Historical Accurate or Balanced System!

[jamreal18]

Which do you prefer:

• Historical Accurate
• Balanced System

[King Philip II]

I didn't vote. A balanced historically accurate campaign set-up and AI for me. CA has already stated that they are leaning towards the balanced approach to improve campaign re-playability. As long as key events (such as The Punic Wars) are either scripted or enforced my other means I'm a happy pony.

[HigoChumbo]

Ehrm... actually historical unbalances make for a balanced game.


For instance, the Seleucid Empire was aparently "bigger" and more powerful than its neighbors -individually that is-, but they also had to face more enemies and fight at several distant theatres at the same time.

Those "small" factions existed when "gameplay balance" was not an issue, it was pure, real, unforgiving life, so if a tiny tribe as the picts could whithstand the Roman Juggernaut, it was probably because the geo-political situation was randomly balanced for it (say maybe the romans were not interested in investing in such far, poor regions, maybe they were but they had more pressing issues in other lands, as holding the Parthians in the east, etc).

This also applies for battle gameplay. Maybe the romans had an infantry system that could steamroll all their neigbours in somewhat hilly terrains against enemies using -sort of- conventional infantry and cavalry tactics, but as soon as they reached the desert flatlands of Mesopotamia they got crushed by the Parthians and their horse archers. And the same applies the other way around, the parthians could dominate the flatlands, but they would have a hard time venturing in the very hilly landscapes of Asia Minor and the rest of Europe.



I know i explain myself like ****, i hope you got the point ^^

So yeah, i'd go for a -reasonably- historical accurate system, it would provide hard and tense campaigns in which you would have to do your best to even prevail, specially when playing with the weaker factions.

[SirFork]

You will never achieve 100% historical accuracy because this is a game, so the problem does not exist in the first place.

Ehrm... actually historical unbalances make for a balanced game.


For instance, the Seleucid Empire was aparently "bigger" and more powerful than its neighbors -individually that is-, but they also had to face more enemies and fight at several distant theatres at the same time.

Those "small" factions existed when "gameplay balance" was not an issue, it was pure, real, unforgiving life, so if a tiny tribe as the picts could whithstand the Roman Juggernaut, it was probably because the geo-political situation was randomly balanced for it (say maybe the romans were not interested in investing in such far, poor regions, maybe they were but they had more pressing issues in other lands, as holding the Parthians in the east, etc).

This also applies for battle gameplay. Maybe the romans had an infantry system that could steamroll all their neigbours in somewhat hilly terrains against enemies using -sort of- conventional infantry and cavalry tactics, but as soon as they reached the desert flatlands of Mesopotamia they got crushed by the Parthians and their horse archers. And the same applies the other way around, the parthians could dominate the flatlands, but they would have a hard time venturing in the very hilly landscapes of Asia Minor and the rest of Europe.



I know i explain myself like ****, i hope you got the point ^^

So yeah, i'd go for a -reasonably- historical accurate system, it would provide hard and tense campaigns in which you would have to do your best to even prevail, specially when playing with the weaker factions.

I do agree.

[King Philip II]

You will never achieve 100% historical accuracy because this is a game, so the problem does not exist in the first place.

Of course not, but using this very old argument against any suggestion/opinion about historical accuracy/plausability is ... well, getting a little old tbh

For example, in Europa Barbaroum you start with historically correct starting positions and then you get to be your own Caesar. In The First Triumvirate you get to replay Caesars Gallic campaigns and the Civil War as all historic events are scripted.

My preference would be a good balance between these two approaches.

btw - i'll vote for historic now.

[General Sherman]

Ehrm... actually historical unbalances make for a balanced game.


For instance, the Seleucid Empire was aparently "bigger" and more powerful than its neighbors -individually that is-, but they also had to face more enemies and fight at several distant theatres at the same time.

Those "small" factions existed when "gameplay balance" was not an issue, it was pure, real, unforgiving life, so if a tiny tribe as the picts could whithstand the Roman Juggernaut, it was probably because the geo-political situation was randomly balanced for it (say maybe the romans were not interested in investing in such far, poor regions, maybe they were but they had more pressing issues in other lands, as holding the Parthians in the east, etc).

This also applies for battle gameplay. Maybe the romans had an infantry system that could steamroll all their neigbours in somewhat hilly terrains against enemies using -sort of- conventional infantry and cavalry tactics, but as soon as they reached the desert flatlands of Mesopotamia they got crushed by the Parthians and their horse archers. And the same applies the other way around, the parthians could dominate the flatlands, but they would have a hard time venturing in the very hilly landscapes of Asia Minor and the rest of Europe.



I know i explain myself like ****, i hope you got the point ^^

So yeah, i'd go for a -reasonably- historical accurate system, it would provide hard and tense campaigns in which you would have to do your best to even prevail, specially when playing with the weaker factions.

+rep
Historical accuracy/realism is already inherently balanced. Battles between legionaries and phalanxes were usually pretty close. Rome took longer than a day to build for a reason. They had powerful, and diverse, competition.

[Sun Jetzu]

This is probably the best poll ive seen so far. It actually made me stop and think. I went with historical accuracy. I always love going with the little guy and winning with my cunning and superior strategic skills.

[magpie]

While I prefer historical accuracy and voted for it.
One is also constrained by what the developer,s have produced as a game/campaign.

[Lockcaps]

Every faction should be able to beat every faction if the battle is on their terms. Example: the romans will almost always defeat the suebi in a pitched battle in an open field or similar, but the suebi will almost always defeat the romans if they manage to ambush them or use the terrain to their advantage.

[jamreal18]

For me, I prefer historically accurate. This in Rome 2, it means this game is about history. They must present strong factions as strong factions, inferior factions as inferior. They dont need weaken some units or to make some units stronger just to cope up with stronger factions. It depends on the player on how will he play the game.

Aside from that,

Historically, every factions has their own pros and cons so its up to players to use those in conquering their enemies. I hope CA presents every factions just as they were in their time.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Historical for campaign, balanced for unit rosters.

[Eofor]

Balanced gameplay should take precedence above historical accuracy when the two collide. End of story.

[Nicolaos]

I think there has to be a middle ground.
e.g. Rome should be strong in most of the games, but I don't want to face a roman goliath every time I choose to play a different faction.
This would get boring fast and will be one of the first thing players would (rightfully) complain about...

After all it's a sandbox game.
Historical startpos? - sure!
Historical diplomatic relations in the beginning? - Of course!
A tour through ancient history where Rome rules over more than half of the map? - No thank you!

Rome should be dominating most of the time, however, there should be the possibilty that Carthage defeats Rome, Italy gets conquered by Gauls or Epirus invades Italy

I think that would add some flavor and surprises to some of the campaigns

[Sint]

... Both ?

[Colonel Mallard]

I say historically accurate. If I decide to play as, say, a tiny village in Siberia, perhaps I do it because I want a challenge , and would prefer the game not to bend over backwards making the campaign as easy as for the Romans.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

I'd say historical accuracy, it gives a different difficulty for all the factions. If you want to play a underdog faction, you can do that. If you want to play as one of the more powerful faction, you can do that as well.
The only part where i'm concerned about balance is when we start talking about multiplayer.

[oOIYvYIOo]

Historically correct,thats why we are all here and thats why TW is TW .

[Sun Jetzu]

Historically correct,thats why we are all here and thats why TW is TW .

Exactly my friend, Besides an upset of power can always happen, as long as you know what your doing.

[perifanosEllinas]

Ehrm... actually historical unbalances make for a balanced game.


For instance, the Seleucid Empire was aparently "bigger" and more powerful than its neighbors -individually that is-, but they also had to face more enemies and fight at several distant theatres at the same time.

Those "small" factions existed when "gameplay balance" was not an issue, it was pure, real, unforgiving life, so if a tiny tribe as the picts could whithstand the Roman Juggernaut, it was probably because the geo-political situation was randomly balanced for it (say maybe the romans were not interested in investing in such far, poor regions, maybe they were but they had more pressing issues in other lands, as holding the Parthians in the east, etc).

This also applies for battle gameplay. Maybe the romans had an infantry system that could steamroll all their neigbours in somewhat hilly terrains against enemies using -sort of- conventional infantry and cavalry tactics, but as soon as they reached the desert flatlands of Mesopotamia they got crushed by the Parthians and their horse archers. And the same applies the other way around, the parthians could dominate the flatlands, but they would have a hard time venturing in the very hilly landscapes of Asia Minor and the rest of Europe.



I know i explain myself like ****, i hope you got the point ^^

So yeah, i'd go for a -reasonably- historical accurate system, it would provide hard and tense campaigns in which you would have to do your best to even prevail, specially when playing with the weaker factions.

Historically correct,thats why we are all here and thats why TW is TW .

I couldn't agree more with you guys .It's the historical unbalances that provide challenges and replayability.If all the factions are the same and without obvious differences/unbalances in power then the game becomes boring and repetitive after a while *cough Shogun 2*

[Lancy]

Either or, as long as they balance the unit rosters for MP.