Historical Accuracy: How Important Is It to You?

[Marcellus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[LittleRaven]

In a game as moddable as Rome...very little.

If I buy a game called Rome: Total War, I expect to be fighting with spears and swords, not laser guns. Laser guns would give me pause. But as long as the basic spirit is intact, I'm good.

This goes double for the TW series, because I know that the game is highly moddable, and that people will quickly be launching into 12 page debates about the exact dimensions of a particular helmet a certain warrior would have used. A million mods will then arise, and out of the multitudes will come a few really really good ones that cater to every particular taste.

I want CA to keep making these games. If that means sticking horns on Viking helmets to keep the marketing guys happy, so be it. Horns can be ignored or even removed. The TW series cannot be replaced.

[Kitty208]

I like my games to be as historically accurate as possible w/o sacrificing gameplay. I'm a military buff, though I must admit that I'm know alot more about modern armies (1800-present) then the more ancient ones. I find the total war games realistic enough for a great game. One of the things many people seem not to realize is that history, especially ancient history, is more often than not muddled. Any view of history is going to be distorted, simply because nobody from the present time was around back then. History is written by the victor and they will often distort facts and include bias in order to make themselves seem better (ex: Roman views on Gauls). There are many books and studies on ancient times, but many are conflicting. The reason the TW series seems so unrealistic to some is that they take some liberties with interpreting historical info. So called "fantasy" units are usually units that actually existed in small numbers or units that were fabled to exist and realistically could have. There are also some common sense units (such as the carroballistae) where it makes sense that they could have used them. I have no problem with units such as these. It only becomes truly unrealistic if you use whole armies of them. I'm fine with the historical accuracy of RTW, but as for the battle map size and AI - that's another story.

[Grey_Fox]

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]

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

[RabidGibbon]

I frowned at Wardogs, but was more upset by Urban Cohorts (Which admittedly I only ever encountered in MP, and doesn't Urban Cohort translate as Town Watch or something like that?)

However I could quite happily play Lord of the Rings:TW and so went for gameplay over accuracy, because as long as no unit has a stupid head start/advantage and the game is balanced I really dont care.

[Puzz3D]

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]

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 ?

[abortretryfail]

Well apparently I cannot vote 'cause I'm junior. However were I able; I would have voted for historical accuracy. I would even settle for plausible. It wouldnt have hurt anything to call the greeks running Egypt Ptolemaics. Skirmishers work beautifully against elephants, flaming pigs are almost insulting.

[Ellesthyan]

I voted "other", since it is perfectly possible to create great mods outside of historical accuracy. However, in a game pretending to simulate history (RTW) I desire the highest accuracy possible.