Historical Accuracy

[sgarr]

I play both Vanilla and Stainless Steel. Is anyone aware of the difficulty setting required for the AI to adhere to history. I have a solid understanding of medieval history(official history...lol), and it seems like the higher the difficulty level the less accurate the AI is. This is a problem as I enjoy the gameplay on higher difficulty, yet would like the game to maintain some sense of historical accuracy. Thanks for any input.

[Aeratus]

You mean historical accuracy as in not having the AI make armies where 3/4 of the units are siege weapons?

[sgarr]

That and just overall accuracy. Invasion dates, marriages ect... Example: playing as England; England doesn't historically conquer Wales until sometime in the 1250's give or take a decade or two. If you set the difficulty to very hard, both Ireland and either Spain or Portugal will invade Wales prior to 1200. And yes, once gunpowder was discovered most armies relied heavily on them but usually had a fair amount of infantry, heavy cavalry and archers/crossbows. I think that's a stacking issue, only allowing 20 units per army is probably to blame for that. Also, historically King William II never married and dies in a hunting "accident" near Winchester, his younger brother Henry snatches the crown while the oldest son, Robert is on crusade. If the difficulty level is above medium when William the Conqueror dies, the new prince will almost always be Robert. Maybe I'm just nit-picking and should play the game according to what I think history should be. I dunno. Thanks guys.

[Aeratus]

Difficulty level has no specific anti-historical effect on invasion. It only increases the aggressiveness of AI factions, which results in a more chaotic outcome.

[sgarr]

Thanks dude. That was most helpful.

[napoleonic]

don't forget to check the dominion of the sword mod forum over there, they're trying to be as historically accurate as possible with m2tw engine

[Silverheart]

The only aspect of the gameplay that is historically accurate are the messages, such as the Mongol invasion and the Dawn of Gunpowder.
Everything historically accurate the AI does is more or less accidental.

[HMS England]

The fact of the matter is, being historically accurate would make the AI unbelievably predictable which, in turn, would not make a very exciting game. Which brings me to my next point, it's a game, not a simulator. If you really want historically accurate gather a team and make a mod for that. Personally, I like not knowing what the AI is going to do although the way CA did that was by making them stupid. However, it worked because you can't exactly predict stupidity.

[Aeratus]

It's also impossible to be accurate due to the time abstraction. For example, to be historically accurate, the Mongol invasion of 1237-41 would have to conquer about 14 provinces within 2 turns (4 years).

[Gigantus]

It's also impossible to be accurate due to the time abstraction. For example, to be historically accurate, the Mongol invasion of 1237-41 would have to conquer about 14 provinces within 2 turns (4 years).

If you change it to 12 turns per year then it becomes realistic again. (Don't get me started on what all you have to change to make those pre-change things accurate again (pop growth rate, building times, movement points, just to name a few things)

In general:

My point is, that in the end you are developing an alternative history - it is only the starting point that is accurate where actual history is concerned.
That's also why I loved to lead Armenia to world domination in PDeR. Not exactly accurate history there I would think.

[Gigantus]

You can try to make the set up of the game as historical as you wish (DotS is trying that for a couple of years) - but the moment you press the 'end turn' button it is all gone and you play an alternate history.

[RollingWave]

You can try to make the set up of the game as historical as you wish (DotS is trying that for a couple of years) - but the moment you press the 'end turn' button it is all gone and you play an alternate history.

yeah, but if you set it up REALLY as close as it reflects history the result will usually be closer to history than vice versa. for example if you set up Scotland with more regions than England for some reason, then it should not surprise you if Scotland rolls over England more often than not. obviously not the historical intention we'd like to see.


In terms of Wales though. the idea should be that the region is very rebel prone, there a number of ways to make rebellions happen or more likely to happen in the game. and Wales is obviously a good spot to use it on.

Also, there are ways to adjust the AI that makes rebel stacks more active. which IMHO needs to be done. Slave faction should be just as active as a normal faction, you should NOT be able to leave a city thinly defended next to a rebel stack or a rebel settlement and expect it to not get attacked like it is now.

[13lackGu4rd]

to be honest, historical accuracy is just impossible. if you think about it, while in medieval Europe there were many wars, there weren't really winners and losers to these wars, only to specific battles. for example, the Italian city states kept fighting each other, but none of them were eliminated or anything. the most that happened was 1 city state gaining dominance and almost being able to unite Italy, but than came the Pope and called onto foreign Christian powers, mainly France, Spain and the HRE to invade Italy and restore the chaos in Italy. another example is the various French-British wars. Britain invaded France, gained some land(like the fortress of Caen) than eventually got pushed back across the channel, but that's pretty much it. neither actually eliminated the other.

TL : DR the total war series in its core goes against historical accuracy as the goal in any total war game is to achieve world domination. as we all know, nobody managed to achieve that, the closest person to it was Napoleon but even he failed in the end, with his failure to reconquer Santa Dominique and of course his failed campaign into Russia. so while striving for historical accuracy(the various units, events like the Mongol Invasion and Black Plague, etc) is nice, the actual game play will be very far from historically accurate, as it just can't be.

[Aeratus]

to be honest, historical accuracy is just impossible. if you think about it, while in medieval Europe there were many wars, there weren't really winners and losers to these wars, only to specific battles. for example, the Italian city states kept fighting each other, but none of them were eliminated or anything. the most that happened was 1 city state gaining dominance and almost being able to unite Italy, but than came the Pope and called onto foreign Christian powers, mainly France, Spain and the HRE to invade Italy and restore the chaos in Italy. another example is the various French-British wars. Britain invaded France, gained some land(like the fortress of Caen) than eventually got pushed back across the channel, but that's pretty much it. neither actually eliminated the other.

To summarize your point, the argument is that in real history, factions never got destroyed...

But, for one, a lot of historical factions are represented by rebels, and they got destroyed in real history. For example, Burgundy was an independent faction represented by rebels in vanilla that was destroyed. Wales is also a faction represented by rebels that got destroyed. Another example are sweden and norway, which are also represented by rebels. These were united into the Kalmar union with Denmark.

The fact that some of the big factions like "France" never got destroyed is an unfair statement because those were not original unified factions, but was the result of destroying independent factions.

Second, there were big European super-states during the medieval period. For example Charles V's empire contained Spain, HRE, and Sicily.


Third, the game is not just about Europe. In actual history, the Turks conquered both the Byzantines and Egypt (the Mameluk sultanate).

[13lackGu4rd]

To summarize your point, the argument is that in real history, factions never got destroyed...

But, for one, a lot of historical factions are represented by rebels, and they got destroyed in real history. For example, Burgundy was an independent faction represented by rebels in vanilla that was destroyed. Wales is also a faction represented by rebels that got destroyed. Another example are sweden and norway, which are also represented by rebels. These were united into the Kalmar union with Denmark.

The fact that some of the big factions like "France" never got destroyed is an unfair statement because those were not original unified factions, but was the result of destroying independent factions.

Second, there were big European super-states during the medieval period. For example Charles V's empire contained Spain, HRE, and Sicily.


Third, the game is not just about Europe. In actual history, the Turks conquered both the Byzantines and Egypt (the Mameluk sultanate).

actually my point is much simpler, the goal of any total war game is to achieve world(well map) domination, while in history nobody managed to achieve such a goal. the closest to achieving it was Napoleon but even he failed.

sure, many factions are being represented by rebels, as there would be far too many factions if all factions would be represented, not to mention even more historical inaccuracies due to said factions merging in various confederations, being conquered by larger factions, etc. from the factions playable in M2TW I think only Sicily didn't last into theRenaissance, with the creation of the Kingdom of Naples and the conquest of Sicily and Sardinia by the Crown of Aragon and Corsica by Genoa. the Turks did conquer the middle east at some point, but they haven't conquered Egypt itself until the Ottoman invasion in 1517, which is post M2TW's timeline. the HRE being a confederacy to begin with, changed hands several times, including your own map of Charles V's empire, who was a Holy Roman Emperor by the way, until its demise in the 19th century. though after Charles V the HRE lost its power and much of its territories. the Moors too suffered a slow decline, until Granada finally surrendered to the Spaniards in 1492, again post M2TW's timeline.

[HMS England]

Dang, I cant believe the Ottomans got that far into Europe, that is simply unacceptable.

[Silverheart]

Dang, I cant believe the Ottomans got that far into Europe, that is simply unacceptable.

Well, they got beaten back So HAHA Turks!
Though Turkey still has a tiny corner at the edge of Europe... but we´re getting there!

[Aeratus]

Dang, I cant believe the Ottomans got that far into Europe, that is simply unacceptable.

That's what happens when Crusaders sack random cities like Constantinople.

And it took nothing less than another huge empire, namely the HRE/Spain of Charles V to halt Ottoman expansion.

[HMS England]

That's what happens when Crusaders sack random cities like Constantinople.

And it took nothing less than another huge empire, namely the HRE/Spain of Charles V to halt Ottoman expansion.

I can see them now...

"Hey guys, I wonder what they'll do if we take all their and burn their city to the ground!?"

especially when they're walking around in the temple...

"hmm this shrine thing looks expensive... and important..."*puts it in the bag*

[Aeratus]

Actually, M2TW is from 1080 to 1530. Remember that Cortez conquered the Aztecs in 1520s, which is why M2TW has a longer timeframe than MTW, so that the Aztecs were included.

You're right that nobody achieved world domination (45 provinces on the vanilla map). However, Charles V was close. He achieved about 28 provinces (based on vanilla map). Obviously, that empire only existed during his reign.

The turks were pretty close. They conquered 30 provinces on the vanilla map by the timeframe end of 1530, and reached a maximum extent of about 35 provinces afterward.


Next on the list would be the Mongol Empire, which had about 20 provinces on the map, including tributory states like Trebizond and Armenia.