Historical Accuracy: How Important Is It to You?

**AmbrosiusAurelianus** · 08-22-2005, 17:25

I like trying to set up battles and situations that occurred in history, and trying to see if I can change or reproduce the outcome depending on the battle situation. I cannot do this properly if the game is not as realistic as possible, therefore it is number one for me!

**Geoffrey S** · 08-22-2005, 17:53

In the case of a game like RTW I can't quite see how accuracy and gameplay are mutually exclusive. If the basic strategic gameplay is nailed who needs fantasy units? Just as the real history is often far more interesting than Hollywood inventions.

On the flipside, there are always going to be abstractions. Armies were massively larger in real life, battle plans couldn't be changed the way they can be in the TW series, and there were many minute details which were important to events. Until these can be accurately modelled no matter how many period units are faithfully recreated gams will always be inaccuracies.

Anyway, I went for number 2.

**Marcellus** · 08-23-2005, 00:25

I chose option three. Whilst it is nice to have historical accuracy and I hate unnecessary inaccuracy, when I buy a game, I expect it first and foremost to be a good game. And if this involves some necessary inaccuracy, then I can accept it.

**Fabolous** · 08-23-2005, 02:19

Somewhere between number 1 and 2. I choose 2 because I can appericate good gameplay, just I prefer historical accuracy. While I enjoyed vanilla at times, its accuracy(or should I say inaccuracy) made me hate it with an intense passion.

**caesar44** · 08-23-2005, 13:40

Wouldn't be fun to have some tanks shooting the romans down ? yes it would !!! but , is this what we want ?
Hanibaal smashed some 80,000 Romans and Latins (imo , the best army ever) with only 20,000 Celts , Numidians , and Spaniards , did he had tanks ? there you have it - accuracy is gameplay !!!

=

**Orda Khan** · 08-23-2005, 19:14

Whereas I would far prefer a game that is 100% historically accurate, I can still manage to enjoy the Total War series. They are not completely accurate but they are the best series of strategy games on the market and it is even possible to make them more accurate. In MP it is even possible to fight realistic battles if you play with like minded people

.....Orda

**Mongoose** · 08-23-2005, 19:23

In MP it is even possible to fight realistic battles if you play with like minded people

Or better yet, like moded people

*cough* Chivalry total war *cough*

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52624

**Grey_Fox** · 08-26-2005, 01:01

Originally Posted by caesar44

Wouldn't be fun to have some tanks shooting the romans down ? yes it would !!! but , is this what we want ?
Hanibaal smashed some 80,000 Romans and Latins (imo , the best army ever) with only 20,000 Celts , Numidians , and Spaniards , did he had tanks ? there you have it - accuracy is gameplay !!!

=

Hannibal had 40,000-50,000 men at Cannae, the Romans had between 60,000 and 70,000.

Historical accuracy is nice, but gameplay takes priority in my opinion.

**Mongoose** · 08-26-2005, 01:24

a 100% historically accurate game would be pretty predictable and boring, as there would be no randomness. All you need to do is have a history book open to know what happens next.

I think it is important to tell the differnce from "Scripts" And "historically accurate"

i've never understood why people seem to think that if the game had more Celtic/Germanic units, no "Head hurlers", Romans that were not over powerd, and cavalry that couldn't charge through a phalanx it would be scripted and the player wouldn't be able to do anything but sit there and watch

**Puzz3D** · 08-29-2005, 13:38

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Historical accuracy is nice, but gameplay takes priority in my opinion.

It's pretty clear that something else is taking precedent over both historical accuracy and gameplay. Both of these things have taken big hits in Rome Total War.

**caesar44** · 08-29-2005, 19:39

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Hannibal had 40,000-50,000 men at Cannae, the Romans had between 60,000 and 70,000.

Historical accuracy is nice, but gameplay takes priority in my opinion.

You see , you did not read my post , never said "Cannae"...

"Finally on the 15th day, after a journey of five months from Cartagena, with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and only a few of the original 38 elephants, Hannibal descended into Italy, having surmounted the difficulties of climate and terrain, the guerrilla tactics of inaccessible tribes, and the major difficulty of commanding a body of men diverse in race and language under conditions to which they were ill fitted. Hannibal was subsequently able to increase the size of his army to about 30,000 by recruiting Gauls"

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/index.htm

"Hannibal's successes convinced the dictator of the Roman Senate, Quintus Fabius, that he could not defeat Hannibal on the battlefield. He decided instead to conduct a campaign of delays and harassment. Hannibal enticed the Romans, but few accepted the challenge. Rome began to gather a large army of about 80,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry to attack Hannibal in one large onslaught."

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/...dPunic.CP.html

Well ?