Historical Accuracy or Balance

[flamingzaroc121]

This thread inspired by the numerous HRE threads, which is more important to you in the game, Historical Accuracy or Balance.

I'd have to go with balance because if it were really historical Rome would conquer all (whoever suggested a Prat smiley deserves a cookie, we need one)

 

[winddbourne]

I vote for balanced gameplay . . . however I'm not sure how it matters if you call the balanced civilization "holy roman empire" or cherokee, except on world maps, where europe is so crowded game balance wise . . . except for the feel . . . the wow factor . . . which comes from playing with a civlization you personally like the history of. It's the "Oh cool" factor that I'm missing seeing all these threads.

Game balance wise "HRE" or "Native Americans" could be Radioactive Butt Monkeys for all the difference it makes to the actual number crunching AI.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

This is kind of a false dichotomy. I voted for historical accuracy, but personally both are important. You can have accuracy and balance. Most of the historical errors in the game are not ones of balance, but of wrong graphics and ridiculous names.

One pet peeve of mine: the Praetorian. Come on, people, they were called Legions. Changing something as simple as that wouldn't affect gameplay balance.

BTW, I was the one who suggested a Roman Legionary smiley. Where can I get my cookie?
And you can still conquer all as Rome even in a balanced game.

 

[NYHunter]

Um balance is very important. But the fantasy of this game is to enter an alternative history, and it is difficult to do that without some sort of historical flavor/realism. That's why some people demand more accuracy/realsim, it is not because they want to make the game not fun. Goodness, why would they want to make the game not fun when they play it as much as the rest of us? Simple answer is that they don't.

That was not aimed at anyone, just a general open question.

 

[cybrxkhan]

i prefer historical accuracy with enough balance so that there is possibility to different paths of history.

most people prefer to go either way, depending on their idea of "fun", but whatever.

 

[Mirc]

Balance all the way.

If I wanted accuracy, I'd read a book.

 

[cybrxkhan]

heres an example of fun historical accuracy:

take any of the big mods for Rome Total War. there is much historical accuracy (all nice-looking, realistic units, excellent details). and its still fun rampaging around with your armies.

 

[Methos]

I voted for game balance for the epic game. After all, when I want historical accuracy, I play Rhye's.

 

[cybrxkhan]

how about the poll has the option "HISTORICAL ACCURACY AND BALANCE"

(but then again, it is pretty hard to balance the two)

 

[NYHunter]

It also depends on what is meant by Balance. I assume it means balance so it is fun, but it could also mean balance so certain things aren't overpowered.

 

[The Navy Seal]

Historical gameplay is the best.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I think a lot of you guys are missing the whole point. Methos in particular is taking the classic anti-historical approach.

To me, historical realism means your units reflect the real life strengths of your civilization, and so does your UB. It DOES NOT mean that if you play as Rome, you automatically start out at an advantage so you can conquer the world, nor does it mean that your empire has to end in 476 AD.

What is DOES mean is that your units are named properly (!) and their roles are fairly close to history, the graphics are realistic (I don't believe the Civ 3 legionary looked anything like the real legions did), and the Civilopedia entries are correct. Civ 4 does a pretty good job overall, but there are some very dubious choices. Navy SEAL for the American UU? Are you kidding me? (No disrespect to the poster above!)

 

[scy12]

Both as it is very easy to design a game that is both balanced and historically accurate. Therefor the poll fails as there should be a third option , both.

 

[flamingzaroc121]

BTW, I was the one who suggested a Roman Legionary smiley. Where can I get my cookie?

i thought it was you. How bout you get a spanking instead of a cookie

how about the poll has the option "HISTORICAL ACCURACY AND BALANCE"

i was going to do that, but then everyone would vote for that, this is about what is more important

 

[Gaius Octavius]

i thought it was you. How bout you get a spanking instead of a cookie

There'll be none of that, now!

 

[flamingzaroc121]

what if i bake so cookies and throw them at the computer screen, will that work?

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

For me, game balance is definetley the most important. I don't care if a certain civ dominated an era, the UU, UB and leader traits should all be balanced. Of course, they should give an edge in their field or era, but not to the extent that it can be hard for the opponent to overturn this advantage. For the most part, I feel Civ is pretty good at this.

Of course, that shouldn't mean that stupid historical mistakes are made. There's no reason that the Praetorian shouldn't be called Legion, and the Phalanx never made sense to me. Why not Hoplite?

 

[scy12]

If i have to make a choice , historical accuracy . The game offers enough options so that a player may rebalance * the game as he wishes by either playing against stronger leaders , higher level , different options and so on. Different adds flavour to the game and although Balance is something that is up to the player wishes , by selecting different options , historical accuracy is not.

 

[r_rolo1]

how about the poll has the option "HISTORICAL ACCURACY AND BALANCE"

(but then again, it is pretty hard to balance the two)

That wasn't the "Radioactive monkeys, duh" option? Oops....

More seriously...... Signed under

 

[ZB2]

Im with niether of those options, Gameplay is the golden cup for Civilization. Not Removing unikeness from Unikue units to make them 'balanced' and historical ackuracy to some people means you should only be able to build Praetorians for 13 turns of the game before Rome was destroyed.