Historical accuracy IS fun!

[Sandraker]

I hate this absolutely illogical mindset that somehow you need to induce a big dose of hollywood to make a game good, or that adding realism means removing fun.

I firmly believe actual history is a far better source for cool things than historical fiction. Now, you of course shouldn't go way too far and make things overcomplicated, or add an "archers from some insignificant valley tribe" unit because they wore a unique sort of hat, but in general real history is so chock full of interesting warriors and fighting styles that making things up just isn't that necessary.
For example if you compare the units from vanilla RTW to a mod such as Europa Barbarorum, it's very clear which has the cooler units; the historical mods, by a humongous margin.
Thorakitai > Silver shield "legionnaires", proper Gallic units > "hollywood barbarian" Gauls, etc.
Another thing is gameplay. Units should behave based on what they were capable of. Not only for historical accuracy's sake, but for gameplay as well.
Like, Phalangites should be strong from the front and be vulnerable at the flanks of course, and so you need to cover them with more flexible infantry. It's mostly simple stuff like that. It's deeper and still much more intuitive than Shogun 2's blatant rock paper scissors gameplay with its very arbitrary abilities and silly bonuses. I still don't get why men armed with what is essentially just a sidearm are somehow a counter to spearmen.

So yeah. Historical accuracy is mostly a good thing I think. It certainly wouldn't hurt to emphasise it more.

[ironbrigade]

I hate this absolutely illogical mindset that somehow you need to induce a big dose of hollywood to make a game good, or that adding realism means removing fun.

I firmly believe actual history is a far better source for cool things than historical fiction. Now, you of course shouldn't go way too far and make things overcomplicated, or add an "archers from some insignificant valley tribe" unit because they wore a unique sort of hat, but in general real history is so chock full of interesting warriors and fighting styles that making things up just isn't that necessary.
For example if you compare the units from vanilla RTW to a mod such as Europa Barbarorum, it's very clear which has the cooler units; the historical mods, by a humongous margin.
Thorakitai > Silver shield "legionnaires", proper Gallic units > "hollywood barbarian" Gauls, etc.
Another thing is gameplay. Units should behave based on what they were capable of. Not only for historical accuracy's sake, but for gameplay as well.
Like, Phalangites should be strong from the front and be vulnerable at the flanks of course, and so you need to cover them with more flexible infantry. It's mostly simple stuff like that. It's deeper and still much more intuitive than Shogun 2's blatant rock paper scissors gameplay with its very arbitrary abilities and silly bonuses. I still don't get why men armed with what is essentially just a sidearm are somehow a counter to spearmen.

So yeah. Historical accuracy is mostly a good thing I think. It certainly wouldn't hurt to emphasise it more.

Historical accuracy does not effect gameplay, it helps sales. There is a audience that ca does not tap into [history buffs] such as http://norbsoftdev.net/. Read there forums they make fun of TW and do not play because of historical inaccuracies.

My opinion is the more accurate to history the better and more sales will come. If rome 2 were not accurate to history [not 100%.but obviously not accurate] I would not buy the game, neither would I buy a fantasy tw or future tw game, I think many are with me in this opinion.

My reasoning is if there are many people such as myself, that would not purchase a game if it were not accurate, why would ca want to make it not as accurate as possible. Those that don't care about historical accuracy as much and play for gameplay alone will buy what they see as a great game [rome 2] anyways. So if the units look realistic and there weapons, armor, cities, cultures, and the units themselves are accurate,they still play because its a great game. Those that do care about accuracy, get a great historical accurate game and more sales all around.

Some say that accuracy is not that important, I herd one example [I would not complain of this but] of who cares if a sandle strap has 3 laces or 2, but what is the difference to them that don't care if its accurate? it does not effect them. If anyone has played mods like total realism, they are better gameplay than vanilla total war. In fact I feel upset half my money could not go to total realism modders instead of CA.

Others will say I want units like flaming pigs, or dogs of war and its ok to throw a few of them in if it adds to gameplay. But why stop there? I think a machine gun a mg42 or even a artillery barrage would be cool, how about a special ability of heroes that can call on aliens to microwave Carthage for me, or a abram tank instead of a battering ram. Who decides when is enough?

If ca creates a historically accurate game, starting point,units,weapons, cultures,cities,etc I think there sales will increase. The good news, I have read in a few articles they plan to do just that, meaning they will not lose those that care, it wont hurt those that do care.

The quote they all say on history being a servant not a master
I am the master of my money, and if ca wants a sale, they should respect the wants of the people who purchase them.


please come post over here
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=551288

rock paper scissors
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=551540

[Kaap]

Historical accuracy does not effect gameplay

Yes it does/can. Historical accuracy is more than a visual thing. It can most certainly effect gameplay. Historical accuracy is good, but this is a game, you will need to find a good balance. Historical accuracy cannot restrict the game.

There is a audience that ca does not tap into [history buffs] such as http://norbsoftdev.net/. Read there forums they make fun of TW and do not play because of historical inaccuracies.

I own the Take Command games and have played Norb's Gettysburg as well. Been registered into that community ever since they were all playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg. You try to make it sound like that forum is a gold mine for CA to tap in. It ain't. Perhaps an active 150 members on those forums. It's not like CA would gain ten thousand extra sales if they manage to turn that forum's opinion.

Besides that the people on those forums are are wargamers. Their prime interest is in fighting pitched battles like Gettysburg, Antietam etc, but their style isn't empire building, and that is still a strong aspect of this game. Both games are far from comparable.

As for them making fun of Total War, let them. I can't even laugh at both the Take Command games or Scourge of War: Gettysburg, because the graphic quality of these games is so poor it makes me cry. Yes, gameplay over graphics always, but this is 2012, there is no excuse for not having the best of both worlds.

Regards,

[SonOfCrusader76]

Historical accuracy does not effect gameplay, it helps sales. There is a audience that ca does not tap into [history buffs] such as http://norbsoftdev.net/. Read there forums they make fun of TW and do not play because of historical inaccuracies.

That's just so sad - they're missing out on one of the best, if not the best wargaming series ever. Oh well - no skin off my nose.

[Savoyard]

That's just so sad - they're missing out on one of the best, if not the best wargaming series ever. Oh well - no skin off my nose.

Hey, their game got in the top 100 of PC Gamer. Sounds like they aren't missing out on much.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

I've always loved historical accuracy. It has always pained me when I'm playing a game based in a historical period that I know a great deal of and see, usually, multiple mess ups. It's not always a game breaker, but sometimes it just gets annoying. Besides, historical accuracy can add substance to a game. Could you imagine an Empire where every faction had historical clothing for its mainstay troops rather than be completely identical besides the color?

[Prnn]

I've always loved historical accuracy. It has always pained me when I'm playing a game based in a historical period that I know a great deal of and see, usually, multiple mess ups. It's not always a game breaker, but sometimes it just gets annoying. Besides, historical accuracy can add substance to a game. Could you imagine an Empire where every faction had historical clothing for its mainstay troops rather than be completely identical besides the color?

Did you play empire?
The thing it did best were the uniforms.

[Rasic]

You do realize that they have made more games since RTW, right? Comparing what was in a game 8 years ago to what is going to be in the game now doesn't work. Can you show me exactly where, in the screenshots we have so far, that they have made unrealistic or fake looking units?

Shogun 2 wasn't that bad at all when we talk in terms of historical equipment that the units used. Sure, there were things like "hero" units, but its a game at the end of the day. Besides, editing unit stats and completely removing a unit is like the easiest thing you can mod in these games if you dislike it that much.

[Bethencourt]

Well this is like history novels or history based films. I hope not to be in a battle with people being killed arround me, and maybe me, but have an experience that is based on the time. The more based it is on what we know it was the more fun, but to spend a few hours on it, so this limits how far I can go with it.

[Petroniu]

For a game based on a historical period historical accuracy must be a prime for its creators. But NOTHING should surpass gameplay! Why? Because it's a GAME based on history, not the other way around!!!

[Ballacraine]

As I see it, historical accuracy adds to immersion.
If it prompts folk to want to learn more about the cultures & their history, so much the better.

Overall though, as it is only a game, elements of historical plausibility add to the experience.
'What if....' is always interesting.

Balla.

[Grimbold]

I still dont get how people say that the larger part of the player base is one who isn't interested in such things as historical accuracy. What are we talking about here? 12 year olds who want to play Ancient Egypt in 220 b.c?

I don't get it really. Im attracted to this sort of games, in first place, because of history and wanting to smash huge armies agaisnt each other, but i want to do it with real units that i knew that existed, one way or another.

This is way i hold back a bit on hyping Rome II. If i overdo it, i'll be disappointed and have to wait another 2 years for a mod that makes an overhaul of the game.

[TheRomanRuler]

Agree, personally i could abadon parts of gameplay for historical realism...

[Petroniu]

Agree, personally i could abadon parts of gameplay for historical realism...

Parts? Well parts are abandoned forever. Unfortunately not for more realism either. Just for cool graphics. Parts like diplomacy or AI (all those who say AI is better in Shogun 2, it is, but still is crappy to what it could've been; after so many years some bugs are still there) are still left behind. Now, I want as much historical accuracy as possible, don't get me wrong, but when I see those accufans screaming out there that a couple of helmets are depicted wrong (not all helmets, just a couple of them) and that some shield models should've been different or any other little tweak that nobody really cares - like literally, nobody cares on the long run if one or two stuff aren't quite how they were - well those stuff tick me off. I mean, if CA would do them right, you would have the best historical depicted game ever, but you couldn't enjoy it at all because the AI will be stupid and the game mechanics like diplomacy,politics and economics would be ridiculous and didn't allow you to properly play the game. That's the kind of stuff that REALLY make the game. The gameplay issues surpass ANYTHING. Even in old Rome, with weird units(gladiators, druids, pigs and dogs are debatable) and unhistorical factions (like how the Greek Cities were depicted and Egypt too) you could still play the game (for it's time, don't get me wrong ). Now, if the accufans wishes were to come true, you would have every greek city properly depicted and its units too, along with the real Ptolemaic Egypt, but the game mechanincs and AI would be pretty much the same. That is what many of you say when you demand historicity over everything. You should really start to realize that.

Anyways, the best thing is a balance between the two. Factions and units as realistic as possible and proper game mechanics and real challenging AI (no more stupid cheats and buffs on harder difficulties ) . That is what I want from Rome 2.

[Asgaroth]

I still dont get how people say that the larger part of the player base is one who isn't interested in such things as historical accuracy. What are we talking about here? 12 year olds who want to play Ancient Egypt in 220 b.c?

I really don't get it also.

I mean. You learn while you play a game and why not learn that the Seleucids fought against the Ptolemaic Empire instead of Ancient Egypt. One way or another if you have many hours of game play you will eventually remember that fact and I ask why not remember it properly ?

I know too much historical accuracy is sick but some sort of high dosage is just fine. Not insane amount of it though.

For those that don't care for the historical accuracy, there are plenty games that are based on ancient times and that aren't historical, but let us who love history enjoy Rome II as it is the only game that has a high level of game play and can have a high level of historical accuracy.

After all it is a game that is set in different eras of history and I think that it is bad to portrait history that wrong. For example the Egypt from Rome I. But again it isn't good to look to tiny bits like dose a sandal have three or two laces.

[Grimbold]

But what is "too much historical accuracy"? How do you define that?

If you don't have it, then you get Rome I all over again, which wasn't fun in that context.

Well sincerely, back when first played Rome I i was teenager with very little regard to historical accuracy. But in the end, it was a computer game that sparked my fascination with ancient history (talking of the city building game Pharaoh).

And years later when i stumbled into the world of mods and started playing those who set a high standard in this context, i knew that there was no turning back. I know that no amount of graphics, fun additions to the game will make me keep playing it if the lacks greatly in that field, and, consequently, i'll need to wait for mods. I'll even consider minor fun inaccurate things a disappointment.

[Moorish guy]

dont know if a huge amount of the demographic of people who play TW games are hardcore history buffs who wont buy it if a certain unit doesnt have a spefic helemt, I dont see what the fuss is about egypt anyway, in the vanilla version of the game egypt was quite similar to the hellenic factions it had plenty of phalanx units, didnt really care about the chariots and most mods just make all the egyptians white, essentially turning it into another greek faction, thats probably historically accurate but it didnt make the game a lot more diverse.

[Destraex]

dont know if a huge amount of the demographic of people who play TW games are hardcore history buffs who wont buy it if a certain unit doesnt have a spefic helemt, I dont see what the fuss is about egypt anyway, in the vanilla version of the game egypt was quite similar to the hellenic factions it had plenty of phalanx units, didnt really care about the chariots and most mods just make all the egyptians white, essentially turning it into another greek faction, thats probably historically accurate but it didnt make the game a lot more diverse.

Have you had a look at the rome1 vanilla unit list properly? I just looked and it aint pretty. I did not find one greek looking unit in what was essentially a greek style army.

They all pretty much look like they are a bunch of guys who used the stargate to come back 2000yrs later.
http://rtw.heavengames.com/rtw/info/...an/index.shtml


Here is their only phalanx unit. Looking very Greek.

[Petroniu]

I agree that most people that buy the game don't care about history, but Egypt from old Rome was ridiculous. Believe me, read a little about it. The Egypt from old Rome as it was depicted was 2000 years older than it should've been with phalanx formation available. That's it. Plus, historical Egypt for this time period is much cooler, especially if you'd know a little history about the conflicts it had with the Seleucids.

[Asgaroth]

I dont see what the fuss is about egypt anyway,

The fuss is that they were dressed as the Ancient Egyptians, not like greeks.

make all the egyptians white, essentially turning it into another greek faction, thats probably historically accurate but it didnt make the game a lot more diverse.

If I am not mistaken only the higher ranks soldiers, like Macedonian cavalry, were of greek descent and they had most native egyptians fighting in the army. I think that the Machimoi were native egyptians.

unit doesnt have a spefic helemt

Well that doesn't really bother me, just that they don't miss by much.