Historical vs Gameplay

[M.A.E]

Most of Mods Are Focusing on Historical Gameplay and sometimes it become that boring Campaign when you canot find that Historical Character Ascends to the Kingship,but What do You Prefer Playing in A mod its Units ? Overhaul to A timeFrame? Art?Historical Content? or simply that Admiration to A Historical Characterrs with Great Deeds and The Jeolsy to Repeat History

[Frunk]

I added a poll for you.

I think it's quite an easy choice, personally; gameplay is everything. While I admire historically accurate mods, I worry that some modders and fans are too obsessed with it, to the point that it does sacrifice gameplay, or keeps a mod in developmental limbo forever while historical aspects are debated ad nauseum. I suspect the latter is the main reason why every major M2TW Americas mod, to date, has failed.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I believe both can be integrated. But, for me, it is the distinction between historical and ahistorical. I do not play games to read a history book, naturally. The mods that tend to lose me are the ones that have 16+ characters in each individual's names for every faction, including England. I like historical aspects, but I do not want full historical accuracy - because that is both impossible and out of scope for the Total War series. Total War has always had a somewhat silly aspect of, frankly, letting you just around with history and think "well, maybe this could happen, kinda, ok not really but still fun". There's some sort of a historical point and context behind it all, but it does not strive to be truly historical, nor do I think it should. I would prefer a better focus on the traits and such of characters, allowing more of a relatable or roleplay angle, as compared to trying to stick to precise historical fact, which does not interest me as much. On the flipside, part of what fantasy total war loses for me is the 'what if' side of butchering history. It has a certain charm to it.

TLDR, basically gameplay.

[NorseThing]

All I can really add is that I do like playing as Spain and assaulting Paris to break open a new front against the Scots-Danish alliance. Not very historical, but it is fun! I also like to stick close to history when starting a campaign. I want the ahistorical to be my decision and not bound into the computer set up.

[DaCMan]

Although I play vanilla M2TW, I play RTRII for Rome and think that it's a great game, but is too massive for me. I like all of those historically accurate units, but not to the extent where they feel the need to include the 2nd Maine Regiment (first name that popped into my head) or those six different auxilia slinger units that happened to be used by Rome. Sure, Rome's Arcani or gladiators, and Medieval Two's Elephant artillery were completely ahistorical, but I think elite units with some basis on fact (like Urban Cohorts or Praetorian Cav.) are fine. Also, I understand that Denmark may have been in control of Europe with the best army in the world in the year 1269 (yet again, random thoughts) but to create a game in which Denmark is the only faction with which you have any shot at winning is over the top. I'm not advocating for complete equality and fictional armies for the sake of gameplay, but focusing on better gameplay should rank above history in your average mod.

[NostalgiaFan]

I'm of the opinion that Gameplay matters the most, but historical authenticity should not be neglected. You can focus on having good balance and fun in your game but making sure you went through the effort to give the rest of the game a sense of being a well, Historical game can really help your product a lot just on an immersion aspect. I also feel if you can do an historical era justice then it can add to the gameplay of it all because it will give you a reason to play one over the other just for the unique experience you get out of it compared to others which would add to the replay value.

[Kataphractos]

Historical accuracy goes out the window within a dozen turns or so (France never conquered Scandinavia in real life, for example), so outside of RP'ing and staying in/conquering only to a nation's historical boundaries or something, I say play the game as you want to play it, with any mods added for fun or updating unit or map textures and meshes.

[Maiar93]

I'm not a fan of exacting detail in family trees and the such, but I do mind depictions of historical people, of regions, and of historical events in mods to a certain degree. The vanilla M2TW's eurocentrism pisses me off to no end, for example. It's a lack of historical accuracy plus a lack of historical and anthropological knowledge in general. I'd say I care about gameplay and history in more or less equal measures, though.

[Iosif Stalin]

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't have to be either/or. I don't see why a game can't be both historically accurate and fun at the same time. Of course some simplification is necessary to avoid bogging it down with too many details. But I don't consider that to be cutting down on historical accuracy, just on unnecessary details that might overwhelm anyone who isn't already a history expert.

I also think not everyone has the same conception of what historical accuracy is. For instance, one person above said France never conquered Scandinavia. Well, no, but they could have. Napoleon probably could have done it, if he'd gotten around to it. The point isn't to rigidly follow what actually did happen in history, but to stick to the basic parameters of what was historically possible. Which are broader than some people would think. Lots of things COULD happen, though that doesn't mean they would or did. History is full of crazy things happening. Like Mongolian nomads coming out of nowhere to conquer almost all of Eurasia, shattering almost everyone in their path. If that hadn't happened historically, many people would think it wouldn't have been possible and would consider it outlandish if someone playing a computer game, as Mongolia, conquered most of Eurasia.

In short, I think it's completely possible to have a game that's historically accurate (albeit not overburdened with too many details for "excessive accuracy") and also fun with a wide scope for what can be achieved, although some things should be more or less difficult than others.