Violence in battles

[Hoplite7]

Should be "Violence IN Battles", my mistake

Just a few quick questions:

Does anyone find it odd that when people are hit with flaming arrows, they sort of "explode?" As soon as the arrow hits them, they are engulfed in flames and die. I'm no expert, but does anyone know if that's realistic or not?

Also: Why isn't there any blood on the ground after people die? It wouldn't make any sense in dirt, but in city streets, it looks odd without any blood. Didn't Jerusalem have a mini-flood of blood during the crusades in a battle?

[Kadagar_AV]

Havent you figured out yet that games cant actually simulate real violence?

The right--wing americans would be absolutelyu crasy if a game actually included real scenarios... And age limit would be set to 85.

I aksed a simular question when the game "Battlefield Vietnam" was introduced, I aksed why the american troops were all 25+ year old schwarznegers instead of the actuall average 17 year old kids... and why there were no mutiladed bodies around.

Guess what happened? I got banned.

So, point is, we can make violence seem cool, as long as we dont include any true aspects of it.

[Zarky]

Well... Violence is not supposed to be cool.
And for some (veterans of actual wars) it´s too early for war games where´s blood everywhere, so most likely they won´t allow their kids to play such games. And politicians don´t want to piss off old people, because they always vote :D

[BattleN00b]

It's both sad and stupid, really. Video games don't intend to disrespect real soldiers and what they've been through.

[Husar]

Well, I play games for fun and not to satisfy my bloodlust or to be reminded of the cruelty of war all the time. I think there has to be a balance and I don't really miss any blood in the game, it's fine as it is.
Realistically blood would probably be sucked up by clothes and armour mostly, once the heart stops beating there will be no more blodloss anyway. And rivers of blood may well be an overstatement.

[Forward Observer]

Actually Medieval soldiers did not spontaneously burst into flames when hit with a flaming arrow. What actually happened was that a gong would ring and they would disappear in a puff of smoke. The developers refused to believe this so they came up with their own ludicrous effect.

The reason that there is no blood on the ground is the little known fact that during the middle ages blood was so thick that if would not flow due to the mini-ice age that that occurred from 1250 AD to about 1750 AD

This also explains why the Red Cross blood donation wagons during this period did very little business.

I read all of this in a book by guy named Cliff Claven.

Cheers

[ReiseReise]

These aren't just any flaming arrows, these are medieval Rambo-style BPGs (Bow Propelled Grenades), which were mass produced by the Turks and made available to anyone who wanted them, much like 20th century RPGs were by the Russians. Since gunpowder was not yet available, the arrows are tipped with little naphtha-filled pots which break on impact, covering the unfortunate victim in flaming liquid. Unfortunately cigarettes were not available yet either, or they wouldn't have been wasting all their Zippo fluid.

Either that, or the guys explode into flames to give a "terrifying" visual of the morale penalty.

[Nikos_Rouvelas]

The only bloody PC gam Ive played is Warhammer 40,000 Dawn of war. The arrow affect is pretty funny though.

[Hoplite7]

These aren't just any flaming arrows, these are medieval Rambo-style BPGs (Bow Propelled Grenades), which were mass produced by the Turks and made available to anyone who wanted them, much like 20th century RPGs were by the Russians. Since gunpowder was not yet available, the arrows are tipped with little naphtha-filled pots which break on impact, covering the unfortunate victim in flaming liquid. Unfortunately cigarettes were not available yet either, or they wouldn't have been wasting all their Zippo fluid.

Either that, or the guys explode into flames to give a "terrifying" visual of the morale penalty.

In other words the history experts of this board are out to lunch.

[Ramses II CP]

Of course it isn't realistic. :p

[Shahed]

LOL I love that flaming death animation. It's hilarious. Flaming catapult shot plowing through a unit is even better.

[Xehh II]

I think it's sad that thy can't put realistic violence in games, it would make M2TW so much better if there was more blood and dismemberments(sp?). That would be awesome, it'd never happen thoguh.

[Valdincan]

Because it would be pointless to have a bunch of units running around screaming well fire slowly creeps its way through their cloths and body hair, draining game speed.

For blood you could just says its under the body or "contained" in the armor.

[Nikos_Rouvelas]

Maybe the rotten cows can explode in a shower of diseased blood? :p

[Forward Observer]

Actually, I have played at least one FPS that had dismemberment.

In Jedi Knight 2, one could literally slice off limbs, heads, and cut torsos clean in two with the light saber. Damn. that was a fun game after you got into the light saber portion.

[Xehh II]

No blood though dismemberment is nothing without blood.

[hoetje]

dismemberment is realistic,so it should be in total war games ^^

[Zenicetus]

Hey, give CA at least a little credit for increasing the visible blood and dirt on armies during the course of a battle (even if the "blood" is kinda rust-colored).

It's a lot better than the ultra-clean look of battles in RTW. Everyone had clothing that looked like it was fresh out of the laundromat, even at the end of the battles.

[Didz]

dismemberment is realistic,so it should be in total war games ^^

As the developers have said repeatedly, TW games games are NOT meant to be historical simulations. Therefore, they are NOT realistic and adding dismemberment to make them more realistic would therefore be pointless.

As for flaiming arrows...does anyone really beleive that flaming arrows were capable of being used in open battlefields, and that anyone would bother even if they were.

What possible advantage would be gained by such a stupid idea,...we'll have men being issued with flamethrowers next?

[Hoplite7]

As the developers have said repeatedly, TW games games are NOT meant to be historical simulations. Therefore, they are NOT realistic and adding dismemberment to make them more realistic would therefore be pointless.

They're not? I can think of two shows that use RTW for historical simulations.

[Valdincan]

As the developers have said repeatedly, TW games games are NOT meant to be historical simulations. Therefore, they are NOT realistic and adding dismemberment to make them more realistic would therefore be pointless.

As for flaiming arrows...does anyone really beleive that flaming arrows were capable of being used in open battlefields, and that anyone would bother even if they were.

What possible advantage would be gained by such a stupid idea,...we'll have men being issued with flamethrowers next?

Flaming arrows were used a fair bit in real life. They would dip them in pitch or a similar substance and use them to destroy siege equipment and such.

With pitch the were quite dangerous to people as well, they would effect moral, and if the person was wearing and form of cloth armor (even if he was wearing plate and had only a little cloth exposed) or even had their hair lose, and the arrow hit that one spot, the could spread, and if that unfortunate man was in a formation of other cloth wearing troops, it could spread to them as well.

Of course the archers using flaming arrows had a chance to set themselves on fire as well. As well it was hard to lite the arrows during battle.

[Zenicetus]

As for flaiming arrows...does anyone really beleive that flaming arrows were capable of being used in open battlefields, and that anyone would bother even if they were.

What possible advantage would be gained by such a stupid idea,...we'll have men being issued with flamethrowers next?

Don't look now, but that's exactly what we're getting in the Kingdoms expansion -- "Greek Firethrower" infantry, a Byzantine unit I think:

"Consisting of a small hand pump connected to a container, it is capable of burning even underwater and sticks to its target, while being almost impossible to put out."

There's a 3D model preview on the main totalwar.com site. What's silly isn't the idea that it would be used once in a while, which is historically accurate. It's the idea of an entire unit of these guys marching into battle, all armed with that weapon. Oh well, if it helps sell games....

[sapi]

Don't look now, but that's exactly what we're getting in the Kingdoms expansion -- "Greek Firethrower" infantry, a Byzantine unit I think:

"Consisting of a small hand pump connected to a container, it is capable of burning even underwater and sticks to its target, while being almost impossible to put out."

There's a 3D model preview on the main totalwar.com site. What's silly isn't the idea that it would be used once in a while, which is historically accurate. It's the idea of an entire unit of these guys marching into battle, all armed with that weapon. Oh well, if it helps sell games....

While I think that we all agree that the byzantines did have greek fire, and did use it in moderation, I think any general who decided to group two or three score highly flammable men together for the duration of a battle deserved to be burned alive....as he probably would be

[Xehh II]

A byzsantine Flamethrower would me cool, definatly a unit i'd use quite often.

[Didz]

They're not? I can think of two shows that use RTW for historical simulations.

I am aware of that, I was an avid viewer of Time Commanders. However, you will note that what these shows do is use a heavily modded version of the graphic’s engine of RTW to depict troops movements. The people involved don’t actually get to play the game in its vanilla state.

Therefore, the historical accuracy is artificially imposed upon the software rather than being inherent in its design.

Flaming arrows were used a fair bit in real life. They would dip them in pitch or a similar substance and use them to destroy siege equipment and such.

As you probably realise that was not the issue, or the point I was making. The reality is that the practical problems of using flaming arrows ‘in battle’ (as opposed to during sieges) would not have been justified by the benefits gained and so in reality it simply didn’t happen. Hence, the realism of the TW games is deliberately being compromised in order to provide gameplay gimmicks for its customers and CA have been perfectly honest about this fact.

So, to then begin a discussion on the use of flaming arrows and then trying to map ones arguments back to reality is a little bit pointless in my opinion.

Don't look now, but that's exactly what we're getting in the Kingdoms expansion -- "Greek Firethrower" infantry, a Byzantine unit I think:

I know I was being sarcastic.

A byzsantine Flamethrower would me cool, definatly a unit i'd use quite often.

And that of course is the only justification for them being included in the first place.

It certainly has nothing to do with making the game realistic.

[phonicsmonkey]

I thought this was due to the well-known medieval habit of washing one's clothes and hair in lamp oil to kill lice...

[Zenicetus]

I think any general who decided to group two or three score highly flammable men together for the duration of a battle deserved to be burned alive....as he probably would be

Speaking of unrealistic (but fun) violence and mayhem... when Kingdoms is out, I want to try a custom battle between an all-flamethrower Byzantine army, and an all-hornet-thrower Aztec army. If CA has programmed a unit disruption, "run amok" effect from the hornets, that could be really nasty.

[Xehh II]

In kingdoms is there a Aztec hornet thrower? That is weird, how could they hold them without getting stung themselves?

[Zenicetus]

IIRC, the unit description says they covered themselves with mud, to avoid being stung while handling the nests. Lots and lots of mud, I guess.