Yes, historical accuracy is a definite plus to the overall game experience, provided that the modifications needed to make it accurate don't detract from the gameplay, then it isn't worth it. You can make the battles last two hours and have the names that they would use in that time, and redo the units, but if it detracts from the gameplay that made the game exciting and fun to play in the first place, then it just isn't worth it.

Another topic that has been brought up in this thread is minor details. And that is what they are, minor details. They do not have an impact on gameplay and have little or no impact on the realism portion of the game because they are so minor. Stirrups are a great example. Yes it is true that there were no stirrups for a good while after the game period. But does it really matter? I would say no. It is an asthetic detail that a game designer mistakenly put in. It is not the end of the world and the fact that it has been argued about for this long is almost embarassing. The fact that they are there doesn't really matter. They can be ignored or removed. I for one, never even noticed them until the subject was brought up.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutly love a game that was completly accurate and still be fun and challanging at the same time, however, I can't imagine that anything that good in the near future. So for now I can live with some inaccuracies and unrealistic units as long as the game is a fun, challenging game that keeps my intrest.