Historical Accuracy: How Important Is It to You?

[Kor Khan]

How important do you find historical accuracy in games? Or more particularly: How important is it for you that Total War games, expansion packs and mods be accurate? Do you think you'll only play a Total War game that's been modded to make it accurate, or do you even like a bit of a artistic license to make the game more interesting?

Me: Historical accuracy and realism are nice, but as long as the gameplay's good, I can cope with some fantasy units. I think there are bigger problems in Rome: TW than historical inaccuracy, such as ultra-fast movement and fighting (admittedly also a realism issue), bad AI and a small amount of units that don't have much variety.

(I voted 3)

[edyzmedieval]

It's quite important for me.

For me it's between 2 and 3. But I chose 3.

[Mount Suribachi]

I prefer accuracy to fantasy, but I'm more worried about gameplay

This is not quite strong enough for me, but option 2 is a little too strong. So somewhere between 2 and 3.

I certainly want my games to be accurate, but I'm not anal about it.

I accept that in any strategy game there will be compromises and simplifications, there has to be otherwise the game would take forever to make and might well be unplayable and/or tedious.

So for the sake of gameplay, I accept that 100% realism is impossible. I think STW and MTW had the balance just about right. But like many, I think RTW took a big step back in this regard.

[caesar44]

I don't see how accuracy can damage the gameplay
It is Rome total war , that is , rome , so , make it as historical as you can

[Bartix]

I don't see how accuracy can damage the gameplay
It is Rome total war , that is , rome , so , make it as historical as you can

Agree!!

But question was "games", not Rome total war

I say 3.
Prefer realism.
(this is truth from guy who suggest Fantasy Total War!! )

[bubbanator]

I chose three. I like games to be accurate to the historical period that they were in, but not if it sacrifieces gameplay. This is the main reason why I do not like realism mods. Sure they have fancy names that you can't pronounce without googleing it, but IMO they detract from the gameplay that got me into RTW in the first place. Yes, realism mods do have some features that make the game more entertaining and somewhat more realistic, but overall, they just take away from what made RTW so great. Minor tweaking is all you need. You don't need a total reconstruction of the game to achive favorable results. In fact, when you do completely remake the game you are more than likely taking away something that made the game such a fun and entertaining game. Maybe it's just me but I don't want my battles to last 2 and a half hours. The speed right now is fine. Sure maybe it is a bit faster than I would put it if I made the game, but it makes you think on your feet (if you don't pause) and keeps your adreniline pumping (again, if you don't pause).

I have said it before and I will say it again, Starcraft is the best game of all time because it is so balanced (along with other great features). Sure it is unlikely that super advanced aliens will have melee infantry as their first line infantry. Or that we will still be using machine guns when we have intergalactic empires. But all of that dosen't matter because the gameplay is so incredible. The diverse roster of units on all sides are still perfectly balanced. It's gameplay, not super-realism that makes a game into a great game.

[Lord Adherbal]

true but the theme in starcraft IS fantasy, science fiction. RTW claims to be historically (quite) accurate, but the battles don't give me a realistic feeling at all. So much for gameplay over realism.

I remember about a year ago there was a flamewar going on at a gamespy forum: RTW fans VS BFME fans. I myself thought "how can those BFMErs diss RTW when CA has released both MTW and STW while no one has a clue how BFME will play". How wrong was I to think that CA would continue to build on their experience of the previous TW games (which I loved). It's such a shame that so much potential has gone to waste, especiallly considering the ancient world was my favorite theme.

[Hurin_Rules]

Choices 2 and 5 seem awfully similiar here, no?

[Taurus]

I prefer accuracy to fantasy, but I'm more worried about gameplay

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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]

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]

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.

[Kitty208]

BTW - For some reason I can't see the poll, so I can't tell you which one I would vote for. My profile has been screwing up lately. Somehow my sn got cut in 1/2, so its just Kitty208 instead of Kittykiller208. Took me 2 weeks to figure that one out. It would always say I had the wrong password when I tried to log in. Oh well....

[pezhetairoi]

For me a historical game with historical inaccuracy that cannot be excused by present research is tantamount to blasphemy. Gameplay is important, but I originally went for Rome for the history and realism, which included usage of tactics.

[PseRamesses]

I can cope with small inaccuracies that the game itself doesn´t let me change otherwise I like realism and accuracy.

[Productivity]

BTW - For some reason I can't see the poll, so I can't tell you which one I would vote for. My profile has been screwing up lately. Somehow my sn got cut in 1/2, so its just Kitty208 instead of Kittykiller208. Took me 2 weeks to figure that one out. It would always say I had the wrong password when I tried to log in. Oh well....

You are a junior member - junior members can't see polls - it doesn't take too long to get promoted, promotion is based upon generally being a good member - not post count (I think there is at least one person with 1200 posts who is a juniour member).

[Kitty208]

Oh...that sorta makes sense - ty

[magnum]

I choose game play as historical accuracy has always seemed to me to be an unatainable goal. For one there is almost always differences of interpretation as to what existed/happened due to lack of credible histories (usually written by the victor so almost always biased.) Secondly I'm looking to 'change history', and so historical accuracy applies less stringently.

Now if you meant would a Sassinad empire in RTW bother me, or perhaps a dragon living in eastern Gaul, then yes, that would bug me. But then one of the reasons I like the TW series is how moddable they are. I can always mod out that which I dislike or dont agree with. So game play is number one issue.

[buzzard]

I agree with magnum, I want to see a fair amount of realism, but not at the expense of gameplay. if the game was completely realistic, the roman faction system wouldnt exist, and the other factions wouldnt be powerful at all, as each of them were strong at different points in time. Troop selection for the non romans would be pretty vanilla too. Doubt the germans would have sreaming women!

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.

[andrewt]

I chose 2 but I'm somewhere between 2 and 3. Wardogs and screaming women are fine. Egypt is not. Warrior monks are fine. Kensai are too much. To me, if it still believably fits the theme of the game and is plausible, I can stand inaccuracy. If you need to do a double take to find something is inaccurate, it's ok. If you know something is completely inaccurate at first glance, that's too much. RTW, to me, has too many mistakes in this regard.

A lot of the historical mistakes also affect gameplay. I find cavalry too powerful and phalanxes too weak. Romans have too good a cavalry selection, etc.

[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.

[Colovion]

It's quite important for me.

For me it's between 2 and 3. But I chose 3.

took the words right from my mouth