If the Celtic factions were to have the diversity of EB, what would you object to?

[Yomamashouse]

This is the core of my objection. People always bring up the argument that accuracy != fun, but does it necessarily take away from fun?

Suppose improving accuracy was fun-neutral to most people, why would it hurt? How would gameplay be impacted if the Gauls had more realistically depicted armies, and maybe the spearmen from certain regions looked a little bit different depending on where they came from?

[Biggus Splenus]

It's about opinion. I love a realistic game, the more realistic the better, for me. But for another person it might be totally different, they might enjoy a Hollywood styled game.

[Yomamashouse]

My problem is people are very vague about why that is. I struggle to imagine how having a few slightly different units with generally similar function detracts from fun. I can fully understand that for many, the difference between Gaeroas and Gaeliche may seem trivial - however, if that is true that should not make the game worse, as two redundant units will perform more or less identically on the battlefield, meaning only the visuals differ substantially.

[Biggus Splenus]

Just that is sometimes enough to put someone off. I literrally cannot play NTW because of its very poor representation of the period and the armies. Which is much worse with Empire

[Greve Af Göteborg]

If they go with authenticity, then diversity will come with it. And diversity adds to the replayability and the "fun-factor".

[frozenprince]

If they go with authenticity, then diversity will come with it. And diversity adds to the replayability and the "fun-factor".

This.

It's why people play EB to begin with, beyond the historical accuracy, it offers a more diverse play-style based on the various factions. Nobody wants to have what amounts to the same base units for every faction. It gets boring quickly when you realize that each faction is just an overglorified re-skin of the others (which would be expected in a game of that scale that came out in 2004).

I'm confidant, based on what has come out and the question Jack has answered thus far, that Rome II will be at least decently accurate and diverse.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

This is the core of my objection. People always bring up the argument that accuracy != fun, but does it necessarily take away from fun?

Suppose improving accuracy was fun-neutral to most people, why would it hurt? How would gameplay be impacted if the Gauls had more realistically depicted armies, and maybe the spearmen from certain regions looked a little bit different depending on where they came from?

Most of EB differentiation are just for same units with differentgears and colors , after all barbaric tribes did not have a standardization so I would rather expect to see all those variation in a single warband unit where many men wear different stuff beeing basically the same unit ....

[AngryTitusPullo]

Most of EB differentiation are just for same units with differentgears and colors , after all barbaric tribes did not have a standardization so I would rather expect to see all those variation in a single warband unit where many men wear different stuff beeing basically the same unit ....

I've read somewhere from CA (Jack maybe) that they can't use different weapons in a same unit because of stats. However the variation in what the unit wear seems good but maybe just for lower tier units. If we have too much variations in these barbarian units in the end all units will look basically the same, with diffeent being their name and weapons/stats.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

They can differentiate sword types or axe types etc and have unit warbands subdivided in class systems so like heavy warband would wear heavy gear , still with lot of variations ...

[frozenprince]

But the key being that they can have variants of certain weapons, but one unit HAS to have one base weapon. Otherwise its just weird and needlessly difficult to code.