Historical Accuracy of Broken Crescent

[TWFanatic]

Hello BC fans,

I'm a wandering M2TW/Kingdoms player who is looking for a good mod. My number one priority(ies) is historical accuracy and realism. I have tried numerous other mods and enjoyed them all, but I never was able to engage fully with them or stay with them for a long time because they simply lacked historical accuracy. In RTW I never had this problem (can anyone say Europa Barbarorum?), but it appears there are few if any historically accurate mods out there for M2TW. So I’m asking you about the historical accuracy of BC. Was it a priority in the making of the mod and is that evident when playing it?

[anaztazioch]

From what i know:

Units roster is inaccurate to provide better game expiriance.
Seljuks werent as strong back than.

The Mid-East is by most western civs a black hole in education, this goes for me as well, so cant provide you any more info, but the fact that this mod is not a history accurate - its history inspired.

[nnnm]

Ayybids and Byzantines had the most accurate rosters in the mod, I think.

[Ahiga]

The priority or focus of the mod was to bring the epic "story" of the medieval Middle East to life. The motto we used was "historically inspired, historically influenced, but not a historic imitation." Nothing done was done without some basis in historical authenticity, but in the irregular feudal nature of the period where warriors were not grouped into clean-cut units like in ancient times it's impossible for us to completely capture a certain military. Hence, where in antiquity you might have specific records that state the basic kit and role of a certain warrior, in this period we have to cobble together the myriad of information we'll receive.

Examples of sacrificing history for gameplay include:

• The presence of Ottoman Turks in the Rum Turk's roster, which would otherwise be rather generic.
• The early-focus on Roman military styles, rather than their later period which was rather like the Turks (Light archers, horse archers, heavy cavalry).

So the best I can say is that we're based in history, but deviate from it in reasonable ways. Every unit done had a historical basis, even if they might not have existed as a distinct 'unit' in the past (You wouldn't have mail clad and quilted sergeant spearmen separate).

[TWFanatic]

I can see how Medieval warfare would be much harder to recreate using a total war engine than ancient warfare in many ways. However...

Units roster is inaccurate to provide better game expiriance.

That sounds like an oxymoron to me. For example, not to pick on Stainless Steel but most of their units (which are similar in every respect except for skin/texture variations to vanilla units) deeply annoy me with their innacurate armorment. IMHO, such problems spoil the game because they are fantasy, and reality is much more enjoyable than fantasy.

@Ahiga: Thank you for your honest response. I can see how in many ways Medieval warfare would be much harder to recreate using a total war engine than ancient warfare. One more question: Was there a Polybius somewhere in the eastern Medieval world who described his peoples' way of warfare? What information do you rely on to create your units?

I will certainly try out BC soon.

[Ahiga]

@Ahiga: Thank you for your honest response. I can see how in many ways Medieval warfare would be much harder to recreate using a total war engine than ancient warfare. One more question: Was there a Polybius somewhere in the eastern Medieval world who described his peoples' way of warfare? What information do you rely on to create your units?

I will certainly try out BC soon.

The main sources that we used in researching were Osprey Publishing and Wargaming. Both have a high standard of accuracy and tend to approach inaccuracy the same way a lot of us do at TWC. We aren't nearly as hardcore or scholarly as Europa Barbaroum is, so much of our research was from secondary sources. But EB are the Übermensch compared to the rest of us plebians.

As for a Polybius, there isn't a universal author, but there are particular individuals who shed light on their local cultures or warriors. Usama Ibn Munqidh was one such historian who had insight into both Muslim and Catholic communities. Ferdowsi in Shahnameh seems to have drawn from contemporary military in his depictions of Iran's martial past. There was about a century prior to our starting date the Roman Historian Anna Komnene as well.

But we really ended up scrounging anywhere and everywhere for the research on much more obscure factions like Makuria or Sindh.

[TWFanatic]

The main sources that we used in researching were Osprey Publishing and Wargaming. Both have a high standard of accuracy and tend to approach inaccuracy the same way a lot of us do at TWC. We aren't nearly as hardcore or scholarly as Europa Barbaroum is, so much of our research was from secondary sources. But EB are the Übermensch compared to the rest of us plebians.

Lol, I knew it--I've been pampered.

As for a Polybius, there isn't a universal author, but there are particular individuals who shed light on their local cultures or warriors. Usama Ibn Munqidh was one such historian who had insight into both Muslim and Catholic communities. Ferdowsi in Shahnameh seems to have drawn from contemporary military in his depictions of Iran's martial past. There was about a century prior to our starting date the Roman Historian Anna Komnene as well.

But we really ended up scrounging anywhere and everywhere for the research on much more obscure factions like Makuria or Sindh.

Interesting stuff, I'll have to check them out.

To you perhaps, not to everyone.

Many people would sacrifice some accuracy for balance and playability.

Hence the "IMHO."

[the_mango55]

That sounds like an oxymoron to me. For example, not to pick on Stainless Steel but most of their units (which are similar in every respect except for skin/texture variations to vanilla units) deeply annoy me with their innacurate armorment. IMHO, such problems spoil the game because they are fantasy, and reality is much more enjoyable than fantasy.

To you perhaps, not to everyone.

Many people would sacrifice some accuracy for balance and playability.

[Thema'zandaar]

That sounds like an oxymoron to me. For example, not to pick on Stainless Steel but most of their units (which are similar in every respect except for skin/texture variations to vanilla units) deeply annoy me with their innacurate armorment. IMHO, such problems spoil the game because they are fantasy, and reality is much more enjoyable than fantasy.

Quite incorrect.

The early-focus on Roman military styles, rather than their later period which was rather like the Turks (Light archers, horse archers, heavy cavalry).

As you can ssee from above, ff accuracy was represented 100% in the military department of BC, then many factions would feel like imitations of each other, hence, they would be no fun to play. I've always been in favour of historical accuracy but for me, its the spirit of being historic that's important, and BC has done a fantastic job of it.

[TWFanatic]

Quite incorrect.



As you can ssee from above, ff accuracy was represented 100% in the military department of BC, then many factions would feel like imitations of each other, hence, they would be no fun to play. I've always been in favour of historical accuracy but for me, its the spirit of being historic that's important, and BC has done a fantastic job of it.

Stating opinion as fact does not make it so.

IMHO, actually being historically accurate is far superior to having the "spirit" of historical accuracy.

EDIT: But again I am not casting judgement on BC, which atm looks to be one of the best mods out for M2TW. I will download & install it very soon and report back.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Some of the weapons and armor in the mod are not period accurate, but this does not detract much from the experience playing the mod and besides, the creators of the mod seem to be perfectly satisfied with all the models and skins and would close any topic that includes such a discussion.
I have to admit though, certain features, such as the Oman coat of arms (modern and ahistorical) and the Aceh warriors (a fantasy unit more or less) help make the mod truly unique and enjoyable.

[NoFrag]

I can see how Medieval warfare would be much harder to recreate using a total war engine than ancient warfare in many ways. However...


That sounds like an oxymoron to me. For example, not to pick on Stainless Steel but most of their units (which are similar in every respect except for skin/texture variations to vanilla units) deeply annoy me with their innacurate armorment. IMHO, such problems spoil the game because they are fantasy, and reality is much more enjoyable than fantasy.

@Ahiga: Thank you for your honest response. I can see how in many ways Medieval warfare would be much harder to recreate using a total war engine than ancient warfare. One more question: Was there a Polybius somewhere in the eastern Medieval world who described his peoples' way of warfare? What information do you rely on to create your units?

I will certainly try out BC soon.

That's YOUR opinion.

[HunterKiller]

at least it is more accurate than vanilla, making Egyptian army some Bedouin folks in ropes running towards their enemy to die !!

[Bull]

Play it then you'll see. No amount of words can describe the moment of epiphany when you fight your first BC battle.

[AlphaDelta]

Units roster is inaccurate to provide better game expiriance.

Sorry but this is plain wrong. Parts of unit rosters are inaccurate, but only in a small percentage of those cases was it because we wanted to provide a better experience. The vast majority of cases where there are inaccuracies is because there is little to no information available that would have otherwise provided an historical background and overview of the warriors of the period, ethnicity and location.


Cheers

[anaztazioch]

@ TWFanatic

The are TONS of historical accurate mods, or those that aim to be historical accurate, yet one allways will find some fake/inaccurate features.

For instance i have never seen a mod that gives Poland EVEN a historical accurate START. Teutonic order in 1080 in Prussia is more important

[TWFanatic]

@ TWFanatic

The are TONS of historical accurate mods, or those that aim to be historical accurate, yet one allways will find some fake/inaccurate features.

For instance i have never seen a mod that gives Poland EVEN a historical accurate START. Teutonic order in 1080 in Prussia is more important

I'm afraid you are wrong there on two fronts. First, look up Europa Barbarorum. Name me a single inaccuracy that is due to anything other than hardcoded limitations (besides the circumsized Gaesatae). It also stands as living proof that you do not have to sacrifice balance and playability in order to have historical accuracy.

Second, name me one other historically accurate mod.

I was done with this convo btw, I am only responding now.

[the_mango55]

I'm afraid you are wrong there on two fronts. First, look up Europa Barbarorum. Name me a single inaccuracy that is due to anything other than hardcoded limitations (besides the circumsized Gaesatae). It also stands as living proof that you do not have to sacrifice balance and playability in order to have historical accuracy.

Second, name me one other historically accurate mod.

I was done with this convo btw, I am only responding now.

Well for one thing, I for one thought RTR was more fun than EB.

Second, EB took roughly thirty bazillion years to come out, because they wanted to make sure that every single barbarian tribe had the correct color ass hair before anyone could see it.

I'm not insulting or minimizing the work they did, but it's a matter of priorities, and to me, after a certian point absolute slavish devotion to historical accuracy becomes trivial and kind of a waste of time.

[Thema'zandaar]

I'm afraid you are wrong there on two fronts. First, look up Europa Barbarorum. Name me a single inaccuracy that is due to anything other than hardcoded limitations (besides the circumsized Gaesatae). It also stands as living proof that you do not have to sacrifice balance and playability in order to have historical accuracy.

In the era of RTW, there were many differences between the factions, thus, EB could afford to be historically accurate and diverse at the same time. The same is not true for the medieval era, particularly the BC timeframe. Nations had learnt from one another about tactics, weapons and warfare. Hence, if factions were presented in an exceedingly accurate manner, they would essentially be imitations of each other with different names for similar units. Want proof? Just take a look at AoE2. The very point of having different playable factions is to allow for a different style of gameplay.

[anaztazioch]

@ TWFanatic

Since there allways are inaccuracy to be found, there is no "accurate" mod. Think. Also, why make a historical accurate mod/game, when your doings in the game are not historical accurate ?

EB - if i were to read books like mad just to show there is a smalelst inaccuracy, whitch i can ramble for internity, i would do that allready.

The " Gaesatae" you mentioned actually goes for "gameplay over historical accuracy".

And to end this - i havent played EB, i didnt liked RTW in 1st place. (Especially the tutorial...).