Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

  1. #21
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,118

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    I... wasn't being sarcastic. I literally do. Lol.
    Would be interesting for me if you could add data in this thread.

  2. #22
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,204

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob69Joe View Post
    How could it even occur except as some vast MMO rts type game considering the tens of thousands of men that make up actual warfare, ancient and modern. Atilla led, what, 40,000 men at the peak of his leadership and in single battles? When we look at Alexander's campaign, he had the elitist mofos out there numbering up to mid ten thousands at times, and no TW game ever gets higher than 4,000.
    Huge Unit scale is approximately 1:10 scale with reality.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    The game doesn't force you to live out the exact casualty ratios of historical battles for a reason. It's about seeing what would happen if you had been in command of that army. It would be equally unrealistic if the enemy army only suffered "15-20% casualties" every battle and you had to fight that same army again and again until it was whittled down. I play on VH and the rate at which the enemy recruits new full stacks makes up for the occasional big win on my part.
    EB is more for players who were horrified by the blatant disregard of history found in pretty much every mainstream game. Sure the M2TW engine has lots of problems, but I think the team has made the game as accurate as possible given that it is just a mod made ENTIRELY FOR FREE. So yes, obviously, sitting at your computer and playing a game doesn't fully match what it was like to rule an ancient civilization, but EB succeeds at being a fun playable game that actually bothers to use history as a guide.

    Some other things I would add to EB but probably aren't supported by the engine: Building and destroying bridges/cities/wonders, dysentery killing half your army when it leaves your homeland, stealing enemy horses for your own cavalry, cutting down the enemies' olive groves as you go past his city, cavalry dismounting to participate in a siege, and cavalry moving at half speed over rocky ground.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactics Mayers View Post
    While dicussing in a public forum about recommended historical video games (EB2 was mentioned), one commented about how the mod, for all it's bssessive attention to detail, the entire game is built around missing the forest for the trees.
    What does he think about more modern competitors to EB2, like Divide et Impera for Rome II or Ancient Empires for Attila?
    ORANGE MAN BAD

  5. #25
    Lusitanio's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    467

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    I tend to play in 0.5 speed because my pc is a bit low xD and it also allows me to control better my army and respond to sudden attacks by cavalry. Since I like big and long battles, it adds a lot to the realistic feeling.
    And no TW game gets more than 4000? I have got more than 10000 men on the battlefield, 3000 of mine against 7000 enemies. A lot of battles in ancient Greece had this numbers.

  6. #26
    NosPortatArma's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Sweden
    Posts
    692

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    agreed. i sometimes play on 0.1-0.5 speed in order to micro manage, and it really looks awesome in slow motion.
    Make Sweden Lagom Again!

  7. #27

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    I see a lot of people here (that I respect) who try to defend EB2 from criticism.
    I understand the feeling but it is just that : a feeling.

    The problem is not whether or not EB2 did a great job or had the choice or anything.
    The problem is how an engine like MIITW (and any TW in general) can create something that looks like most of battles that occured back then.

    And to that regard, sorry to say but the TW engine is way, way unrealistic. This unrealistic nature is not a big problem and something to blame and to shame, nor something to defend or excuse. It just is. It exist. Denying it just doesn't hold.

    The most blattand and evident exemple is this :

    Fog of war.

    In game, the "fog of war" is just a block of the camera and disapearance of troops. But in real life, generals had views of part of the field, if any, and transmitting orders was very difficult. Commiting a unit was not something you stopped if you decided to change tactic, unless you could pay the price. Asking a cavalry to go left and charge was an order that could not be revoqued, and ordering light troops to go around was something that was difficult to cancel.

    Every orders were given by runners, on foot or on horses, and sometimes flags or musical instruments but in the noise of the battle, good luck with that.
    In MIITW, just click left and click right. If you see pikemen in your way, just make a path to your unit to go around.
    Some armies had way better efficiency because the gave more initiative to their units... The way you organize your army matters.

    EBII team can't do anything about this, nor can they do anything about the fact that your army will be anihilated if you fail against the enemy.
    Nor can they do anything about the fact that the army that will siege you will lose more than 60pc of it's men if it fails, due to poor pathfindings and bad MIITW behavior. (runing around under archers, etc..)

    Of course, "realism" is something to discuss. But don't fall in the trap of saying "every part must be realistic or none should".

    In an immersion feature (movie, game or otherwise) there are two distinct things :

    1 : the story/the thing that happens in the feature. That is, here, the battles and the strat map. How it works, how realistic this is.
    2 : how to tell the story/what special effect is used to englobe the story. Here we have time compression, that helps win time to avoid spending time for litterally nothing. We have things that are simplified to avoid focussing on those. (intendance, deployment of armies in real time, every little details that will make the game very long for no reason).

    To give you an exemple of difference between the two :
    On the strat map, deplacing an army is just one click. That is point 2.
    But the story it tells is that it will take 3 month. That is point 1.
    Realism is still there because the story it tells is still realistic (under certain regards, since it forces 3 month incrementations) even though it took just one click to execute.

    In tactic map, the point 1 AND the point 2 are not realistic. The system that surrounds and tells the story is not realistic and the story is not realistic either.

    So no, we should not focus on the idea that "it should take 4 hours anyway so if this is not realistic nothing is realistic".
    I understand why it is said, but let's be objective and accept that the MIITW engine is not realistic te begin with, and a lot of things can be said on how so.

    - Unit hyper cohesion
    - FOW
    - casualties
    - Cavalry mechanics
    - AI borderline idiotic (with a lot of improvements from EBII team thanks to them)
    - Physical "blocky" units that will stop anything for a defined time, even if composed of 20 archers with daggers facing 200 hoplites with spears
    - logistics (arrows and ammo very limited even under siege for instance, where reserves existed)
    - And a lot more.

    This is not attacking EBII team to say so, it is just stating facts without beeing judgmental.

    MIITW, due to it's nature, is not realistic for a lot of reasons. (and is realistic on certain parts it features)
    Last edited by Floren d'Asteneuz; April 11, 2019 at 12:04 AM.


  8. #28
    NosPortatArma's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Sweden
    Posts
    692

    Default Re: Does EB2 manage to portray actual warfare in it's time period?

    indeed. mtw2 is afaik the most realistic real time battle game, that shows individual soldiers. it does a beter job than later tw games imho. pike & shot is more realistic overall, and includes thigs like not being able to recall orders, fow, and losing control of units. but it does not cover individual soldiers as tw does. anyone know a game that does it better?
    Make Sweden Lagom Again!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •