RTW Multiplayer Rules: A Synopsis

[hellenes]

I am well aware of Europa Barbarorum, it is one of the many mods that I have tried already. Would I stake my wages on their mod being a true reflection of history? No.. and the reasons for this I have already stated in the quote you have used.
Why the appearance of some MTW units have not received the same level of criticism is beyond me. I can only put it down to the fact that MTW, as a game, was acceptable to the masses. It seems that RTW was less favourable and has therefore received ( IMO ) undue criticism.


By 'some' I presume you are talking about Hunnic Elite? Do you think Elite units should be beaten by Light Cav? Should there always be a counter unit? Maybe there is a counter tactic instead

.....Orda

Are you a Beta tester for EB?
Lucky you!!!
Ask Khelvan if their mod is a true reflection of history or not...
MTW graphics engine didnt leave much space for criticism, and MTW (compared to Rome) is MORE historically accurate.
Also MTW wasnt acceptable to the masses because before the CA turned the eyecandy on, all the current RTW fanboys were calling MTW a "notsorealtimeuglyriskcrap".
But as I said before how one can talk about:

"It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual"

When :

"There are too many unknown or presumed facts about history to even begin to paint a picture of what things 'actually looked like' and sources can be very one sided and biased.

How can we know how "realistic armies" were if we express doubt about historical facts and disregard them? Shouldnt we then persume that armies of dogs, pigs, screeching women and druids existed in full military use and thus use them online?
The vanilla battle of Raphia makes me wonder how far the stupidity and the bending to that stupidity can go.

Hellenes

[Orda Khan]

Ah yes, quotes can be very misrepresentative when only part of the whole quote is used.
The second quote used is part of my reply to Historical Accuracy, which is a far cry from the discussion about SPAM armies and more realistic/believable.
Feel free to bend my words any way you want

.....Orda

[hellenes]

Ah yes, quotes can be very misrepresentative when only part of the whole quote is used.
The second quote used is part of my reply to Historical Accuracy, which is a far cry from the discussion about SPAM armies and more realistic/believable.
Feel free to bend my words any way you want

.....Orda

More realistic/believable?
What constitutes realism if we disregard the authority and authenticity of Historical sources and state that historical accuracy is an utopia thus justifying the promotion and preaching of FALSE misconceptions that diminish and insult the intelligence (or whats left of that) of the audience?
If historical accuracy is impossible due to alleged ambiguity and non creditability of sources then there is NO ground to challenge the so called "SPAM" armies since the evidence at hand is not credible or reliable.
Meaning that, as I said before, an army of Onagers, Urban Cohorts and Praetorian Cavalry has full "realism" backup since there are NO reliable sources to show that this army is product of someones imagination.
But if one accepts the Historical FACTS as preserved today and tries to align the online gameplay to represent the picture that we have in hard evidence and sources about the warfare at that period IMO a decent level of enjoyment/education/and development of tactical thought will be achieved.

Hellenes

[Orda Khan]

Yawn