You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.6 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » historical accuracy
Bottom
Topic Subject:historical accuracy
rtsrookie
Clubman
posted 03-23-00 01:17 PM ET (US)         
I am new to computer gaming. I am intrigued by the discussions here and on AOK forum about historical accuracy.
While there are obvious inaccuracies in AOE in the name of playability and balance,( especially given that it is an RTS game covering a very long time span) it is still possible to play it in ways closer to a history game. My impression is that this is more possible with defined campaigns than in the multiplayer games. The scenarios included in the game are uneven in their historical accuracy. I look forward to downloading some of the player created scenarios in the AOE heaven granary.


rtsrookie

AuthorReplies:
Caesar Constintine
Clubman
posted 03-23-00 09:25 PM ET (US)     1 / 6       
Yes, however there are some "exseptions" to some civ's. AOE and even some of AOK is, well the same looks for each civ, there is no word that I can think of for it, and then the way things look and the buildings, like Rome, do you really think houses looked like that or that they had Acadimys apart from barracks and I though that the romans were the 1st or 2nd at ballistas and catipults... The civs also had many many more buildings that what AOE has them to have and the triremes, I found out rammed each other and only had two archers, but it is a war game, not to to much on building. The maps are often not at all what they really look like, but the game is still 100% fun. And can you imagine how long it would take to create a game where every civ looks differnat and the game (or documentry , if you turn it into one.) was very accurate, now maybe where there were just maybe 2 or 3 civs in the game but it would really be hard, also in the booklet it has a good deal of history of all the civ.'s
wedsaz
Clubman
posted 03-23-00 11:05 PM ET (US)     2 / 6       
I think exact historical accuracy can't be achieved without taking out the players.
 
However, there can be functional accuracy, where battles with the same tactics with the same units on simliar terrain types as historical battles will produce similar results.
 
I think it's pitiful that the iron age is dominated by scythed chariots and siege weapons.
 
Also, there should be an early form of crossbowmen in there somewhere...
 
The units that should dominate late iron: cataphracts, pikemen, crossbowmen, camels and horse archers, and some infantry archers. Doesn't that sound like the medieval ages? Well, cataphracts (aka "knights") started that. So, it would be accurate.
butch26
Clubman
posted 03-23-00 11:43 PM ET (US)     3 / 6       
100% historical accuracy is of course impossible. If the game were 100% accurate, it would have to be played in one specific time period. If not, the early civs like babylon, egypt, the hittites, ect. would be no match for rome, or greece up until the time of rome. (especially since the parthyians and dacians are not in the game). The only change i think would have been good would have been some kind of formations, and some tactical options. For example, the greeks (before alexander) did not use light support troops, no archers or skirmishers ect. They were however able to defeat the integrated and mixed armies of persia, primarily through superior tactics. Although i will admit, some of their sucess came from the mistakes and incompetance of the persians. the same is true to an extent with the romans. It was more the tactical superiority of the barbarians than a tecnological one that led to their destruction. The best example would be the chariot. Advances in armor, weapons, and most importantly tactics, made them far to costly for their limited effectivness.

------------------
...and when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer

wedsaz
Clubman
posted 03-24-00 00:50 AM ET (US)     4 / 6       
Actually, the way early civs would be strong enough to fight later civs is to give them the attributes they had, which was speed and economy.
 
Babylon would have amazing farmers, so although their troops would be low-tech... by iron age their economy would be huge, they could afford to be making hordes of those cheap, low-tech units. Or, like real babylon, they could ally with a more advanced empire like assyria or persia, and tribute food by the ton. Egypt would be less strong economically, but would have good archers like in history, and so would be fairly balanced as well.
 
The skythians should be in there instead of the yamato. They were the first nomadic horse archers in the style of the parthians, huns and mongols, but were around before the fall of babylon. They did have chariots as well, though.
 
The greeks, before alexander, were using javelinmen, slingers and cavalry along with their hoplite formation. The other units were often underestimated, but they were nonetheless very important. Greek-style hoplites, also, are a very well balanced unit. Good shielding to defend better vs arrows, and a 12' spear to fight non-ranged infantry, but only a light corslet made of many layers of cloth glued together as armor. Because of their ultralight armor, and spears being fairly light as well, the weight of the shield was offset somewhat and they were about as fast as normal infantry. Thus the greek speed bonus in AoE. However, they also had more hoplites than any other civ before or after them, which should be reflected in their bonuses as well. Formations are important, but economy and technology are extremely important as well. A few undisciplined guys with m16s can mow down a horde of zulu spearmen, no matter how disciplined.
 
The persians were still using the assyrian army model, down to the carvings on the bows.
 
What defeated the romans was, again, changes in technology and economy. Rome lost egypt to the saracens (or the parthians? can't remember) so their only other food source was turkey. Steel was invented and replaced bronze, and rome no longer needed to defend southern britain at high costs to hold on to the strategic tin mines there. So, in 330ad, constantine took the easter portion of the empire, which contained greece, (where the catapult engineers were) thrace, (good soldiers) turkey, (food, yum - plus good supplies of iron) and set up his capital at byzantium, which controlled the rich trade between baltic and mediterranean, middle east and europe. Germany having become a major economic area, (due to technological and possibly weather changes) he pretty much left the western portion of the empire to fend for itself. It did, by controlling the german hordes through religion. That italy-germany arrangement was known as the "holy roman empire". Sound familiar?
 
The limited effectiveness of chariots was in no small part due to the fact that chariots don't get around much on rough terrain. When flat, desertic areas like egypt and mesopotamia stopped being the strategic economies, cavalry and infantry became more dominant. Iron also made metal weapons and armors more affordable, so hordes of "cheap" infantry became in vogue. Iron is not as strong as bronze, however, so bronze was still used whenever it was affordable until steel was invented in the late roman empire. Advances in technology, and more importantly economy, made them far too limited for their exorbitant cost. (but they were still used in the egyptian and mesopotamian areas for a long, long time)
 
Aaaah, history. Isn't it wonderful?
Centurion
Clubman
posted 03-24-00 07:09 AM ET (US)     5 / 6       
The game is created for fun! To add a little interest they attempted to relate it to history, so you can re-write your own history. However, I don't think it was made to be looked as at an refrence guide.

It's a good game and for me, it's enough historically acurate

SirDinadan
Clubman
posted 03-24-00 11:05 PM ET (US)     6 / 6       
Yes, you will find that many of the scenarios & campaigns in the Granary are better in many respects than most of those provided w/the original game . . some of these guys really do some research!
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames