Total War Games Battles Are Not Realistic? But Why? Here Is Why

[Bellus88]

I am very frustrated right now, 1-3 days ago I saw a video on youtube of some historical documentary type video that was using total war game footage. He said something like that a battle was not like total war and that in reality they were much longer, the men would engage in a melee confrontation, you would kill a guy or be killed, then move back and be replaced by another guy. The battle would be long and you would disengage and engage, fighting several times. Anyone know which video I am taking about? I can't find it in my history, he didn't say this word for word but it was something like this.

There are always realism mod's released and I agree that battles are highly unrealistic in total war, they are far too fast. The realism mods which increase HP and make confrontations a lot longer I think add a lot of realism. I don't tthink in huge crowd engagements between two melee units, men wouldn't be dropping like flies, 3-10 would be struck down every minute from the front line of each unit.

[daelin4]

So...battle pace? You want the duration of a battle to be longer than the average person's period of sleep? No one would have time for that.

[Axalon]

There are always realism mod's released and I agree that battles are highly unrealistic in total war, they are far too fast. The realism mods which increase HP and make confrontations a lot longer I think add a lot of realism. I don't tthink in huge crowd engagements between two melee units, men wouldn't be dropping like flies, 3-10 would be struck down every minute from the front line of each unit.

The first two TW-games did have slower and more realistic battles... CA in their infinite wisdom changed that. They actually did battles better then anything that came after them. The shift from battle & tactics-oriented game to strategy & management-oriented game started with RTW, and have essentially escalated ever since. The later games you talk about are not really about fighting battles but management, administration and strategy. The battle-aspect is reduced to little else then a flashy spectacle from all that (to the delight of the CA-marketing department as it makes things easier to sell - the illusion that battle is still a serious part of the game). That was hardly the case with the first two games, it was almost the other way around back then. Personally, I liked it better that way too....

- A

[NorseThing]

Part of the lack of realism comes from the units involved. A fight between two men is different from a battle between two squads and still different from a Napoleonic battle involving corps and hundreds of thousands of combatants. There is also the fuzzy transition from the tactical to the strategic decisions process. Some simulations may be more one than the other, but most are some combination. In the end game design has to focus on some aspects and minimize others. Thus your lack of realism enters into the simulation.

[Mayer]

TW battles are somewhat lackluster to the real thing, i agree. But seeing CA's direction to quicker and smaller battles with special powers and now even magic, we probably won't see much improvement in the realism department. And i don't think mods can do much to change that around.

I would definitely be interested in a game which tries to simulate a more realistic scale, but it would need a AI which can handle this sort of things, an option to save in the middle of the battle and some serious time acceleration.

[Evan MF]

TW battles are somewhat lackluster to the real thing, i agree. But seeing CA's direction to quicker and smaller battles with special powers and now even magic, we probably won't see much improvement in the realism department. And i don't think mods can do much to change that around.

I would definitely be interested in a game which tries to simulate a more realistic scale, but it would need a AI which can handle this sort of things, an option to save in the middle of the battle and some serious time acceleration.

I actually believe a more realistic simulator would be easier to make an AI for. One of the big issues with current AI is that it looks stupid because the unrealistic game mechanics allow it to act stupid. For example, in real life it would be idiotic to order several battalions of men to pass through each other, or to be able to wheel a 1000-man line in a matter of seconds by just hitting the 'double time' button. In Total War these types of actions are par the course for players and computer alike, the only difference being, when the human does it he feels smart for reforming his line but when he knowingly sees a computer do it, he sees it as dumb. If battalion movement was way more restricted, I have no doubt an AI would look a lot 'smarter' and be perceived to maneuver more realistically. There are countless other restrictions that could help guide both player and computer to play a game like Total War in a manner that is realistic and therefore 'feels' more logical.

[NorseThing]

A bit of realism is lost when the scale of the units to scale of the terrain is not correct. Often when you see battalions crossing thru each other it is the problem of the scale size of the figures relative to the scale size of the terrain. But to make it nearer to the correct scale for a battle you would either need to go back to Shogun and the sprites (which have their own realism issues). Face it -- you cannot have a realistic battle on a computer screen involving even a company sized battle and see anything other that points of light.

[Alwyn]

An argument seems to be being made that the longer a battle takes to play, the more realistic it is. While I can see where that argument is 'coming from', I see it differently.

Suppose I'm playing a Total War game involving an 18th-century battle involving infantry regiments which historically had 800 men (that was their official size, at least - in practice, I believe they often had different sizes). Would this only be historically realistic if there were 800 individual soldiers on my screen? Would it less historically realistic if 800 men were represented by 200 figures, and even less realistic if there were 160 figures, and totally unrealistic if there were 80?

My answer is that having 800, 200, 160 or 80 men on the screen could be equally realistic - the only difference is the scale being used (1:1, 1:4, 1:5 or 1:10). NorseThing makes a good point about the scale of units compared to the scale of the terrain. Perhaps there is a balance to be struck between realism and playability? Realistically, if a unit went into dense forest, I should not be able to see my own soldiers from my eagle's eye view above a Total War battle - but it's harder to enjoy playing a battle if I cannot see my own units.

Mayer's point about a more realistic scale is interesting. Is one scale more realistic than another? The Battle of Borodino started at about 6 am on 7 September 1812, when the French artillery opened fire on the centre of the Russian line. The fighting came to an end after 6 pm. That's a 12-hour battle. Would it only be fully realistic to play a recreation of this battle which lasted 12 hours? (As daelin4 said, players might well feel that we don't have that much time, unless we are playing a game which only recreates battles, without a campaign). Would playing this battle be less realistic if it took 3 hours to play, even less realistic if it took 2 hours and 24 minutes and totally unrealistic if it took 1 hour and 12 minutes? I would see any of those options as equally realistic - the only difference is the scale. Hopefully you get my point - as I see it, if a battle takes less time to play, this is not necessarily less realistic.

Of course, I know that TW battles are usually over in much less time than any of those options - even so, for me this simply shows that a different scale is being used. As long as there is enough time to try different tactics, I'm okay with battles lasting around 5 to 20 minutes. (About 5 to 8 minutes seems okay for a skirmish or an ambush. Sieges, battles with multiple armies or 'hit and run' tactics should, and usually do, take longer). Despite the shift from tactics to strategy, I'm surprised by the extent of opportunities for different tactics in newer TW games, even though the battles may be quicker. Watching Rome II battle videos with commentary by Maximus Decimus Meridius and Heir of Carthage (and reading Rome II AARs in the Writers' Study) showed how skilled players can defeat strong enemies with effective tactics.

Axalon's point that quicker battles in newer games involve a shift towards strategy and management sounds right to me. I enjoy strategy games - I played a lot of Civilization before discovering Total War. What frustrated me with Civilization was that my best army would 'level up' and acquire new abilities (in Civilization IV, at least) but sooner or later, it would get unlucky and be destroyed. Of course, in Civilization IV, all battles are auto-resolved - there was no way to play the battle, to save that army. For me, TW games offer a good balance between strategy and tactics. Of course, different players prefer different things; if it was possible to add an option in the game to alter the battle speed, I think that would be a good idea.