What about keeping it historical?

[Ar7]

First of all I must say that I do not have the game yet and as such this is merely speculation on my side based on the info I have gathered.

From what I have read on these forums and from the screenshots I have seen it seems that the only way to play is to expand really fast and quick, otherwise you do not have a chance. The soul purpose of the campaign is to conquer 45 provinces, which seems like a large part of the known world. This is obviously made even worse by the fact that you have very large provinces and can conquer a very large area in a matter of turns.

So is there any interest at all for people prefering hictorical gameplay or slow expansions? I mean I want to play England and struggle against France, but not conquer half of it in a matter of turns in a rush for rebel towns. I understand that this game focuses on battles, but it seems to me that it resembles a weird boardgame rather than a historical simulator. For me a large part of the fun is in the historical accuracy and in the more or less realistic expansion of nations.

I am influenced a lot by paradox games and I like the fact that you can not expand rapidly across the world and that you can dominate the game through trade and alliances even if you are small, like it was in real life with for example Prussia or Sweden. In real life more land does not always equal more money and is often quite the opposite, which was nicely modelled in Europa universalis II, but seems to loose any kind of logic in MTW2 where your main goal is to basically conquer the world.

So is the game worth it? Or will I just end up playing custom battles? I would like to hear opinions all the people and especially those who value historical accuracy /andor slow expansion.

[GFX707]

Historical accuracy in the TW series was abandoned, in my opinion at least, when they made RTW, in favour of gimmicks and flashy graphics to attract twelve year olds. Unfortunately the TW series went well and truly mainstream with RTW, so if you want historical accuracy you'll have to stick with the Paradox games (the campaign of EUII would, in my opinion, be perfect for the TW campaign if only they'd team up) or hope for a historically accurate competitor.

[Ar7]

It is a known fact that everything from EUII + TW graphics is a dream of every serious strategy player.

[Dave1984]

First of all I must say that I do not have the game yet and as such this is merely speculation on my side based on the info I have gathered.

From what I have read on these forums and from the screenshots I have seen it seems that the only way to play is to expand really fast and quick, otherwise you do not have a chance. The soul purpose of the campaign is to conquer 45 provinces, which seems like a large part of the known world. This is obviously made even worse by the fact that you have very large provinces and can conquer a very large area in a matter of turns.

Or you could play the short campaign, which requires you to have a smaller amount of provinces (on average 15) and to outlast a neighbour or two- in England's case France and Scotland.
That allows you play in a more leisurely way and concentrate on your wars with these powers with no real time pressure.

Unfortunately it's still not historical because France and Scotland very clearly still exist.

[IsItStillThere]

Apparently, the AI doesn't pay upkeep for its units (someone correct me if I am wrong). So if you try a slow expansion I assume you will encounter larger and larger AI armies as it builds its forces (there is no financial disadvantage to having huge armies for them, except for the initial investment). Wars between AI's might keep there force levels down, but best to strike decisively and really hurt an AI before it can recover.

The developers probably use this feature to compensate for the fact that the player is getting extra florins by doing "council of nobles" missions, and the AI is not. It would have been preferable in my mind just to make the king's purse larger for the AI factions, and scale the value in proportion to the difficulty level.

Instead the difficulty level affects to what level diplomatic relations tend toward, all things being equal (tends toward friendly at easy, abysmal at very hard). Not good...just give the AI more money on harder levels and let diplomatic relations evolve in a more realistic way.

[Reapz]

I have done the rush and conquer thing in a couple of campaigns now so this time I'm playing England vh/vh and keeping it at a more historically appropriate pace. I am using all the diplomatic and religious tools, fighting only when I have no choice, building my economy and infrastructure. It is playing out well.

I have played a lot of EUII and M2TW will never have the depth strategically that game has but yes you can play this game at a more historically appropriate pace. I think that the designers envisioned that. If you rush you will not have gunpowder, the NewWorld, or even the Mongols in your game. The problem (its not really a problem) is that you don't get penalized for trying to rush in M2 the same way as you would in EUII. It is actually a viable strategy. But that does not mean there aren't other ways to play. The diplomacy and religious elements work in their way. It isn't a paradox game but with each release the TW series games do improve in their strategic depth.

[BeeSting]

The game is quite entertaining. It just takes some imagination, role-playing, and tweaking to fit things into historical accounts. It is like an arcade version of some of the more historically accurate games out there. But hell, it's pretty damn fun to play this game and beautiful to look at.

All the ranting here about the game is from people that love the game. I've been playing TW series for nearly 7 years now and it has almost costed me my job a couple of times. But it was worth it! LOL

My suggestion, be the judge for yourself and buy the game. And tell us what you thought of it.

[unknown_user]

You can most definitely begin a game with a historical basis. The problem lies that the victory conditions require you to expand, so at some point you're going to have to go counterfactual. I prefer to do this at a slow pace, only initiating wars that are absolutely necessary--usually letting the AI start them, and following through by capturing a city or two, and settling for piece.

My wars tend to stick to relatively the same frontlines, fighting battles in the field, with few sieges. Eventually, my empire expands, but it's a slow pace.

[econ21]

From what I have read on these forums and from the screenshots I have seen it seems that the only way to play is to expand really fast and quick, otherwise you do not have a chance. The soul purpose of the campaign is to conquer 45 provinces, which seems like a large part of the known world. This is obviously made even worse by the fact that you have very large provinces and can conquer a very large area in a matter of turns.

I am not sure that's true. I got up to turn 92 in an English campaign and was the top dog faction, but still had not destroyed France. I had about half the provinces I needed and feel it would have been challenging, but fun to beat the game. I don't feel I rushed, nor do I feel I would have been crushed if I had taken it more slowly. Maybe you will not win if you are slow, but the game should still be playable. Modding the ratio of turns to years (which is trivial) could go a long way to removing some of your concerns about pace and realism at the campaign level.

More generally, if you look at the turn-based campaign level, Total War has never been very "realistic". The Civ-style building side is rather cartoon like while the recruitment and movement aspects are extremely simple (no attrition, no supply etc). I think you have to look at some of the "realism" mods like RTR and EB to get something more plausible, but even then there are clear constraints. I am sure we will get something similar eventally with M2TW.

In terms of victory objectives, arguably RTW was one of the most realistic TW game - at least for the Romans, who did pretty much conquer the map. (Play EB and gasp at what Rome has to do to "win"). By contrast, in the medieval period, there was more of a balance of power so no faction got close to what Rome achieved in the ancient period. (Except maybe the Mongols, whose power seems rather well modelled in M2TW.)

The pay-off for historical wargamers from TW, IMO, has always been the battles. Tastes differ, but I find them at least as realistic (and deep) as most tabletop miniature wargames, but a lot easier to play and thrilling. I don't think Paradox give you anything remotely comparable. I find I can suspend disbelief on the campaign map and enjoy that level as motivation for the battles. But if your interest is in a historical strategic level, then, yes, maybe you should stick to Paradox - at least until we get major realism mods for M2TW.

[Musashi]

Some people want it so strictly historical it's kind of hard to understand... I mean at a certain point the simple fact that it's interactive means you can cause deviations from history... The only way to make it completely historical would be to remove your ability to affect the game world...

[knoddy]

Some people want it so strictly historical it's kind of hard to understand... I mean at a certain point the simple fact that it's interactive means you can cause deviations from history... The only way to make it completely historical would be to remove your ability to affect the game world...

so very very true. and this is one of the things that annoys me about people who complain about historical accuracy. not having a go at teh OP or anythign but, people cry and moan about how the game is not historically accurate, the fact remains that AS SOON AS u introduce a human interactive element, u have the ability to affect and change history and the game loses all historical accuracy. U can make the starting scenario as accurate as u like, but the moment u press that end turn button, everything is different. i dont mind people that like historical accuracy and try to mod the game to make it better, but when they complain about it, it frustrates me :(

to the OP i would suggest modding turns to 2 turns per year, a timescale of 0.5. this gives u over 900 turns to complete the grand campaign and u can take a much more lesiurly pace. i have to admit when i first bought m2tw i felt rushed in my first camp, which is wierd cos having completed both mtw and rtw countless times i never felt rushed, now with a timescale of 0.5, i can take as much time as i like, for eg, in my current scottish camp, i had a 15 odd year period where a danish pope was in that hated me, and any agreesion towards france/danes/ pretty much any catholics got me excomuted so i just sat back, defended my towns built up my economy and waited for the danish pope to die :D.

Cheers Knoddy

[BeeSting]

I think those that cry for historical accuracies are simply wanting the kind of contextual challenge people in those days faced, or those things that limited their ability to do the kind of things modern people take for granted like raising a professional army, which really didn't exist in those days.... and given the same premise, you often find yourself repeating history if not doing worse than the actual historical figures.

[SIGGE]

Historical accuracy in the TW series was abandoned, in my opinion at least, when they made RTW, in favour of gimmicks and flashy graphics to attract twelve year olds.

Lol @ trying to be elitistic.

[Bijo]

Just get the game and play it. I'm also one of those people sometimes who complains about it, but I sure love the game (with a mod or two installed naturally, hah hah!)....

If you want to slow down things a bit I'd say set the time scale to 0.50 or 1.00 per turn and install Shaba's diplomacy mod. Works great if y'ask me. It wouldn't be "historically accurate" but it would certainly take care of the forced rapid expansion and the length of the game.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I don't mind historical..


But I would just be happy if the game "worked properly" as is..and sadly it doesnt...

Roll on end of feb...its gonna be a long wait

[Zenicetus]

If you want to slow down things a bit I'd say set the time scale to 0.50 or 1.00 per turn and install Shaba's diplomacy mod. Works great if y'ask me. It wouldn't be "historically accurate" but it would certainly take care of the forced rapid expansion and the length of the game.

Agreed, although the OP might want to check out the posts here on other adjustments like building rates, to balance things out. That's why I ran my first campaign at the default timescale, because I wasn't sure I wanted citadels and huge cities too soon. As it turns out, I'm pretty happy with the stock timescale... but then I'm a blitz-type player, alternating with period of brief turtling to build up for the next push. That's a good match for the default configuration, but that timescale can be adjusted to taste.

Even with adjusted time scale though, I'm not sure the OP will like how it plays out. "Success" in the game is measured by number of territories, and the AI is going to play that game even if you don't. You can't play England and try to have a long drawn-out struggle against France, if other AI factions are busy wiping France off the map because everyone but you is in expansionist mode. Also, if you focus on economy and neglect military buildup, you'll be painting a big target on your back, and everyone will want a piece of you.

So, I think you have to take (or leave) this game on its own terms, to really enjoy it. When it comes to historical accuracy, I like starting with something reasonably grounded in history, and then playing out the "what if" scenarios. For example, what if an Islamic empire conquered and held a big chunk of western Europe, and was first to colonize the New World? That can't happen if the Turks (for example) just turtle on their side of the map. It actually requires an expansionist agenda, which fits the game design.

[Musashi]

I think those that cry for historical accuracies are simply wanting the kind of contextual challenge people in those days faced, or those things that limited their ability to do the kind of things modern people take for granted like raising a professional army, which really didn't exist in those days.... and given the same premise, you often find yourself repeating history if not doing worse than the actual historical figures.

Honestly a lot of the issues you're looking at as insurmountable limitations were self-imposed, or down to a lack of knowledge...

Assuming you yourself were to travel back in time to do some commanding you should be able to make a credible bid for world domination with even the limited knowledge of an average person of our times.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

The pay-off for historical wargamers from TW, IMO, has always been the battles. Tastes differ, but I find them at least as realistic (and deep) as most tabletop miniature wargames, but a lot easier to play and thrilling. I don't think Paradox give you anything remotely comparable. I find I can suspend disbelief on the campaign map and enjoy that level as motivation for the battles. But if your interest is in a historical strategic level, then, yes, maybe you should stick to Paradox - at least until we get major realism mods for M2TW.

I think in relflection...companies like Paradox really concentrate on depth..rather than visuals. Sure there are issues with some of their games, but they tend to go for the hardcore strategy fans more than CA...who are more into mass appeal.

As far as the battles go....TW goes probably the best job of them all...(if the quirks are ironed out)..but with strategic play, have never really grabbed me so much. It is a difficult compromise..for CA in a way, they want general appeal, but of course many players ask for more depth and are not scared with huge depth. To a point TW games work..and well, in another aspect they feel a tad dumbed down..or rather limited in their ambition to really get stuck in.

Sure HOI II despenses with any graphical flair whatsoever....and this is a hardcore strategy fans game...and I dont think that level of play is desired by most in the TW series..but, things have not reall moved forward a whole lot with TW. I for one would like more depth, and for CA to "take a risk" by doing something more tasty..and deep.

The danger is we just end up with a new skin TW game every 2 years..and snazzed up visual..but little else. In some ways TW feels too simplistic..and merely an excuse for those nice battle..in which case..concentrate on that..I dont think you can have both worlds at the same time...

[Cos3]

It is a known fact that everything from EUII + TW graphics is a dream of every serious strategy player.

Yeah, I dream of a game with the strategic elements of EUII, the complexity of Hearts of Iron and a TW style battle engine. Also, an unrestricted battle engine where you have no limit on the amount of troops. Imagine a giant map and 100,000 napoleonic soldiers in real size battalions and regiments, or a realistically sized roman cohort squaring up against 40,000 barbarians. drool.

[Cos3]

Cohort = Legion

[BeeSting]

Honestly a lot of the issues you're looking at as insurmountable limitations were self-imposed, or down to a lack of knowledge...

Assuming you yourself were to travel back in time to do some commanding you should be able to make a credible bid for world domination with even the limited knowledge of an average person of our times.

a damn good point... but i would have to disagree with you. maybe we can discuss this on another thread

[Barry Fitzgerald]

A quick note on HOI II...whilst historical facts are pretty good in the game it did get some stick from a fair hardcore realist fans..for removal of the German national flag (WWII period..)..(swastika)...

Maybe that was for German law reasons..and to get by in that country..but you could argue hey its only a flag. I remember the Bismark in SH III looking pretty bare without that swastika...my view is to tell it how it was..accurate

So it really depends how far you want to go..maybe that was a bit picky..on the other hand if you go for mega details..go the whole hog.

One problem with RTW was it was a bit loose shall we say with the facts....MTW 2 seems a bit more on the ball..end of the day I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot if you just have great fun playing a game.

[Cos3]

One point I have to add about "winning" the game is that you don't have to play to win. Just enjoy the game and play at your own pace. I really couldn't care less about the final "You win" screen. I can honestly say I have not completed any campaign in any TW game other than Shogun, which I completed several times back when it was first released. I always get bored and restart a campaign once it gets to the point where there is no challenge left and you are just going through the motions of wiping out the A.I.

[Doug-Thompson]

There is nothing historical about medieval warfare having to be a plodding affair.

Ancient warfare was a plodding affair between petty kingdoms until the Assyrians. Then it was a plodding affair again until the Persians and Cyrus the Great. Then it was plodding until Philip, Alexander and the Macedonians, then until the Romans, etc. etc.

The 100 Years War would have ended a lot sooner if Henry V had lived a little longer, and not just because of Agincourt. He was as great a diplomat and, once he'd learned a thing or two, a strategist as he was a soldier: Allying with Genoa to drive the French ships from the channel, playing the French royal factions against each other like a master, and so on. He was living proof that the only reason the dynastic wars between France and England lasted so long is because neither side had a king like Harry before or after. He was on the brink of accomplishing things his forebearers and successors could never acheive. If the man had lived 10 more years, he could have been the Alexander of his day.

If you're rolling your eyes at the "great man" theory of history, fine. You can believe, like Tolstoy did, that nations are swept like ships by the winds of greater forces and that the "great man" has no more function than that of the figurehead on a ship. However, all this talk about how going slowly is a sign of depth and realism is obvious rot. This is a game set in the time of the Mongols, the Ottomans, Saladin, the Western Crusades, and the Timurids -- all of whon pulled off major military expeditions that transversed continents and would be a challenge to pull off today with detailed staff planning following the same routes and studying those medieval campaigns as precedents. The idea that conquering a village or two a year is the best that could be done is absurd on its face.

[lars573]

From what I have read on these forums and from the screenshots I have seen it seems that the only way to play is to expand really fast and quick, otherwise you do not have a chance. The soul purpose of the campaign is to conquer 45 provinces, which seems like a large part of the known world. This is obviously made even worse by the fact that you have very large provinces and can conquer a very large area in a matter of turns.

The larger provinces are either desert or have very low population density.

So is there any interest at all for people prefering hictorical gameplay or slow expansions? I mean I want to play England and struggle against France, but not conquer half of it in a matter of turns in a rush for rebel towns. I understand that this game focuses on battles, but it seems to me that it resembles a weird boardgame rather than a historical simulator. For me a large part of the fun is in the historical accuracy and in the more or less realistic expansion of nations.

Thing is TW never was, never will be, and in fact was never designed, or intended to be a historical sim. If you want a sim from TW your expections are unreasonable. CA never set out to create historical sims, they set out to make RTS games. And they did.


Threads like these are almost as ridiculous as a person complaining that Company of Heroes is also an RTS and not a sim. When in both cases the games were marketed as RTS games.

[sapi]

Skipping to the end of this thread, i'd like to add a few notes.

- Since when have TW games been about historical accuracy? - they've always been about rewriting history. For a game to be entirely historically accurate you'd have to have no real input, and that'd just make for a boring game.

- M2 caters for a lot of different playing styles, but remember that this series is called total war, not half-hearted outlast-o-sim - you can't expect what was never intended

[redhen]

I would also love to see more historical scenarios. As it is I cannot bring myself to play some of the smaller factions, i.e. what were the historical chances of Scotland conquering all of Europe?

Like the Rome series I can see why this would take more time to code. For example, years ago I used to play boardgames from SPI, Avalon Hill, etc, where you start with historical OOB's (order of battle) and realistic reinforcements.
For WWII and Napoleonic games this worked well because these facts were well documented.

For ancient and medieval time periods this is mostly guesswork.

One more reason for the next Total War game to be Napoleonic based.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I agree with what sapi says...from what I can see CA never really set out to have an accurate historical game...and yes total war means that...war. I don't think people expect Civilization esque depth of city management..

On the other hand I wouldn't mind some more depth to economy or diplomacy...as it stands TW can sometimes be too much of battles. I would like to see fantasy units gone that is for sure....RTW was spoilt a tad with some of those...keep it real ish....without being a slave to details..

I too would like a Napoleonic era one..but some wouldn't..I guess unit variety is more limited...but being honest it was an era that was very interesting from a military point of view....

I bet CA are working on the next one as we speak!

[Grimmy]

One thing that seems to be forgotten by many in this kind of discussion is that this is a game, not a life style or some other such.

Games are developed by folk who use as much art as science and they're made to be fun to play and to generate enough income to be profitable enough to be worth the job of making them. Those squalling about how CA abandoned some sort of ethic to become mass market aren't dealing from a full deck. The objective of any producer/developer is to sell as much of their product to as many people as they can.

What I like so much about the TW franchise is that it's both a turn based game and real time game in one and is at least loosely tied to recognizable historical periods. What I also like about the TW franchise is the fantastic modding community. I know there'll be mods that I'll enjoy playing as much or more than I enjoyed the "vanilla" game.

Take RTW for example. There's RTW and it's expansion which were both very entertaining for me for much longer than most other games I've played in my long years of playing games. Then there was RTR. It was very nearly like a whole new game, almost a RTW2. Same engine and graphics but much to explore and adapt to in game play. Now there's EB nearing completion. Same deal. Same familiar engine and graphics as RTW but much new to explore and adapt to. Both are really big "bang for buck" mulitpliers for me and many others when considering the many many hours of fun and play that we've gotten from our RTW purchase.

The same will happen for M2TW. And, I think it will only get better as it goes along. CA seems to have gotten the hint that the modding community really helps drive sales and extend market life for their games.

But to address the actual question of the OP, is M2TW as historically accurate as possible? no, of course not. Will there eventually be a mod that will be more historically accurate? I do believe so, matter of fact, I'll wager there'll be at least a couple with equally viable renditions of what is historically accurate, and, no doubt, they'll be hella fun to play. There'll also be mods for those that like fantasy, alternate realities, other periods of history or just new gimicks and widgets to mess with in game.

[Ar7]

Thank you for all the answers, I will get the game, if only for the reason that I played MTW and RTW.

I would like to explain myself a bit better regarding the historical accuracy, to answer the people who spoke of Henry V, Timurids and Mongols. I know that large scale conquests were possible and I do not deny it, but they should be hard, very hard to pull off. Reading some of the strategy guides a player is expected to triple in size at the very start, which a find rather iffy. When I speak of historical realism I mean that in most wars the gains were rather limited, there were many sieges and battles, but there was no blitzkrieg style land grabbing, that was my biggest concern.

Having said that, I believe I shall still get the game.