They'd just be the game's version of rebels, and never leave you alone until you give them back Israel.
Upcoming games you nitpicky ****bags look forward to ***** about in the future.
- Thread starter Delora Filth
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Splintert said:
If you want to minmax and beat the ai every single time then it's always the same. If you want to try different stuff and use unusual units like elephants or cataphracts or high-charge hoplites or peltasts or anything from the panoply of hybrids and experiments from antiquine warfare, it's fundamentally different every time.
You couldn't feasibly add any semblance of variety to a game set in west eurasia before the peloponnesian war. Even a people as interesting as the Assyrians still relied on chariots/archers/spearmen with no subdistinctions as far as we can tell, which is even worse than Rise of the Samurai levels of blandness. It gets suggested all the time though because people on TWC are idiots who think World War I total war wouod be a good idea.
And could you imagine the multiplayer for a babylon total war? It would be even worse than attila.
I don't think Jews existed back then...
Niggas be gettin' babylon and neo-babylon confused.
I thought the Great War mod for Nappy was awesome.jacobhinds said:
Yeah, but that's because it plays like Fall of the Samurai with looser formations.
I played the first release and it was horrible. Has it got better?
The version I played was really fun. No idea which mk. number it was though.
When I played there were literally no possible tactics besides have your guys stand in a line and shoot at each other.
jacobhinds said:
I'm entirely unqualified to be arguing bronze age warfare so I won't dig into that side of things, but honestly Total War has always been the same unit archetypes duking it out with a different theme. You always have spears, swords, cavalry, archers, siege, and special units. I don't see how it would be any different than any other Total War game.
I could actually do pretty feasible trench and arty warfare. And eventually you got assault infantry with shotguns and SMG's plus tanks and halftracks that made mobile warfare a real possibility.Docm30 said:
There was none of that. It was custom battles with riflemen only.
Docm30 said:
A lot apparently. My Napoopan install doesn't like mods but people have done proper playthroughs with it. Expect weird workarounds like ships of the line with iron textures, and vanilla "trenches". I played the first release as well, for comparison.
Splintert said:
But that's the thing, you wouldn't have cavalry per se, or swords for most factions. Nobody had armies organised enough for separate unit types per weapon to be jutified. In fact besides the big mesopotamian superpowers like babylon and assyria, most factions would have exactly two units: spear militia and slingers/archers/javelinmen. Basically Empire Earth III.
Now of course they could go the route of attila with viking heavy lancers and other bollocks, and throw historicity to the wind. But in that case why even pick the period where the militaries of even the most powerful states were borderline homogenous throughout?
H.B. (Horace)
Recruit
jacobhinds said:
Okay, to start off I would like to point out that I will be analyzing your posts for their validity as you seem to be under the impression that what you are saying is entirely correct. The truth of the matter is that it is mostly false. To introduce myself, I am Ian Horace Brodie MacIntyre of of the University of Wisconsin. I am currently attending law school at UW-Madison, however maintain a baccalaureate in history with a regional emphasis on Ancient History from UW-La Crosse and I am just finishing my masters' thesis to obtain a masters degree in the field. My particular area of interest is the Bronze Age Mediterranean, as well as dabbling in Northern European Bronze Age material, however my thesis attributes my self as a Bronze Age Historian. With introductions out of the way I would hope that I am qualified in your eyes to speak on the matter.
Addressing the first error in your train of thought that "Warfare during that period was highly boring." Well, I suppose boring is a subjective term so I cannot truly make a case that will force you to like something you do not, but I am laboring under the assumption that you believe Bronze Age warfare was something less than say, Classical or Hellenic warfare. I would like to inquire about your reasoning behind labeling this kind of fighting as "boring", but I can assure you that sources from the era display a very volatile environment. Indeed the archaeological finds have been very numerous in discovering weaponry that falls out of use after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, but more on that later. The simple truth is that Bronze Age warfare, including that of Mesopotamia and the Levant, is a type that is very diverse and required a variation of tactics depending on the season. You seem to be operating on the Hollywood notion that it was droves of spear wielding peasants charging in masses at each other. In fact, there is little evidence to support this claim. I would direct you to the work of Mark W. Chavalas in his editorial work of "The Ancient Near East", published in 2006. Specifically the Amarna Letters translated by Eva van Dassow. These letter are direct correspondences between Rib-Hadda, a satrap under Egyptian rule in modern Palestine, who describes the incursions of sea-faring warriors who have rapidly captured the majority of the coastal cities. Additionally, you may turn your attention to the works of Homer in "The Iliad" which, although embellished as poetry, give insight into the war methods of the 13th and 12th centuries. None of these methods appear "boring" as you put it, in fact many are the basis upon which we establish our knowledge of the era to this day. Another text, "Ancient Iraq" by Georges Roux (published in 1966) describes many events in which unorthodox military maneuvers were utilized in order to achieve victory, a primary contributor of these methods being the Assyrians during the 12th century. You also seem to make chariot warfare as fleeting with your "dusting of chariots and archers" comment. To belittle chariots displays your complete misunderstanding of the military and political significance of chariots in the age. Consider that chariots were not only divine symbols, but also the most prolific examples of power on the battlefield. In fact, the exploits of Heinrich Schliemann and Carlson displays that chariots made up an entire age of combat, not so much a "dusting" eh?
jacobhinds said:
This quote is entirely without basis. There are endless examples of cavalry being utilized in the Kassite and Akkadian periods. I refer you to the works of Jean Glassner (the book "Mesopotamian Chronicles" who displays ample evidence of advanced columns of armored units as well as heavy cavalry utilized in battles throughout Mesopotamia. Many of these conflicts were between the city states of Karduniash (what you refer to as Babylon, although this is incorrect as Babylon is a later attribution) and other states such as Assur, Elam, and the Guti tribes. And what evidence do you have to support your assertion of a lack of cavalry, or swords for that matter? There are plenty of archaeological finds that would disprove your statement with a simple search of Bronze Age weaponry in google. Although as I am new to this forum I will provide a scholarly alternative. The compilation piece by John V.A. Fine entitled "The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History" describes hundreds upon thousands of digs which unearth weapons of the era which conclusively show a technological advancement that is on par with later areas, and even medieval equivalents. One of the central points Fine makes about this era is also in direct contrast with your statement that "Nobody had armies organised enough for separate unit types per weapon to be jutified." You are laboring under the assumption that old = uncivilized. This is a fallacy that many that are untrained in history experience. In Herodotus "The Histories" there are more than ample examples of armies being extraordinarily organized with defined units and groups of soldiers that answer to different sub-commanders than the general or even captains for that matter. Armies of the Hittite Empire, one of the largest Bronze Age empires in Anatolia, maintained massive armies which all were painstakingly disciplined and organized. Records from Boghazkoy (the ancient Hittite capital) display specific nomenclatures for armies and units which were drafted en masse from regionally controlled locales (IE levy soldiers). Addressing your "unit types" argument, you contradict yourself when you state "exactly two units" and then proceed to list four. Consider that empires, including the Kassite/Babylonian and Assyrian empires, held many territories outside of their major civic centers. It was from these possessions which they drew upon for their armies. This lead to large, diverse armies with different soldiers bearing a wide variety of equipment and training (See Georges Roux in "Ancient Iraq"). While I agree that the Total War Franchise most definitely embroiders history and is often historically incorrect, in fact more often than not, but I would hardly say that you have been taking historicity into account either. You are making blanket statements that are broad and, frankly, incorrect.
jacobhinds said:
Please explain why it wouldn't be feasible? You realize that the Peloponnesian War was in the mid to late 5th century, which negates quite a large developmental period of history for the Mediterranean civilizations. And for someone who clearly is interested in history, although needs to brush up on what is currently known among historians, it seems that you would be opposed to overstepping such a large and important transitional era. Although it seems that you may understand that the Bronze Age was particularly politically volatile and interesting. And I tend to agree, it was most definitely a period in which political entities and dynasties rose and fell, causing massive amounts of turmoil. It goes without saying, then, that a precedent for a game that revolves around conflict be relevant to this era, no? Quickly addressing your sentence "Even a people as interesting as the Assyrians still relied on chariots/archers/spearmen with no subdistinctions as far as we can tell", I have already pointed out in earlier paragraphs how this statement is demonstrably false, however I would like to point out that you should not use the term "as far as we can tell" as this implies that you are operating on the general modus operandi of the entire body of historical knowledge. While I would not like to get in a debate about historical qualifications, you should not assume that your interpretation of evidence is also the general consensus among professionals. With this being said, I hope you take into consideration the generalities and fallacies you made on the topic and know that my intentions were purely academic and not nefarious or devious.
Thank you for your time,
Ian MacIntyre
Masters of History
Law Student at Madison Law
60k in debt
Wow, get rekt, jacob.
Similar threads
