Historical Accuracy: How Important Is It to You?

[Reverend Joe]

If you ignore the first 2 to be more "historicly acurrate" the only people who will play are the masochists who play Romanians in WW2 games.

That would be me. I play Romania in HoI2, but on the easy level; even so, I still don't tangle with the big fish. I just whip Bulgaria and Turkey's asses. It's fun.

See? Historical realism can be fun.

[King of Atlantis]

voted number two...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A unit of 82 clones in legionary gear is only slightly bothersome to me. I would prefer something more individuated, but would also prefer a computer that can play the game at something resembling 24+ FPS.

Stirrups are not annoying on an aesthetic level -- though I would prefer their absence for accuracy -- but could be a concern for implied game values. If CA didn't check for this one, they may have assumed stirrups were in use. This would explain why RTW Vanilla cavalry is so overly effective, especially when charging. The kind of shock charge possible with stirrups was virtually non-existent before that time -- or Rome would have been known for its cavalry instead. I hope it was a mistake on the part of the graphic artist, and not the values/historical team.

Seamus

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Stirrups are not annoying on an aesthetic level -- though I would prefer their absence for accuracy -- but could be a concern for implied game values. If CA didn't check for this one, they may have assumed stirrups were in use. This would explain why RTW Vanilla cavalry is so overly effective, especially when charging. The kind of shock charge possible with stirrups was virtually non-existent before that time -- or Rome would have been known for its cavalry instead. I hope it was a mistake on the part of the graphic artist, and not the values/historical team.

Sadly, I don't think CA tied the two together - they put stirrups in because it looked "right" but made cavalry powerful so you can conquer all of Gual with a general's bodyguard unit.

I'm exagerating, but not by as much as I would wish.

I did not vote, and agree closely with what Steppe Merc said and Puzz3D, commenting on how both gameplay and accuracy took hits.

[The Hun]

I am helping to make an accurate game, thank you very much.

Perhaps you don't think stirrups are important. I do. I find it extremely irrating when people assume stirrups are needed for cavalry warfare, or have stirrups before they were used. It is like having a 17th century musketteer equipped with a 19th century repeating rifle.

Oh, and how by not having stirrups would CA lose money? In fact, they loose money by having stirrups, do to people like me.

Fine, carry on and make the accurate game. There are things like this over and over and it will not change so why keep bringing up such things? It will not change. You do not like the game for sure so play the accurate game.

CA are interested more in sales than little points such as stirrups is what I meant but I think you knew that already.

[Steppe Merc]

Seamus Fermanagh, stirrups weren't needed for a powerful charge. Heavy cavalry was in used in the East hundreds of years before stirrups were in use.

[Lord Adherbal]

IIRC stirrups are especially usefull so you can stand up in the saddle, making it easier to attack infantry when they get close. I don't think it has much to do with charge. I mean they don't use their feet to hold the impact of a charge do they ? You'd still be blown out of your saddle if you did just that. I think it's the special saddle that makes a charge possible or not.

[caesar44]

Fine, carry on and make the accurate game. There are things like this over and over and it will not change so why keep bringing up such things? It will not change. You do not like the game for sure so play the accurate game.

CA are interested more in sales than little points such as stirrups is what I meant but I think you knew that already.

The hun ,
For me , accuracy is very important but mainly in the diplomatic and the strategic levels . EB ? they wants their accuracy , it is their right...I will bett you that in their mod you even going to see the horses making their body wastes...I don't know about the smell...

[TB666]

Historical accuracy improves the first two, not lessens them.

Only to some does it improve.
RTR is proof that historical accuracy doesn't improve gameplay or make it more fun for most people.

Oh, and how by not having stirrups would CA lose money? In fact, they loose money by having stirrups, do to people like me.

Most people don' care about stirrups since it doesn't affect gameplay.
Yes maybe CA would lose money over historical nit-pickers but lucky for CA that is a very small group. The money they lose from you they easily make up by the mainstream audience so you can see that you are in a very powerless group.
CA is making a game that is profitable, you may like it or not but that's the way it is. Without it, no more TW and we are all back to Warcraft and other resource gathering games.
However you should consider yourself very lucky that CA has made the game moddable enough for this tiny group to mod the game so that they will get their accuracy.
CA has tried to make the game as accurate they can be and still make the game fun enough for the mainstream audience

[Steppe Merc]

IIRC stirrups are especially usefull so you can stand up in the saddle, making it easier to attack infantry when they get close. I don't think it has much to do with charge. I mean they don't use their feet to hold the impact of a charge do they ? You'd still be blown out of your saddle if you did just that. I think it's the special saddle that makes a charge possible or not.

Agreed. And it's helpful for horse archers as well, but hardly necassary.

However you should consider yourself very lucky that CA has made the game moddable enough for this tiny group to mod the game so that they will get their accuracy.

Oh, yeah, it's so moddable.
If CA had made it moddable, I wouldn't be complaining. But the amount of hardcoding idiotic things that CA has created gives everyone the right to complain.

Only to some does it improve.
RTR is proof that historical accuracy doesn't improve gameplay or make it more fun for most people.

So, by looking at one mod you can proove than all historical mods are boring? Good job.

Yes maybe CA would lose money over historical nit-pickers but lucky for CA that is a very small group. The money they lose from you they easily make up by the mainstream audience so you can see that you are in a very powerless group.

Very small? Do you have any idea the amount of people intrested in EB, RTR and similar mods?

CA has tried to make the game as accurate they can be and still make the game fun enough for the mainstream audience

Bull shit. History makes a game more fun, not less. Only CA denies that, and you've bought their lies. Stirrups will not make a game less fun. Having no screaming women or vampire slaying priests make a game more fun.
CA is out for money, yes. So don't claim that they try and make a game accurate.

[Puzz3D]

If CA didn't check for this one, they may have assumed stirrups were in use. This would explain why RTW Vanilla cavalry is so overly effective, especially when charging. The kind of shock charge possible with stirrups was virtually non-existent before that time -- or Rome would have been known for its cavalry instead. I hope it was a mistake on the part of the graphic artist, and not the values/historical team.

This reminds me of something that happened in MTW due to the artist's rendition of Knights Templar. All the cav knights were depicted with lances except the Knights Templar who were depicted holding a sword. It was the artist who took it upon himself to depict them differently than the other cav knights. LongJohn didn't want them depicted that way, but it was too late to change the artwork. So, LongJohn reduced the charge value of Knights Templar from 8 to 4 and lowered the cost slightly because they were depicted with the sword. He said that players might be confused if he had left them with the same charge as knights armed with lances. However, the players who knew something about the history of the Knights Templar were confused, and didn't understand why these knights were weaker than other knights. So, the graphic renditions which are at the whim of the artist can affect the final combat stats of the unit.

[TB666]

Oh, yeah, it's so moddable.
If CA had made it moddable, I wouldn't be complaining. But the amount of hardcoding idiotic things that CA has created gives everyone the right to complain.

CA has their reason to hardcode certain things but most things you need to make it accurate is open.

So, by looking at one mod you can proove than all historical mods are boring? Good job.

That is pretty much the only one there is for the time being.
Most mods don't aim to be 100% accurate like RTR.
EB isn't out yet so I won't comment on the fun factor on that mod.

Very small? Do you have any idea the amount of people intrested in EB, RTR and similar mods?

Yes I do and they are in the minority of the buyers.

Bull shit. History makes a game more fun, not less. Only CA denies that, and you've bought their lies. Stirrups will not make a game less fun. Having no screaming women or vampire slaying priests make a game more fun.
CA is out for money, yes. So don't claim that they try and make a game accurate.

I never said having stirrups would make the game more fun, I said it won't increase or decrease anything.
Screaming women and other of the "fantasy" units are no fun to you and you can remove them if you like it but they are fun to others.
And yes I do claim they tried to make a game accurate, the flaming pigs, germans that can form phalanx are accurate, sure the pigs were only used once and that the germans didn't form a perfect phalanx but they were actually used and that is what makes them fun.
But the majority of the buyers aren't here to state their thoughts of the game so this will remain the battle among the minorities.

[King Mon]

to me its very important bcuz i prefer to have the most authentic feel to the game.

[Maedhros]

accuracy is important to any historical game, but I think we should not focus too much on the little things. The best educated historians will always disagree on something.

When you ask for a great deal of accuracy you may not like what you see. The cities stink, people die daily of common ailments and bad water. Armies are made up largely of ill equipped ill trained men.

Most of your casualties will come not from battlefields, but from the invisible enemies that kill from within.

None of us want to spend money recruiting because of losses brought on by whores, bad water, bad food, and the sicknesses that are so easily transmitted when people live so close together.

The stirrups can go, and some of the fantasy units should be an option if they are included at all. Complete accuracy wouldn't be a great deal.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Maedhros]
The cities stink, people die daily of common ailments and bad water. Armies are made up largely of ill equipped ill trained men.
Most of your casualties will come not from battlefields, but from the invisible enemies that kill from within ...want to spend money recruiting because of losses brought on by whores, bad water, bad food, and the sicknesses that are so easily transmitted when people live so close together...

Yes , me want this me want this

[Ludens]

I voted 3. because 2. was too strong, but I was thinking of R:TW in particular here. Even if the game was painstakingly accurate, the turbo-speed, cavalry-dominated battles still would not be enjoyable to me.

I don't mind fantasy in a game like age of mythology, but I do in a game that tries to recreate realistic battles. I bought this game to see history recreated, and, forgetting the Egyptians, the game does do a good job at this. But when it comes to the fine detail, and I am confronted with Screeching women, Bull-warriors and Head-hurlers, the fun pretty quickly goes of. This is not how it went. This is comic-book history, not what I was looking for.

I understand that we cannot have total realism, and that a game that drowns you in details for the sake of realism will be very boring indeed, but that does entitle the developers to add head-hurlers in my opinion. If they promise to deliver realistic battles, they shouldn't not add fantasy soldiers.

[Steppe Merc]

Ludens, that is what many see when they think of realism. We don't want (nor can we) and exact replica of history.
We want realistic units that existed, and we want to aproximate the military, social and political reality as close as possible the beggining of the period, and approximate as close as possible future unit, social and political evolution.

[caesar44]

and approximate as close as possible...social and political evolution.

Please , some examples if you can

[andrewt]

The Egyptians are still a jarring mistake to me, after all this time. Most of the other units are kinda minor to me but druids seem stupid to me even though I know next to nothing about old Celtic culture.

The inaccuracy most affecting gameplay for me is in the battle mechanics. Cavalry charges are way, way more powerful and the killing rate is too high. I took an around 6-chevron 45-man General's Bodyguards with Germania and defeated a Macedonian army with around 700+ units. Included in those units are around 300+ phalanx pikemen and around 150 or so of Macedonia's cavalry units. It was just basically charging and routing a cavalry unit immediately, running around and charging phalanx units while they're reforming and turning around, then disengaging and running away again.

[Puzz3D]

It was just basically charging and routing a cavalry unit immediately, running around and charging phalanx units while they're reforming and turning around, then disengaging and running away again.

I did that with a single Hun cavalry unit in the BI demo's Chalons battle, and I won the battle.

[Ciaran]

[...]Yes maybe CA would lose money over historical nit-pickers but lucky for CA that is a very small group. The money they lose from you they easily make up by the mainstream audience so you can see that you are in a very powerless group.[...]

Actuall, they didn´t lose money on him, he bought the game, after all. Whether he likes it or not is of little consequence for the current sales number.
And face it, the times where computer games were a niche product are gone for good, the current gaming industry figures about 30 billion $. The publishers are interested in games they can sell to a broad market and not highly risky hardcore-fan products, so expect anything that´s distributed on a larger scale to be somewhat mainstream-compatible, more or less. Rome, for that matter, already is quite a specialized game, as Activision´s CEO I´d been rather sceptical about it´s chances. Yes, there are a couple of fan forums, but try and estimate the total number of real hardcore fans, you´ll probably not get all that high. Plus, there´s all those buyers who never made it to any of the forums.

[Ludens]

Ludens, that is what many see when they think of realism. We don't want (nor can we) and exact replica of history.
We want realistic units that existed, and we want to aproximate the military, social and political reality as close as possible the beggining of the period, and approximate as close as possible future unit, social and political evolution.

That's what I want too. So what are you arguing against?

[bubbanator]

Ludens, that is what many see when they think of realism. We don't want (nor can we) and exact replica of history.
We want realistic units that existed, and we want to aproximate the military, social and political reality as close as possible the beggining of the period, and approximate as close as possible future unit, social and political evolution.

I agree with Ludens, I would love a game like that if it would still be fun to play, however I can't see anything close to that anytime soon.

[LordKhaine]

I've always liked the mix of realism and fantasy that the total war series has had. And let's remember that previous total war games have also had their fair share of fantasy units (kensai anyone?) I really hate it when people bitch and complain about how fantasy RTW is and blah blah blah blah. It was never designed to be total realism!. It was designed like the previous games as a nice blend of realism with the odd injection of fantasy for fun. And I think it works very well.