Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Historical accurate battles?

  1. #1

    Default Historical accurate battles?

    After a really long search for a historical accurate mod for total war i finally landed here.
    For me, the campaign map is not that important, because for that matter, I play the mod meiou and taxes designed for Europa Universalis 4.

    For me, it would be really important to play most possible historical accurate battles with some friends online. Kind of a historic battle simulation...

    So my questions are:

    Is this mod also designed for multiplayer batlles?
    Are there other players, playing EB II battles online?
    Are the battles as far as possible historical accurate, and what differs from true historical battles?

    And: If this mod does not quite present battles realistic, can someone recommend me a game or a mod, that could fit my expectations?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirWitan View Post
    After a really long search for a historical accurate mod for total war i finally landed here.
    For me, the campaign map is not that important, because for that matter, I play the mod meiou and taxes designed for Europa Universalis 4.

    For me, it would be really important to play most possible historical accurate battles with some friends online. Kind of a historic battle simulation...

    So my questions are:

    Is this mod also designed for multiplayer batlles?
    Are there other players, playing EB II battles online?
    Are the battles as far as possible historical accurate, and what differs from true historical battles?

    And: If this mod does not quite present battles realistic, can someone recommend me a game or a mod, that could fit my expectations?
    1) Check out the EB Multiplayer sub-forum at the top of the page.

    2) Yes, and by all accounts they enjoy it.

    3) The mod team has crafted all the individual units to make them as historical as possible, and even against the AI you'll get some very interesting battles (in fact you should probably try that first, just so you get a feel for how things work on the battlefield). As for "how realistic", that probably comes down to your expectations. The units will speak ancient languages and will deploy ancient weapons, but there are limits to what a 2007 engine can do on the battlefield. You'll just have to see for yourself.
    EBII Council

  3. #3

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    First of all, thank oyu for the fast reply!

    Relating 3) The accurate individual units, correct use of ancient language and shwon weapons are very nice points, but more atmospheric, than historical accurate in the matter I am searching for.

    For me, it would be very important to get a game/simulation or a mod, that truly shows how battles in this time period looked like. So for example: In vanilla total war games, like for example rome 2 total war, the armys does not function historical accuarte in any sense.

    -Like it is impossible to play with a sarissa phalanx online, because other players easily evade it and flank it.
    -Like the fact that the army size is not really like battle size was at this time
    -Like morale does not have any major importance in vanilla total war. Units most often fight till they only have 5 - 7 men in the unit. Flank attacks or attacks from behind have no real mentionable effect on morale in vanilla total war. In historical matters most regular units would flee the battle after quite half the unit size died.
    -Like some weapons dont work like intended historical in vanilla total war.

    And there surely is more mentionable, but i hope you understand my problem. The athmospheric elements are real nice, but for me the true battle simulation is the most important. It is clear for me, that it is not possible to simulate a battle in real time frame, because, then you had to play some battles the whole day long or even reorganise after night.

    So, maybe it would be easier if someone could tell me, which historical points are missing in this mod?

  4. #4

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirWitan View Post
    -Like it is impossible to play with a sarissa phalanx online, because other players easily evade it and flank it.
    -Like the fact that the army size is not really like battle size was at this time
    -Like morale does not have any major importance in vanilla total war. Units most often fight till they only have 5 - 7 men in the unit. Flank attacks or attacks from behind have no real mentionable effect on morale in vanilla total war. In historical matters most regular units would flee the battle after quite half the unit size died.
    -Like some weapons dont work like intended historical in vanilla total war.
    1) Armies would try to evade flank phalanxes if they could, historically as well. How do you think Rome conquered the greek world?
    2) You won't get battles with 50000+ men here. Maximum possible without reinforcements is 8000. With reinforcements on both sides that number can be doubled or tripled but the lag you'll experience will be horrendous.
    3) This criticism I don't get. Even on vanilla morale is very important. On this mod I've seen units very often rout at more than half strength (80-100 men). Only elite units will fight until they have <10 men.
    4) Any examples?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    1) Armies would try to evade flank phalanxes if they could, historically as well. How do you think Rome conquered the greek world?

    Surely they would try to evade a phalanx. But I read a post of a historian mentioning that the phalanx does not work like intended in rome 2 total war, because of the litte army size Total War allows. The problem is the unit depth that in vanilla mostly ending uo in only 3 ranks, out of 16 in true history, also the length of a true sarissa phalanx was quite bigger. A historical phalanx could reach an enormous lengh, that was not that quite easy to flank attack. Also a turnament player of rome 2 mentioned to me, that it is not possible to play phalanx in rome 2 turnaments as main force, only as support force. This is stupid for an army composition that was mentioned as one of the best at this time, till the romans contered them.

    2) You won't get battles with 50000+ men here. Maximum possible without reinforcements is 8000. With reinforcements on both sides that number can be doubled or tripled but the lag you'll experience will be horrendous.

    Thats quite a problem in Total War, taking away my fun to play it. Because, how some historians said about Total War: To simulate some army types effectively, you HAVE to have this big number of men at the battlefield. That is also a reason why I actually stick more to games like Field of Glory 2.

    3) This criticism I don't get. Even on vanilla morale is very important. On this mod I've seen units very often rout at more than half strength (80-100 men). Only elite units will fight until they have <10 men.

    Morale is not quite that important in Total war it really was in real battles. Most armies in histoy broke really fast after beeing flank attacked, the fear spread through all army ranks. Real battles had much less casualties (in army coparision), than shown in vanilla Total war. It wasnt quite a thing of killing the whole army, like you can experience in most Rome 2 MP battles, going home with less than 100 men.... they routed before getting killed if possible.

    I really dont know how it is in this mod, but as someone often playing MP i can surely say, that it is NOT historical at all, how many units stay alive and flee the battlefield in Vanilla battles.

    4) Any examples?

    -Archers and slingers werent machine guns, that could kill a whole unit with a couple of shots. They were intended to weaken enemy units and breaking their morale, rather than killing them all and routing kind of 3-5 men.
    -Some berserks that are able to kill heavy armoured enemy units with only a stick in their hands (see rome total war barbarian invasion or others)
    -See hoplites in Rome 1 Total War
    -See charge cavallery in games likes medieval 2, pikes in medieval 2 or the contra: cavallery in rome 1 that yould destory whole armys without infnatery support

    ...

    I could mention a lot more thinks...

  6. #6

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    1) Yeah I agree that phalanxes are probably easier to flank than they should be, because of small army size. That's on Creative Assembly though. They would need to design an engine that can support armies of that size. And actually the most difficult part of that is figuring out a feasible way for the player to control such a large army. There is no way a player could control 50000 men with the current system.

    3) We'll have to agree to disagree. Units in Total War will often break when flanked and routs will sometimes spead throughout the whole army. Yes you tend to kill most of the enemy army but a big part of that happens during the rout. Maybe this problem is only prevalent in MP because human players are very good at keeping morale high using their general and by keeping a good formation that protects the flanks.

    4) You won't find any of those things in EB II.

  7. #7
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Quote Originally Posted by BHL 20 View Post
    1actually the most difficult part of that is figuring out a feasible way for the player to control such a large army. There is no way a player could control 50000 men with the current system
    This. There's always a question of which level commander the player is meant to be. If the general of the whole then his subordinates should do the job of the tactical movements. If a tactical general then it's not possible to have armies of many thousands of soldiers. But then you need a competent AI on your side.
    This is well grasped in the DarkVader's Ultimate General for the US Civil War. But it's not the case in the M2TW.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirWitan View Post
    Thats quite a problem in Total War, taking away my fun to play it. Because, how some historians said about Total War: To simulate some army types effectively, you HAVE to have this big number of men at the battlefield. That is also a reason why I actually stick more to games like Field of Glory 2.
    EB2 has everything you are looking for except the 50,000 man armies. If that single factor is the difference between "fun" and "no fun", you need to stop looking for ANY game/mod based on the TW engine, because they don't exist.
    EBII Council

  9. #9

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    after all this query i guess you should just go and try the mod and see if it suits you.
    Then, as throngs of his enemies bore down upon him and one of his followers said, "They are making at thee, O King," "Who else, pray," said Antigonus, "should be their mark? But Demetrius will come to my aid." This was his hope to the last, and to the last he kept watching eagerly for his son; then a whole cloud of javelins were let fly at him and he fell.

    -Plutarch, life of Demetrius.

    Arche Aiakidae-Epeiros EB2 AAR

  10. #10

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    check out the ancient empires mod for attila total war. big multiplayer battles.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirWitan View Post
    Surely they would try to evade a phalanx. But I read a post of a historian mentioning that the phalanx does not work like intended in rome 2 total war, because of the litte army size Total War allows. The problem is the unit depth that in vanilla mostly ending uo in only 3 ranks, out of 16 in true history, also the length of a true sarissa phalanx was quite bigger. A historical phalanx could reach an enormous lengh, that was not that quite easy to flank attack. Also a turnament player of rome 2 mentioned to me, that it is not possible to play phalanx in rome 2 turnaments as main force, only as support force. This is stupid for an army composition that was mentioned as one of the best at this time, till the romans contered them.
    I think you mean width, not length. That said, if you have enough pike units and deploy them in the correct fashion, it can be difficult to flank them. Plus, if they're out of position, you can always turn off phalanx and defensive modes and rush them into a spot where they are more useful.


    4) Any examples?

    -Archers and slingers werent machine guns, that could kill a whole unit with a couple of shots. They were intended to weaken enemy units and breaking their morale, rather than killing them all and routing kind of 3-5 men.
    -Some berserks that are able to kill heavy armoured enemy units with only a stick in their hands (see rome total war barbarian invasion or others)
    Archers (including horse archers!) and slingers were brutally nerfed in EB II, compared to EB I or other TW games/mods. They are more difficult to use and frankly most of them are quite weak if not shooting from a very advantageous position. Only Cretan Archers, Balearic Slingers, and some "Eastern" and nomadic archer units are similar (but not equal) to their counterparts in EB I when it comes to archery.

    Also, EB II really doesn't have berserkers.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    EB2 has everything you are looking for except the 50,000 man armies. If that single factor is the difference between "fun" and "no fun", you need to stop looking for ANY game/mod based on the TW engine, because they don't exist.
    If this is true, i think I can live with smaller army size.
    It was only a bit sad to see nobody playing in the regular Multiplayer battle lobby, but I think this is mostly the case for mods... so we have to play it intern with freidns i think...


    But another question:

    Is there someone who knows a mod that is kind of historical accurate like EB II seems to be, but for the medieval age period?

  13. #13
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirWitan View Post
    Is there someone who knows a mod that is kind of historical accurate like EB II seems to be, but for the medieval age period?
    This question pops up occassionally and has already been discussed - see my answer and the discussion with criticism and praise.
    If you want to play a historical mod in the medieval setting the best are:
    the Stainless Steel Historical Improvement Project,
    and the Broken Crescent + Buff and Shine.
    ........................................................................................................................................
    Reviews of the mods (all made in 2018): SSHIP, Wrath of the Norsemen, Broken Crescent.
    Pros and cons of having merchants in an M2TW mod. Arguments against the forts in M2TW.
    Home rules for playing a game without exploiting the M2TW engine deficiencies.
    Thrones of Britannia: review, opinion on the battles, ideas for modding. No good mod yet, alas!
    Dominant strategy in Rome 2 TW and Attila TW: “Sniping groups of armies”. Still there, alas!
    .................................................................................................................................................................................
    Developer of the SSHIP: traits, ancillaries, script fixing, guides, historical improvements

  14. #14

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Thank you for the suggestion, but I already know Stainless Steel, an interesting mod, but not really fitting what I understand under historical accurate. Especially gunpoweder units are really overpowered. I allready tested the Historical Improvment Project and while I like the flavour to Byzantium really, it makes them quite overpowered, ignoring most other nations and dont fixing issues Stainless Steel already had.

    I have played a lot of MP battles with both SS and HIP, but I am not quite satisfied with this.

    Is there another medieval mod that fits the criteria?

  15. #15

    Default Re: Historical accurate battles?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirWitan View Post
    After a really long search for a historical accurate mod for total war i finally landed here.
    For me, the campaign map is not that important, because for that matter, I play the mod meiou and taxes designed for Europa Universalis 4.
    Quote Originally Posted by SirWitan View Post
    First of all, thank oyu for the fast reply!
    So would you say he has good....communication efficiency? *puts on sunglasses*

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •