My Problem with the Total War Series

[Jack95]

First I'd like to say that I love history and that it's really hard for me to play historically inaccurate games. When I play them and I find something wrong with it, it bugs the heck out of me. And this is my problem with the total war series. The 3 most recent games (Rome, Medieval 2, Empire) are all great games, no question.

My favorite is Rome. Why? Because when I'm invading Gaul, or Macedon, or Carthage, or Egypt, or Britannia, or Spain I don't feel reluctant to do so because that's what the Romans actually did. Rome controlled from Egypt to the borders of Scotland. It was a real Empire. Plus, you only control one of the 4 Roman factions. I don't want to do what Sun Tzu said. I don't want to win first and then go to war. There's no fun in it then. It's only tedious then. Why am I fighting a war I've already won? Just let me fast forward a couple turns till I have the British Isles. But that doesn't happen in Rome Total War. You're expanding you borders to prepare for the inevitable fight for Rome. You fight the three other Roman factions for control of the city and the empire. It's not tedious.

But in Medieval 2, say I'm playing as the English, I can get control of the British Isles within, I don't know, 15 turns? When in history England never managed to take over Scotland. (Don't count the unification of the 2 nations.) I have my English troops marching in southern France, in Spain, in Germany, in Italy, in Morocco, in Northern Africa, and then finally I have a chain all the way to Jerusalum. Wow was that a waste of time. C'mon. England cannot take over Europe the way the Romans did! I'm so reluctant to advance further because 1. after a while it gets to tedious 2. it's so inaccurate! I'm almost hoping before I take Marseille from the French that they mass an army and take their regions back the way I did to them. And the whole pope thing is just annoying. Shut up, Gregory. The French were asking for it. The little merchants take forever to spam around and make you some money. The diplomats are the same. They take too long to move. Priests are a little better; they make the guy with the hat happy. Spies and Assassins I like more, but still. Let me move them quicker. So yeah. Medieval 2 is my least favorite. Too tedious. Too ambitious. Too unrealistic.

And now I voice my opinion on the latest release, Empire Total War. Well, obviously, it's my second favorite, under Rome. To give it credit, I love the new diplomatic system. Good. Get rid of those annoying diplomats. But, everyone always hates you. It's a lose lose situation. If you do well, then everyone else hates you. But if you don't do well, you still may have friends, but you're left with: you are not doing well. Another problem I find with the diplomatic system is that it's so hard to trade technologies. Even if you for example will give 4 technologies for your partners 1, he'll still say the usual: "Our scientists" blah blah blah "technology is better learned" blah blah blah nonsense. No more merchants? Kinda? Naval merchants? eh... sure I'll deal. But to point out some other things I like, having 3 different regions is great. Though I don't really concentrate on India until I have America secure, it's still great. But. The same problem comes around in Empire that happened in Medieval 2.
I just stopped playing my British campaign yesterday because even though I didn't complete my objectives, I already won. I have control of the Carribean, Canada, and the colonies. I have West Africa, South Africa, and two ports in Brazil. I'm choking Frace economically with my navy. I already won. I did what Sun Tzu advised. I won before I fought. But after that there was no fun left for me. And this was only around 1730. During the course of the game, I could easily have taken Flanders from Spain. The reason the Dutch didn't take it was because I think there was a problem with the AI (big surprise). There was a single French ship in the Dutch port for years and years and years and the Dutch just camped out in Amsterdam the whole time. In Empire, I feel reluctant to invade Europe. America, sure. Hey Spain can I take Cuba from you without you putting up a fight? Sure. How about Quebec? Take it! But invading the home region is something I'm reluctant to do. I could take France with the wag of a finger, but I just don't want to. Now Spain is a little bit easier to deal with. Give me Gibraltar. I don't want Madrid though. Keep that. It's just history. In real life, good luck. You'll get nowhere fast. Even on the highest difficulty level the game tries to help you win because the AI is too stupid. Oh, by the way... the pirates are just annoying. They're just so annoying! Stop raiding my shipping! I always try to take the Leeward/Windward (whichever one) Islands and Trinidad right away just to get them off my back.

Yeah. I want to finish this so... finished.

[Blarni]

Easy tiger! I'm pretty anal with the historicity aspect too - for example I'm playing as Prussia and inanely uncomfortable with my Prussian North American and Indian Empires, whereas as Britain that was obviously fine - and I think playing as Spain and France who were maritime empires would somehow assuage me too.

But think of it this way: history hinges on a fragile string of events that could easily swung another way. Dynastic marriages could have quite feasibly given Prussia the Netherlands or Britain (as they did William and the Hanovers) giving it a maritime capability. Just look at the Spanish European 'empire', that was a more a collection of Hapsburg family estates.

European history has been governed far more by individuals and families than ethnic groups and nations.

[gaius valerius]

Too tedious. Too ambitious. Too unrealistic.

A game... it's a game....

You can't possibly expect historical realism to be poured in a game... It would cost tons of money in developping time and games aren't made for you, they're made to make money.

[Ringeck]

The OP thinks RTW was the most historically accurate game in the TW series? The game where The Mummy seems to have served as the inspiration for Ptolemaic Egypt? Rome: TR and especially Europa Barbarorum where good, and while they of course suffered the same rinse-repeat problem all the TW games tend to have when you have reached critical mass, it was not as tedious as vanilla. The end-fight with the other Roman factions in Vanilla RTW was, even if you suspended disbelief over how silly it was historically, usually a great big anticlimax because you were, even if you had played really badly, at least twice as powerful as them.

[Tiwaz]

depends on the company.

No it does not. In every game you can do unhistorical things. Conquer the world, do the jazz.

Hearts of Iron series? German CAN win and take over world.

Issue here is that if games did stick anally to what happened in history, they would become essentially interactive animation, where interactive means that you click play button and "game" tells you what took place historically.

[Ahlerich]

to some degree i agree with op

i also like history and feel weird when i conquer the british isles as ireland or occupy scandinavia with the irish

thats why i like DLV
you can play that and have fun without total war and conquering everyone

i usually dont expand the HRE much, in wars defeat the enemy but sell them back their cities or give them back for peace. with all the challanges and options in dlv it doesnt get boring

on the othe rhand these games can be played as "what if" scenarios - thats a fun of its own

[Habelo]

No it does not. In every game you can do unhistorical things. Conquer the world, do the jazz.

Hearts of Iron series? German CAN win and take over world.

Issue here is that if games did stick anally to what happened in history, they would become essentially interactive animation, where interactive means that you click play button and "game" tells you what took place historically.

german could have won and taken over the world m8

[gaius valerius]

It is just impossible to accurately simulate history... to many variables to include. If you wanna get a close shot you'd be talking about a game which would costs... a lot... and you would in return get... to little (according to the developpers supporting the companies in question).

[Demetrios of Messene]

To Jack: I know the feeling and I agree. Due to several reasons large conquests by war were becoming an ever more seldom thing from the late medieval period and on. In TW games its redicoulously easy to conquer an enemy nation.

To gaius valerius: I agree with your point 100%. However, difficulty settings are supposed to be an easy way in offering extra challenges, so that if a player wants to fight it out really long in order to conquer an enemy, then this should be an option for him. Difficuly settings in TW games have been a failure IMO.

[Habelo]

Is something ever true to history?

A game... it's a game....

You can't possibly expect historical realism to be poured in a game... It would cost tons of money in developping time and games aren't made for you, they're made to make money.

depends on the company.

[Steve Holt]

I think the main reason for your problems with total war gams is that they all lack supply systems, if they were implemented properly than it would become much harder

[Copperknickers II]

There is no such thing as historically accurate, we do not know everything about history and we never will.

More to the point, TW does not claim to be historically accurate, if you want history go and watch a documentary. TW is an alternate history and a game, not a history.

To gaius valerius: I agree with your point 100%. However, difficulty settings are supposed to be an easy way in offering extra challenges, so that if a player wants to fight it out really long in order to conquer an enemy, then this should be an option for him. Difficuly settings in TW games have been a failure IMO.

Sorry, but TW is a game, if you want an impossible campaign try playing all battles with one unit or playing all battles at 6 times speed or with general camera or with cheats helping the AI or, only using your tongue, or something. An endless struggle for little gain may be realistic, but it is not fun and it is not a game.

[Rodina38]

This game is intended of you changing history, not following it. Seriously, it's not that hard to understand...

[UnitedIreland]

You don't buy and play games to study history, thats what books are for. The games just take an historical era and build a GAME around it. It's not there to provide an insight into history, its there to be played.

[Orko]

What do you excpect? that as England you can only conquer certain provinces to make it realistic? That you have to declare war on France in 1337 to make it realistic?
The purpose of the game is not to be historically accurate as possible, it is to simulate history. You are there to recreate history and not to repeat it.

[hindov]

Even the best history book can't give 100% accurate reconstruction of the past; why should a game do that?

[gaius valerius]

What do you excpect? that as England you can only conquer certain provinces to make it realistic? That you have to declare war on France in 1337 to make it realistic?
The purpose of the game is not to be historically accurate as possible, it is to simulate history. You are there to recreate history and not to repeat it.

To get an actual simulation in a game like Medieval II you'd need to have a map with close to all important towns and villages in medieval Europe, meaning that as England you'll be playing nearly a whole game in the same area while conquering dozens of towns and fiefs and occassionally crossing that huge map to go on a crusade.

Or...

As a developper you can save money and time by reducing France to 4-5 provinces. Tadaah.

. You are there to recreate history and not to repeat it.

That's completely up to you.

[Orko]

To get an actual simulation in a game like Medieval II you'd need to have a map with close to all important towns and villages in medieval Europe, meaning that as England you'll be playing nearly a whole game in the same area while conquering dozens of towns and fiefs and occassionally crossing that huge map to go on a crusade.

Or...

As a developper you can save money and time by reducing France to 4-5 provinces. Tadaah.

I said simulate history, if you have a keen eye.

[Sphere]

The OP has a point though. Shogun made sense in that one Clan did eventually unite Japan under the Shogunate. Rome made sense in that the Romans conquered on a mass scale Europe and the near east (and the powerfull hellenistic Kingdoms where trying to do the same).

The Medieval Era and the 1700's where periods dominated by a balance of power between relatively small nations, with a series of long running conlficts that tended to drain the nations involved, not strenghten them and no great empire emerged to unify Europe (bar the mongols who had a chance).

In that sense, the historical table isn't being set corrrectly for MTW and ETW. These games tend towards the same massive expansion and collection of power that Shogun and Rome does, even though the scenario doesn't really fit.
I mean the way ETW plays out, it should start in 1800 and involve the Napolenic wars, not the 1700's balance of power. I mean whats next, Pax Romana: Total War?

So its not that on X date, Y doesn't occur and thus the game isn't historical. Its just that the TW series has gotten lazy and spits out the same scenario for each historical time period, whether the shoe fits or not.

[Orko]

But the game isn't history. If France was a little bit more unified and had the will and a good enough leader(the player, in this case) it could have become a super-power.
It is not necessary that alternative-history middle ages are the same as the real middle-ages.