What do you want?

[Galain_Ironhide]

I think - follow history up until the point of the opening of the game, then thats when you are in the drivers seat! You are creating your very own peice of history. Thats how the games have always been and thats how IMHO they should stay.

Other wise I feel that the game would be too restrictive in the path that you would play as any nation. (eg, By history the apaches never conquered Europe or defeated the pilgrims on their home turf and if you played it by historical means you could only play to the point where you are defending your homelands and thats it! Or if you played the French, you could sweep Europe until ultimately you lose at Waterloo... Game over.)

It would be nice to play certain critical battles that were fought in real history in a Grand Campaign, but for that to happen, the game itself would be determining what you do on the world map, not you. A little too Pre-ordained for me.

Sorry, enough rambling.

[Barbarian]

I agree, but the unit and campaign balance should be made historical. If some faction has no strong points, and other one has superb economy, elite army and fleet, they shouldn't be made nearly equal. I don't care about the balance, because history wasn't balanced. If you can't surive against superpowers, you die, if you meet the best cavalry on earth, that's your problem to figure out how to beat them with your poor recruits.

Yes, and the situation should be historical only at the start, and it shold not be limited by the sript or something.
Apaches should be able to conquer the world, but it must be made so, that it is extremely hard to do for them. I wouldn't like to see how player could just take apaches and steamroll the map.

[magnum]

Yea, balance above and before all else would ruin the game in my opinion. I voted a little of both but that covers a lot of ground. One of the things I didn't like about M2TW was that it felt to balanced. There weren't dominant factions and/or units. Not saying I want fantasy units (I don't) but if a faction or unit had advantages and/or were superior, I'd like to see it represented in game to some extent. In MTW XL, I liked playing as a minor faction simply because it was so difficult to win (or sometimes even to survive - Irish)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I voted the middle one, because balance is necessary for battles (MP), but history is necessary to create an immersive experience. I would prefer more history than balance, but balance needs to exist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm with the evil maniac on this, a mix of balance and realism is the way to go, but I'm a little biased towards realism otherwise it doesn't seem as immersive.

[Csargo]

I picked a mix of both, history and balance, it makes the most sense to me.

[Mikeus Caesar]

I picked the middle option. Majority rule is always fun.

But as for you, Caravel - i would have thought better of your choice!

[Martok]

I voted the middle one, because balance is necessary for battles (MP), but history is necessary to create an immersive experience. I would prefer more history than balance, but balance needs to exist.

What he said. ^ ^

I myself probably prefer approximately 2/3 realism and 1/3 balance. I believe a mix of the two is necessary either way, however.

[Furious Mental]

I picked the middle one, but I should point out that what that really means to me is that the game should be "balanced" in such a way that is challenging for the player even if that contradicts history. It do not take it to mean that spear-throwing tribal warriors can withstand modern artillery, although as I've said elsewhere this will not even be an issue if there are realistic systems for the proliferation of weapons technology.

[rajpoot]

I myself voted for history actually; to put it better say four parts history and a part of balance will be just fine. And that is just the point, it'll give the higher level armchair generals a greater challenge to play the main game as a weaker faction and reverse history........!! Sounds perfect.