In response to the esteemed historians of TWC,

[Delyon]

I wanted to make a post in response to the "know-it-all" wiki-historians we have on this forum recently.

I've been a long time visitor to these forums and for the most part the community is pretty amazing. The small, yet vocal, minority tend to get on my nerves though. With the upcoming release of rome 2 it seems as if they've all converged on to this forum to complain

Before I get into that though let me introduce myself. I've been playing TW since shogun 1, not that this gives me any more credibility than someone who has just played shogun 2 however , and for the most part I enjoy the total war series because its an awesome way to kick back and work at something over the course of many afternoons after work. I'm a history teacher by trade and I wanted to make a quick response to all the people who have a hard on for "historical accuracy".

As someone who has made a career out of a love of history I'm pretty amazed at how authoritative some people attempt to sound when referring to the "historical accuracy" of the total war series. Oftentimes the most outlandish claims are made on the slimmest and most tenuous of evidence. Sometimes sources aren't even cited, othertimes they are just quick googled quotes which are cherry picked to fit their argument without any background source analysis or commentary on the context and how it has impacted their conclusions. I've seen references to how sandles are wrong, buttons are placed incorrectly on uniforms and judgements made on the movement and location of entire groups of people based upon googled maps which is then used to justify an attack on the total war series or rome 2. Many of these areas of history are extremely specialised and our understanding of the times and events are continually changing and evolving to fit the research being conducted. That some try to force their emotionally charged opinions on others under the guise of "good history" is disingenuous and the very definition of bad historical enquiry. Expertise is not gained by a quick google search of plato, socrates or any other source you might think is relevant to your point!

I would like to offer the term "historical plausibility" which I think would fit the total war series better whilst still showing our support for a historical-based gameplay. By using the term historical plausibility I am inferring that any certainty about the past is inherently obscure and incomplete due the incomplete picture we have to work with. Sure some cases are pretty solid and we can for the most part know with some certainty that something is an "historically accurate" assertion but for the most part this is a rarity. Therefore with a game as wide-scoped and massive as rome 2 is we need to accept that the majority of the game, just like a lot of history, is little more than informed guesswork based on incomplete source materials. Thus it is unreasonable to demand an unachievable level of historical accuracy for what is essentially a game meant for enjoyment. Don't get me wrong however, attempting to be true to history is important and a key factor for enjoying the game. With a view towards historical plausibility instead of historical accuracy our mission is therefore not to create an identical recreation of history but a plausible recreation of history.

Historical plausibility vs Historical Accuracy may seem like a splitting of hairs but the differences each term conveys in both approach and attitude is important to recognise. The term historical accuracy assumes that we know exactly what happened at a given point or time in history and that the game should reflect that certainty of knowledge. Historical plausibility on the otherhand asserts that most things in history are inherently uncertain and instead of creating an identical recreation we create something in the spirit of the time.

Historical accuracy is still just someone's oppinion of the past. It doesn't make it true!

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Fair argument.

However, in some cases (i.e. remember the old "Ancient Egyptians" of RTW1) CA have been known to deliberately ignore historical plausibility in lieu of entertainment. Entertainment is still fully possible with more accuracy like.

As I reckon you've noticed I'm one of the accuracy freaks; but I see entirely where your coming from; that's why I don't have a hissy fit when I see a unit wearing Corinthian instead of Pylos helmets or something (thinking specifically about the Spartans in this instance). I only get annoyed when they really push the limits - although to be honest I haven't really had any reason to snap with the current preview material (bar the laser arrows =P).

Summary: largely agree with you OP.

PS - Not all of us get our information from Wikipedia........

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I wanted to make a post in response to the "know-it-all" wiki-historians we have on this forum recently.

I've been a long time visitor to these forums and for the most part the community is pretty amazing. The small, yet vocal, minority tend to get on my nerves though. With the upcoming release of rome 2 it seems as if they've all converged on to this forum to complain

Before I get into that though let me introduce myself. I've been playing TW since shogun 1, not that this gives me any more credibility than someone who has just played shogun 2 however , and for the most part I enjoy the total war series because its an awesome way to kick back and work at something over the course of many afternoons after work. I'm a history teacher by trade and I wanted to make a quick response to all the people who have a hard on for "historical accuracy".

As someone who has made a career out of a love of history I'm pretty amazed at how authoritative some people attempt to sound when referring to the "historical accuracy" of the total war series. Oftentimes the most outlandish claims are made on the slimmest and most tenuous of evidence. Sometimes sources aren't even cited, othertimes they are just quick googled quotes which are cherry picked to fit their argument without any background source analysis or commentary on the context and how it has impacted their conclusions. I've seen references to how sandles are wrong, buttons are placed incorrectly on uniforms and judgements made on the movement and location of entire groups of people based upon googled maps which is then used to justify an attack on the total war series or rome 2. Many of these areas of history are extremely specialised and our understanding of the times and events are continually changing and evolving to fit the research being conducted. That some try to force their emotionally charged opinions on others under the guise of "good history" is disingenuous and the very definition of bad historical enquiry. Expertise is not gained by a quick google search of plato, socrates or any other source you might think is relevant to your point!

I would like to offer the term "historical plausibility" which I think would fit the total war series better whilst still showing our support for a historical-based gameplay. By using the term historical plausibility I am inferring that any certainty about the past is inherently obscure and incomplete due the incomplete picture we have to work with. Sure some cases are pretty solid and we can for the most part know with some certainty that something is an "historically accurate" assertion but for the most part this is a rarity. Therefore with a game as wide-scoped and massive as rome 2 is we need to accept that the majority of the game, just like a lot of history, is little more than informed guesswork based on incomplete source materials. Thus it is unreasonable to demand an unachievable level of historical accuracy for what is essentially a game meant for enjoyment. Don't get me wrong however, attempting to be true to history is important and a key factor for enjoying the game. With a view towards historical plausibility instead of historical accuracy our mission is therefore not to create an identical recreation of history but a plausible recreation of history.

Historical plausibility vs Historical Accuracy may seem like a splitting of hairs but the differences each term conveys in both approach and attitude is important to recognise. The term historical accuracy assumes that we know exactly what happened at a given point or time in history and that the game should reflect that certainty of knowledge. Historical plausibility on the otherhand asserts that most things in history are inherently uncertain and instead of creating an identical recreation we create something in the spirit of the time.

Historical accuracy is still just someone's oppinion of the past. It doesn't make it true!

I agree, and this is Why I promote gameplay wise units like Arcani , that have a minimum historical reference , but I am also at favour of other non historical units like Berserkers that have no historical Romanage references , but add surely to the gameplay and fill nicely in the germanic units roster .

In some cases though I am complaining of some blatant "forgotten" features like bridles and saddles on horses, or scabbards to soldiers, because those were present in the previous Game .

[LemonySniffit]

I agree, and this is Why I promote gameplay wise units like Arcani , that have a minimum historical reference , but I am also at favour of other non historical units like Berserkers that have no historical Romanage references , but add surely to the gameplay and fill nicely in the germanic units roster .

In some cases though I am complaining of some blatant "forgotten" features like bridles and saddles on horses, or scabbards to soldiers, because those were present in the previous Game .

And here you go again, you are so ****ing stubborn.

Is there not a single thread where you will not try and raise this argument time after time?

[Durnaug]

A plausible idea is indeed the key phrase.

[Shamshir]

Historical accuracy in Rome II means using the game mechanics to reflects the "accurate guesswork" of true historians. But I agree with the OP. Most of what we know about the distant past is mired in uncertainty.

[Steel*Faith]

I agree, and this is Why I promote gameplay wise units like Arcani , that have a minimum historical reference , but I am also at favour of other non historical units like Berserkers that have no historical Romanage references , but add surely to the gameplay and fill nicely in the germanic units roster .

Sometimes you drive me a little crazy Prometheus, mainly because you're one of those people making threads nitpicking the small things - just calling it as I see it - but I understand what your concerns are. Do we have any outright historical source detailing the exact description of a unit entirely composed of "berzerkers"? Of course not, but there's sources from Roman historians talking about the mentality, and nature of warfare that the Germans fought and obviously "berzerking" would be a pretty close description of how some of them acted in battle - as in wild men working themselves up into a frenzy, even getting impaled by spears, but not being phased, and continuing on fighting like enraged animals. Yet Arcani are just fine...

Anyhow, some people on this forum take historical accuracy way too seriously. That's why CA's approach to this game with historical authenticity is a great way to go about designing Rome II, opposed to trying to be 100% historically accurate - which is totally impossible.

I would like to offer the term "historical plausibility" which I think would fit the total war series better whilst still showing our support for a historical-based gameplay. By using the term historical plausibility I am inferring that any certainty about the past is inherently obscure and incomplete due the incomplete picture we have to work with.

Historical plausibility on the otherhand asserts that most things in history are inherently uncertain and instead of creating an identical recreation we create something in the spirit of the time.

Historical accuracy is still just someone's oppinion of the past. It doesn't make it true!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Sometimes you drive me a little crazy Prometheus, mainly because you're one of those people making threads nitpicking the small things - just calling it as I see it - but I understand what your concerns are. Do we have any outright historical source detailing the exact description of a unit entirely composed of "berzerkers"? Of course not, but there's sources from Roman historians talking about the mentality, and nature of warfare that the Germans fought and obviously "berzerking" would be a pretty close description of how some of them acted in battle - as in wild men working themselves up into a frenzy, even getting impaled by spears, but not being phased, and continuing on fighting like enraged animals. Yet Arcani are just fine...

Anyhow, some people on this forum take historical accuracy way too seriously. That's why CA's approach to this game with historical authenticity is a great way to go about designing Rome II, opposed to trying to be 100% historically accurate - which is totally impossible.



THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not complain much on Historical Nitpicking as I am more for the "Plausible" and enjoyable game , But I nitpick on Graphics ^^ ...

It drives me nuts to not see Bridles on horses ... dunno why lol ...

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

"Historical Plausibility" is actually the exact term CA used to describe it.

[HisAwesomeness]

As a history major and an aspiring archaeologist, I dare to say sir,
I salute you .

[Snizel]

As a history major and an aspiring archaeologist, I dare to say sir,
I salute you .

I'm in the exact same boat! High five!

[torongill]

Wasn't it "historical authenticity"?

@Delyon Thanks for the thread. I believe one of the reasons for this nitpicking is that people forget just how limited our knowledge of the ancient world is. When I see things like "This helmet never had such decorations" or "The cheekguards are all wrong" or whatever, people forget that they are basing these conclusions on(very) limited evidence.

[Muizer]

@ OP, if the discussions prompted by the original Rome Total War are anything to go by, all I can say is "fasten your seatbelt!".

Personally, I don't have anything against those who want the game to be as realistic as possible. I also do not entirely agree that uncertainty about evidence in general would be a license for fabrication in instances where we do have evidence. However, I agree it is important to keep a sense of proportion. Does it make sense to call "realism fail" when a unit wears a demonstrably outdated helmet, in a game where whole tribes will have to be conjured up with hardly any evidence to go on at all? It is not the uncertainty about evidence per se that's the problem, but the unequal distribution across the different peoples. Because as opposed to science, where the right thing to do in the absence of evidence is to leave the map blank, so to speak, a game world has to have the same level of content throughout.

[Am7]

Well, how wonderfully that historians gathered here. You can confirm or deny the historicity of this card. It belongs spartan_varrior, but I changed it. I edited it from the Wikipedia article on the basis of historical records of Herodotus and others

As well as on the basis of the second map

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Well, how wonderfully that historians gathered here. You can confirm or deny the historicity of this card. It belongs spartan_varrior, but I changed it. I edited it from the Wikipedia article on the basis of historical records of Herodotus and others

As well as on the basis of the second map

The problem with the historical descriptions and namings of steppe tribes is that the would have been even today nearly impossible to catch. After this descriptions it would seem that they allways lived in the same terretories, but they were nomads and changed them very often. The other other problem is that the ancient historins only described what they heard, they were never there and even if they would have they wouldn't be able to describe the locations correct.

I know this because i do research on the parthians and Strabo totally mixed things up and even contradicted himself in the description of tribes and locations around the caspian sea.

Another problem is that the most authors used terms from earlier times, because they follow writing schools, which is a reason why new terms are rarely used. As a product of this you can find the Scythians from the early greeks to the fall of the western empire to describe the people in the steppe.

So i agree with using source critiques which name and explain such problems, before reading the actually source. Many people here directly quoting and interpreting sources without ever read a source critique.

[Murfmurf]

I Many of these areas of history are extremely specialised and our understanding of the times and events are continually changing and evolving to fit the research being conducted. That some try to force their emotionally charged opinions on others under the guise of "good history" is disingenuous and the very definition of bad historical enquiry. Expertise is not gained by a quick google search of plato, socrates or any other source you might think is relevant to your point!

Excellent post, +rep.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

I wanted to make a post in response to the "know-it-all" wiki-historians we have on this forum recently.

I've been a long time visitor to these forums and for the most part the community is pretty amazing. The small, yet vocal, minority tend to get on my nerves though. With the upcoming release of rome 2 it seems as if they've all converged on to this forum to complain

Before I get into that though let me introduce myself. I've been playing TW since shogun 1, not that this gives me any more credibility than someone who has just played shogun 2 however , and for the most part I enjoy the total war series because its an awesome way to kick back and work at something over the course of many afternoons after work. I'm a history teacher by trade and I wanted to make a quick response to all the people who have a hard on for "historical accuracy".

As someone who has made a career out of a love of history I'm pretty amazed at how authoritative some people attempt to sound when referring to the "historical accuracy" of the total war series. Oftentimes the most outlandish claims are made on the slimmest and most tenuous of evidence. Sometimes sources aren't even cited, othertimes they are just quick googled quotes which are cherry picked to fit their argument without any background source analysis or commentary on the context and how it has impacted their conclusions. I've seen references to how sandles are wrong, buttons are placed incorrectly on uniforms and judgements made on the movement and location of entire groups of people based upon googled maps which is then used to justify an attack on the total war series or rome 2. Many of these areas of history are extremely specialised and our understanding of the times and events are continually changing and evolving to fit the research being conducted. That some try to force their emotionally charged opinions on others under the guise of "good history" is disingenuous and the very definition of bad historical enquiry. Expertise is not gained by a quick google search of plato, socrates or any other source you might think is relevant to your point!

I would like to offer the term "historical plausibility" which I think would fit the total war series better whilst still showing our support for a historical-based gameplay. By using the term historical plausibility I am inferring that any certainty about the past is inherently obscure and incomplete due the incomplete picture we have to work with. Sure some cases are pretty solid and we can for the most part know with some certainty that something is an "historically accurate" assertion but for the most part this is a rarity. Therefore with a game as wide-scoped and massive as rome 2 is we need to accept that the majority of the game, just like a lot of history, is little more than informed guesswork based on incomplete source materials. Thus it is unreasonable to demand an unachievable level of historical accuracy for what is essentially a game meant for enjoyment. Don't get me wrong however, attempting to be true to history is important and a key factor for enjoying the game. With a view towards historical plausibility instead of historical accuracy our mission is therefore not to create an identical recreation of history but a plausible recreation of history.

Historical plausibility vs Historical Accuracy may seem like a splitting of hairs but the differences each term conveys in both approach and attitude is important to recognise. The term historical accuracy assumes that we know exactly what happened at a given point or time in history and that the game should reflect that certainty of knowledge. Historical plausibility on the otherhand asserts that most things in history are inherently uncertain and instead of creating an identical recreation we create something in the spirit of the time.

Historical accuracy is still just someone's oppinion of the past. It doesn't make it true!

a great read, I hope people will use this as guidelines. to help their point of view. so they dont get flamed and so for and so for. can we make this a stiky?

[Modestus]

Similar discussions over HOI3 and EU3 but the fact of the matter is that Total war games are just way too simplistic for there to be any serious discussion, there probably wont even be ladders in RTW2 how plausible or authentic is that? .

[Dan113112]

Similar discussions over HOI3 and EU3 but the fact of the matter is that Total war games are just way too simplistic for there to be any serious discussion, there probably wont even be ladders in RTW2 how plausible or authentic is that? .

On about the ladders again are we? Let's see. . . In ETW/NTW they didn't have ladders but the idea of using grappling hooks to climb a wall was not ahistorical or unrealistic. In TWS2 I found nothing ahistorical about the men climbing the walls. Would the games have been better with ladders? Probably. But that does not mean they are historically incorrect or ahistorical.

[Anna_Gein]

On about the ladders again are we? Let's see. . . In ETW/NTW they didn't have ladders but the idea of using grappling hooks to climb a wall was not ahistorical or unrealistic. In TWS2 I found nothing ahistorical about the men climbing the walls. Would the games have been better with ladders? Probably. But that does not mean they are historically incorrect or ahistorical.

Still grappling hooks were less "historical authentic" than simple ladders for ETW and NTW.

On a side note the amount of "proper historians" and "history student" lurking around R2 forums is becoming "interesting to say the least. Especially the ones who are opposed to some accuracy or attached to false opposition such as accuracy vs gameplay.