Results 1 to 30 of 115

Thread: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #5
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
    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.

    Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 08-19-2005 at 05:40.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

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