Historical Accuracy: How Important Is It to You?

[Ciaran]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I shall indeed hope so.

All games require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. I know a little about this historical period, but I'm far from a history buff. So maybe some elements like the screeching women don't bother me as much as they do others.

The things that do annoy me are more common-sense violations of reality, like the fact that it can take two years to sail across the Med, when I'm trying to move my armies from Egypt to the Italy. That's ridiculous. They could sail to the South Pacific in that amount of time. I think I remember reading somewhere here, that the dev's slowed down movement speeds on the strategic map to adjust the progress rate of the campaign, but it still doesn't feel right.

I agree on that, sea travel takes ages, plus the fact that you have to do it in steps, as you can always order only two to three turns ahead.

[MadKow]

I voted 3, as many here.
However, although i do play games for fun, i do like how history inspired games tend to stimulate my curiosity and i always end up learning quite a bit about the period.
I doubt i would know exactly what was a Janissary had i not played MTW, and it turns out they were so much more than well trained troops, for instance.

Historical accuracy is important, but i will settle for historical believability.

Now gameplay is what kept me away from RTW. Since i play only single player, i found the campaigns bland and dull compared to the diversity i was used to in MTW. One would have more diversity, and more to look forward as time passes.

Making it somewhat similar in Rome might not be historically accurate, but i find it lacking in that regard.