move, and that's the only thing i can think of, other than visual appearance, that's more realistic in RTW. All the games have unrealistic unit types.

[conon394]

Puzz3D

I am 99% in agreement with your post. But with one singular exception

machine gun firing rates for city towers

If you are attacking Rhodes you should face machine gun like firing rates. Sorry just my perennial plug for the Democracy of Rhodes the only people who should have repeating catapults.

[antisocialmunky]

As I said, Its not the inaccuracies I mind--its trying to justify them by poor historical arguments. There is no evidence carroballistae were fired on the move. If you're speculating/inventing then just admit it, and I'm fine.

I think, until someone gets so tired of this stupid back and forth on the part of both parties and build a freaking wagon ballista, this point is MOOT. It's not like it's impossible to fire while moving even over bumpy terran at a big target. Until someone can find an actual test or performs one, I think it's stupid to argue over this point. Just because someone said it was used this way or that, does not mean it was just used that way. So, please, it's getting old.

Exploding rocks, flying horses, 5 second incineration by fire arrows, phalanx that can't stop cavalry, men being thrown 100 feet or more through the air, unrealistically fast movement, wrong weapon use by hoplites, chariots faster than cavalry, lack of downhill bonus, overly effective artillery, cavalry dominated battles, non-existant weather effects, only two speeds for infantry, only two speeds for cavalry, ranged units where either all men shoot or none shoot, unit stacking without combat penalty, factions from outside the time frame, suicide generals, excessive delay to movement orders, pikes ineffective on an upslope, ranged units that always charge into melee in cities, machine gun firing rates for city towers, all men in a unit incur fighting fatigue even if only a few are actually fighting, routers run toward the enemy on bridges, running infantry through a phalanx unit is more effective and attacking it.

I wouldn't group engine problems and gameplay changes with intentionally problems. If you don't like the engine. Why don't you learn how to program and make your own game.

Then we'll ridicule you on all the engine problems because obviously all programmers are perfect and if something happens it's because everything was put into the engine intentionally.

Have you ever designed a game ground up? Control your passion would you?

Do you think if you yell at them and blame them for everything, that they'll be inclined to help you? It's not like they want people disliking the game.

[Productivity]

I wouldn't group engine problems and gameplay changes with intentionally problems. If you don't like the engine. Why don't you learn how to program and make your own game.

Ah hold up here - this argument is oft used but it's based upon bad logic. I through my purchase have paid CA to program the engine. I don't like the engine so I complain. CA has delivered to me a product which at best barely falls within tolerances so I complain. If you pay someone to do something and they do a sloppy job do you complain, simply because you couldn't do better?

Then we'll ridicule you on all the engine problems because obviously all programmers are perfect and if something happens it's because everything was put into the engine intentionally.

Ah no again, nobody is ridiculing them for not getting it right the first time. People ridicule them for not accepting the errors in the engine (how long/how much effort did it take before the save/load was accepted as a bug?), and for not correcting proven issues with the engine.

Have you ever designed a game ground up? Control your passion would you?

No I haven't - on the otherhand I've never designed a house from the ground up. I pay people to do that, like I pay CA to design a game from the ground up. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that none of the doors open in said house.

Do you think if you yell at them and blame them for everything, that they'll be inclined to help you? It's not like they want people disliking the game.

Well I'd be happy to be civil with them if they started actually treating us like customers, and not like their slaves - to me it seems clear that somehow it has got into their mind that we WILL buy a Total War game regardless - I'm not going to play by those rules, games get bought upon their quality.

[Barbarossa82]

It's great to see people discussing history with such dedication and passion. The only thing that disturbs me about this thread, and many others, is the level of implied certainty which is carried with many historical assertions.

History is not a particularly blind or speculative field of study when compared to other disciplines, indeed it is awash with evidence. The problem lies in the fact that the aggregate effect of this evidence is conclusive about very few things, and some of it is flat contradictory. This will come as no surprise to anyone who is interested enough to contribute to a discussion like this, but I have noticed a new and worrying tendency to upgrade what is really conjecture (sometimes very well-supported, very reasonable, very plausible conjecture) into hard fact.

This, I think, is based on two problems with the way that history has been presented, problems which are much less apparent in an academic setting but which inevitably emerge when the subject is popularised. And by popularised I don't just mean turned into trashy TV, I mean turned into the kind of history books which you and I go and buy or read, however serious and in-depth they may be. Both problems stem from a desire to arrive at a firm conclusion about what happened, not an unreasonable desire one might think but one which needs to be implemented in the right way.

The first issue is the apparent disappearance of critical analysis of primary sources. At university, I - and I'm sure many of you - was taught never to uncritically accept what any primary source says. That doesn't mean you reject its usefulness, it merely means that one must take into account the writer's background, his or her "agenda" or "bias" with respect to the content, and perhaps most importantly his or her capacity to have actually known what he or she was talking about. Sometimes, the manner in which the content is presented is more historically significant than the content itself. Many of the heated debates whch have sprung up on these boards over time spring, I think, from a tendency to regard contemporary sources as holy writ, such that the citation of a classical author's account of a certain event/person/object is regareded not merely as another interesting piece of evidence to add to the deductive process, but as conclusive. Thus, to give an exaggerated caricature: "Tacitus said the Britons fought with spears - so that chosen swordsman unit it TOTALLY UNHISTORICAL DAMMIT! GOD I HATE THIS GAME! DAMN YOU C.A.!!" What tends to get lost is the fact that Tacitus (for example) received the overwhelming bulk of his facts second-hand, without the advantages of photography or telecommunications which today's reporters and historians enjoy. And look at the number of glaring mistakes our media make about things that are happening right now, under their noses - only the other day one of our broadsheet newspapers described Iran as an "Arab state" on its front page! Now this absolutely does not mean that Tacitus (for example) is to be disregarded as a provider of historical evidence; indeed contemporary sources remain vital pieces of evidence. But we have got to re-learn how to receive and integrate his data critically. And that means accepting that sometimes he (for example) got it wrong, misinterpreted, bought a hoax, applied a gloss, and committed all the other little slips that we all do.

The second, related tendency is to be found in archaeology, again brought about as a result of the otherwise welcome popularisation of the field. This is something which has been going on for ages in the field of art history:
Stage 1: artist paints picture. It means something. He doesn't leave a handy written explanation.
Stage 2: When work exhibited, Critic sees painting. He doesn't know what it means, but, based on his experience in the field, he writes "in my opinion, it is likely that (artist) intended to allude to the horrors of fascism". This is a perfectly reasonable and plausible interpretation.
Stage 3: Author writes book about painting, reads Critic's summary and prints: "This paintng is a powerful allegory of the horrors of fascism, cunningly contrived to convey this effect." Book is then serialised on BBC4 and paiting as allegory of fascism is earnestly presented to the public as a known fact.
Substitute "ancient Briton burying broken pot in ground" for artist, archaeologist for critic and historian for author/presenter, and you see what I mean. Interpretation hardens into "fact" as it is passed from one person to another until it ends up being cited as a final, determining settlement of an argument on boards like these.

Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that Rome Total Realism should be replaced by Rome Total More Plausible And Better Supported Conjecture. Before anyone bites my head off, I recommend they do what I did and sit down with an old person to watch/read a historical account of something within their living memory, for example World War II. You'll quickly start to read history more critically.

[Barbarossa82]

If you can site a single source saying carroballistae were fired on the move, I'll stand corrected. This isn't just about a game, its about historical accuracy. You're perfectly free to design whatever you want in a game, so long as you don't assert it as fact. I might even agree with your playability/fun argument. But pseudo-historical arguments produce only pseudo-histories. Please don't misinform people. As a professor of history, I have to deal with the consequences in my classrooms.

We don't have a single source to suggest that the ancient Britons could swim either, or that the residents of Carthage were not immune to the common cold. That doesn't make either of those things an unreasonable inference to draw from known facts (i.e. that they were human). If a "known fact" is that carroballistae existed, I can't really see how it's an unreasonable inference that they at least experimented with firing on the move.

If you could find a source saying that, it still wouldn't prove it was true, only support it. And the absence of a source doesn't disprove it, it just makes it less certain.

I appreciate you probably spend your days frustrated and wacky, unsupported theories inspired by popular culture which have germinated in your students' heads, but with respect, you shouldn't fall back on the source as the be-all and end-all of historical inquiry.

[Ciaran]

Well said, Barbarossa
And let´s not forget there´s only so much realism that can be implemented in a game even if we knew what actually is real - which we do not and never will.
Or would anyone like to give up the nice camera sweeping over the battlefield, watching the action close up in favour of a stationary (or almost stationary) first-person view down a hill, having to speak commands (in Latin, or ancient Greek - if realism, then all the way, after all) to a messenger who might or not reach the designated unit that may obey or not... I hope you get my point.

[CBR]

If a "known fact" is that carroballistae existed, I can't really see how it's an unreasonable inference that they at least experimented with firing on the move.

And there is a long way from experimenting with firing on the move on a cart pulled by donkeys and the ultra fast sniper chariots we see in BI.


CBR

[khelvan]

Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that Rome Total Realism should be replaced by Rome Total More Plausible And Better Supported Conjecture. Before anyone bites my head off, I recommend they do what I did and sit down with an old person to watch/read a historical account of something within their living memory, for example World War II. You'll quickly start to read history more critically.

Your excellent argument would hold more weight if it were wholly appropriate to the circumstances. There is a difference between the acceptance that no source can be 100% accurate, and the disregard for period sources altogether. There is a thing one might call due diligence when creating a game that is advertised as not "inspired by," not "loosely based on," but "set in" the time of the Roman Empire, to "bring the world of ancient Rome to life," to "recreate Europe."

So you see, more than other things, this is a question of truth in advertising. Either the game is an attempt to "recreate" an historical time, or it is not. Either it is an historical strategy game, or it is a strategy game loosely based on history. R:TW is advertised as an historical strategy game. Therefore, when I purchased the game, I expected better than to find a faction depicted 1000 years out of period, for instance. This means that either the marketing or the research of the game is off.

If the game had been billed as a whimsical RTS romp through a world loosely based on ancient Roman times, no one would have cared, except perhaps for about a dozen people who can't get past how many bands the first iteration of lorica segmentata was built with.

It is rather akin to, as you say, buying a historical wargame close to our own time and finding anachronistic things. For instance, buying a WWII wargame and finding that the "America" faction has been split in two, into the "Union" and the "Confederacy," which must duke it out while the rest of Europe fights a generally more accurate WWII, because this provides more balance and fun to the game, and is more "cool." And, to follow a VERY appropriate analogy, to describe the military of France (read: Celts/Gaul) as being disorganized, lacking in technology, and having perhaps one leader in a generation who was a grasp on strategy and does more than "shouts loudly."

You see, no one who has truly studied World War II would say that France's army was so horribly bad, that its technology was inferior, or that perhaps one out of all its generals knew the importance of strategy. They were soundly trounced by the Germans for different reasons, not for having a shoddy military. Nor would anyone say those things who has truly examined all of the textual and archaeological evidence available describing the Gauls, and the Celts in general. The Celtic history was just as rich and powerful as that of France, with a Brennus for a Napoleon, with a sack of Rome for the conquering of Europe. Yet the Gauls were soundly trounced by Caesar, and it seems some are content to assume this is because they were "barbarians," rather than to truly examine why they lost.

So; is there something to be said for toning down the rhetoric nitpicking historical inaccuracy? Certainly. The EB team, for instance, doesn't go about stating how bad it is that this tactic or that piece of armor exist in RTW. We are quietly fixing what we can safely fix based on available evidence, and we think the end result will be a mod that has more "cool" and diverse units than vanilla RTW - AND be more accurate. Now, our fans have a tendency to nitpick everything they see, but please don't mistake us for doing the same thing. Rather than bitch about it, we're making RTW into the game we had hoped it was from the beginning, and we DO welcome people to nitpick our choices, as we rather enjoy learning details about history.

[KSEG]

Your excellent argument would hold more weight if it were wholly appropriate to the circumstances. There is a difference between the acceptance that no source can be 100% accurate, and the disregard for period sources altogether. There is a thing one might call due diligence when creating a game that is advertised as not "inspired by," not "loosely based on," but "set in" the time of the Roman Empire, to "bring the world of ancient Rome to life," to "recreate Europe."

So you see, more than other things, this is a question of truth in advertising. Either the game is an attempt to "recreate" an historical time, or it is not. Either it is an historical strategy game, or it is a strategy game loosely based on history. R:TW is advertised as an historical strategy game. Therefore, when I purchased the game, I expected better than to find a faction depicted 1000 years out of period, for instance. This means that either the marketing or the research of the game is off.

If the game had been billed as a whimsical RTS romp through a world loosely based on ancient Roman times, no one would have cared, except perhaps for about a dozen people who can't get past how many bands the first iteration of lorica segmentata was built with.

It is rather akin to, as you say, buying a historical wargame close to our own time and finding anachronistic things. For instance, buying a WWII wargame and finding that the "America" faction has been split in two, into the "Union" and the "Confederacy," which must duke it out while the rest of Europe fights a generally more accurate WWII, because this provides more balance and fun to the game, and is more "cool." And, to follow a VERY appropriate analogy, to describe the military of France (read: Celts/Gaul) as being disorganized, lacking in technology, and having perhaps one leader in a generation who was a grasp on strategy and does more than "shouts loudly."

You see, no one who has truly studied World War II would say that France's army was so horribly bad, that its technology was inferior, or that perhaps one out of all its generals knew the importance of strategy. They were soundly trounced by the Germans for different reasons, not for having a shoddy military. Nor would anyone say those things who has truly examined all of the textual and archaeological evidence available describing the Gauls, and the Celts in general. The Celtic history was just as rich and powerful as that of France, with a Brennus for a Napoleon, with a sack of Rome for the conquering of Europe. Yet the Gauls were soundly trounced by Caesar, and it seems some are content to assume this is because they were "barbarians," rather than to truly examine why they lost.

So; is there something to be said for toning down the rhetoric nitpicking historical inaccuracy? Certainly. The EB team, for instance, doesn't go about stating how bad it is that this tactic or that piece of armor exist in RTW. We are quietly fixing what we can safely fix based on available evidence, and we think the end result will be a mod that has more "cool" and diverse units than vanilla RTW - AND be more accurate. Now, our fans have a tendency to nitpick everything they see, but please don't mistake us for doing the same thing. Rather than bitch about it, we're making RTW into the game we had hoped it was from the beginning, and we DO welcome people to nitpick our choices, as we rather enjoy learning details about history.

When exactly was RTW advertised as "historical strategy game"?
I'm curious.
On my RTW box, there isn't a single mention about " this game is historical strategy game set in Ancient Roman times".
In fact, there is even mentions about "Roman wardogs" and "armys led by Hannibal and Caesar clash on the battlefield".
So where did you heard this?
Did CA sayed something like that on their website before the release or something?

[SMZ]

There is a thing one might call due diligence when creating a game that is advertised as not "inspired by," not "loosely based on," but "set in" the time of the Roman Empire, to "bring the world of ancient Rome to life," to "recreate Europe."

Your post was very well stated, with the exception of this bit of hedging at the outset. To say something is "set in" a time period does not imply that it will be a verbatim recreation of said time period. The word "set" refers to an actors stage. Any play, movie, or apparently game, which draws it's inspiration from a setting builds and refines upon that basis to fit its audience and the forms supplied by the medium.

Their quote regarding bringing "the world of ancient Rome to life" referred to the games graphic quality, as the context clearly shows. A portion of the game which even its most rabid opponents are forced to concede is well crafted. Likewise, when they proclaim that they have "re-created Europe", the surrounding words once again show that the intent of this statement is quite clear. It refers to the mechanism that ties each portion of the strategy map to its own battle map. Another feature which I find to be quite enjoyable.

In short although I find your efforts most laudable, I think it suffers somewhat when you stoop to misquoting the creators. In my opinion, taking a very small excerpt of a thought and assigning a meaning to it completely different from it's original is somewhat trite.

[khelvan]

RTW has been previewed, interviewed, and advertised throughout as being historically accurate. Forgive me for working with what I had on their website today, but too many interviews have been done with CA where they talk about how the game, how various units, and this and that are historically accurate. I'm mis-quoting no one.

It is revisionist history to say that because the -specific- quotes I chose are not ones that accurately reflect the words they used in interviews about their game, specificaly, that they never said so. I apologize if I chose bad examples, but there are plenty more where they came from.

Trite? Please. Here is another:

After reading about some of the strange little things that were acceptable in the ancient world, we put several dozen new vices into Rome: Total War. Without historical research, however, we'd just have done the same as some other games companies and "made some stuff up." As it turned out, our research ended up determining nearly all the game content: units and buildings in the tech tree, tactical abilities for units like the Roman testudo or tortoise formation, nations that we included, and so on.

Need I find more, or is this, too, taken out of context and twisted around by yours truly?

Edit: Here is another, though this is given by Peggy Kim, from Decisive Battles, on why they chose Rome Total War:

One of the the great thigns they've done with that game and with the concepts behind it is made it a historical game which is completely in line with what we're doing. Everything from the look to the way the battlefield is laid out to what the soldiers would have been wearing, all of that armament, they're tried very hard to make everything historically accurate. That's very attractive to us.

From IGN, on CA's presentation to them at ECTN:

Creative Assembly were particularly keen to stress the amount of research that went into ensuring a historically accurate representation; including consultation with experts on the time-period. Wherever it doesn't have a detrimental effect on gameplay, the game is as historically accurate as possible, from the types of units available to each faction, the formations available (such as the famous Roman "tortoise"), and the terrain, which has been accurately mapped into the game, covering most of Europe and North Africa.

I can't find any pre-release interviews with CA, but certainly they pitched the game to the media as historically accurate, who then portrayed it often and always that way to us. Surely you can recall the press that couldn't keep the words "historical" or "historically accurate" out of their previews? I can recall words from CA as well, more strong than those above. I just can't find them at the moment. After all, the game has been out for almost a year.

[player1]

But it is historically accurate...
Compared to other games.

[Mongoose]

But it is historically accurate...
Compared to other games.

What games are you comparing it to? "Age of craft"???

[KSEG]

RTW has been previewed, interviewed, and advertised throughout as being historically accurate. Forgive me for working with what I had on their website today, but too many interviews have been done with CA where they talk about how the game, how various units, and this and that are historically accurate. I'm mis-quoting no one.

It is revisionist history to say that because the -specific- quotes I chose are not ones that accurately reflect the words they used in interviews about their game, specificaly, that they never said so. I apologize if I chose bad examples, but there are plenty more where they came from.

Trite? Please. Here is another:
Need I find more, or is this, too, taken out of context and twisted around by yours truly?

Edit: Here is another, though this is given by Peggy Kim, from Decisive Battles, on why they chose Rome Total War:

From IGN, on CA's presentation to them at ECTN:

I can't find any pre-release interviews with CA, but certainly they pitched the game to the media as historically accurate, who then portrayed it often and always that way to us. Surely you can recall the press that couldn't keep the words "historical" or "historically accurate" out of their previews? I can recall words from CA as well, more strong than those above. I just can't find them at the moment. After all, the game has been out for almost a year.

Thanks

[KSEG]

"Creative Assembly were particularly keen to stress the amount of research that went into ensuring a historically accurate representation; including consultation with experts on the time-period."

Reminds me the CA interview with PlayOnline where CA said something like "We asked Prof.Stephen Turnbull as the consultant to ensure a historical accuracy" and saying "Geisha is the strongest assasin unit. She can sneak into castle with only a samisen and will terminate any Daimyo or General" in the next paragraph.