Historical accuracy of this game

[Jalomies]

I am sincerely concerned about whether this game has historically completely accurate battletactics or not. I havent seen any player footage of blinding cavalry on sunny maps with infantry that has mirror shields. Also this game must have the shield tortoise mazes with chinese angry men behind the shields poking with pointy sticks or it has nothing to do with actual historical title. Also unicorns are must.

[Taejeo of Wei (Sao Sao)]

Originally posted by Jalomies:

I am sincerely concerned about whether this game has historically completely accurate battletactics or not. I havent seen any player footage of blinding cavalry on sunny maps with infantry that has mirror shields. Also this game must have the shield tortoise mazes with chinese angry men behind the shields poking with pointy sticks or it has nothing to do with actual historical title. Also unicorns are must.

Well, those who want to play to historic facts can play in the history mode (non-Romance)

[The Former]

Your satire isn't lost on me, but let me make something perfectly clear. Total War does not have, and has never had, "completely accurate battletactics". If Total War were completely accurate to history, sieges would almost never come to actual bloodshed.

Camps would be formed and would be a crucial part of battlefield control.

Both attackers and defenders would seek high ground and sit there until something forced them off; not just defenders.

Cavalry wouldn't just charge in and out repeatedly with minimal repercussions.

Archers wouldn't just outright fold in melee.

When surrounded, soldiers wouldn't just run against a wall of enemy troops to be slaughtered instead of fighting to the last.

Food and ammunition would be tracked across both campaign and battle.

Battles wouldn't be decisive affairs that ended in 30 minutes or less; they'd take several days to resolve completely, and would involve a lot of skirmishing and indecisive attempts to fray the enemy's morale.

Swords wouldn't decimate spears as they do in Total War.

My point here is that Total War isn't as accurate as you believe. Is it more accurate than most "strategy" games? Yes. But it takes MANY liberties. Most of these make the game more fun in my opinion, mind, but it absolutely takes them.

To answer your question, although I'm sure you've heard it answered hundreds of times... Records mode will provide the definitive Total War experience you've come to expect. Romance mode will provide a more epic, hero-driven experience. Pick the one you like more and play it. Or pass on the game and play neither. Entirely your choice. But rest assured, "realistic" Total War is indeed alive and well here.

[Scar]

If this game was historically accurate, then you'd be watching a movie/gameplay footage without actually being able to control it, the only accurate part is the Era, you make your own history dumbo.

[OZZO]

The setting is more or less OK in accuracy (but not in all aspects and for some warlords it's just plain wrong). You develop the history yourself with only few development crossroads where you can choose the historic path.

[Too Much Salt]

Who cares about 100% accuracy ? I highly doubt the Romans wore 100% as portrayed in Rome 2 but i aint complaining because it is just a game.

[Fais]

suddenly people are caring about historical accuracy when 3k announced, but other games? nah.

[Toaster Maximus]

Originally posted by Sheriff of Nothingham:

Your satire isn't lost on me, but let me make something perfectly clear. Total War does not have, and has never had, "completely accurate battletactics". If Total War were completely accurate to history, sieges would almost never come to actual bloodshed.

Camps would be formed and would be a crucial part of battlefield control.

Both attackers and defenders would seek high ground and sit there until something forced them off; not just defenders.

Cavalry wouldn't just charge in and out repeatedly with minimal repercussions.

Archers wouldn't just outright fold in melee.

When surrounded, soldiers wouldn't just run against a wall of enemy troops to be slaughtered instead of fighting to the last.

Food and ammunition would be tracked across both campaign and battle.

Battles wouldn't be decisive affairs that ended in 30 minutes or less; they'd take several days to resolve completely, and would involve a lot of skirmishing and indecisive attempts to fray the enemy's morale.

Swords wouldn't decimate spears as they do in Total War.

My point here is that Total War isn't as accurate as you believe. Is it more accurate than most "strategy" games? Yes. But it takes MANY liberties. Most of these make the game more fun in my opinion, mind, but it absolutely takes them.

To answer your question, although I'm sure you've heard it answered hundreds of times... Records mode will provide the definitive Total War experience you've come to expect. Romance mode will provide a more epic, hero-driven experience. Pick the one you like more and play it. Or pass on the game and play neither. Entirely your choice. But rest assured, "realistic" Total War is indeed alive and well here.

Someone who knows there warfare, I'm impressed

[Straybow]

Red Cliff was kind of fun :)

[Remosu37]

If you want a historically accurate tactical simulation, there are indie games like scourge of war out there.

Battles that take hours to play out, also can be played "in the saddle" where you have no birds eye view of the battlefield and yo can see only as far as a person where your general could see, you dispatch orders with couriers that take time to arrive and can be intercepted.

It's cool in theory, but it's exhausting, and definitely impractical to work into a game like Total War as it would male a campaign take literal years to play out. Plus 98% of gamers would find it frustrating and not fun.

By nature, games like total war need to take liberties and that's perfectly ok. If you want a sim try out the indie games out there that actually aspire to real historical accuracy.

[Pumpkin]

I hope they continue down the path of 100 percent historical accuracy, I especially enjoyed the historical accuracy in Total War: Warhammer 1 & 2. It made the games much more enjoyable.

[NineTailedFox89]

Originally posted by Pumpkin:

I hope they continue down the path of 100 percent historical accuracy, I especially enjoyed the historical accuracy in Total War: Warhammer 1 & 2. It made the games much more enjoyable.

XD thats a good one.. seems like your getting annoyed over the historically accurate cry babys yourself? why do people like this forget its a GAME first and what ever second.. its about fun and
strategy