Historical accuracy?

CA Dave · January 2011

Im genuinely curious as to how historically accurate the content of ETW is. We already had a discussion on NTW about this, So it would be interesting to see if it was an improvement/step back from empire.

I played ETW to death ages ago, and being honest, knew little about such the era when I did, so kinda just took it as read that it was right. Now, having played NTW to death, Im completely in love with the era, and keep finding myself in water stones reading books on Napoleonic warfare :P But I want to widen my knowledge now

Anything - from the flags to the soldier's boots - accuracy of muskets - historical events, etc etc. Im really interested!

Plus if anyone knows any good historical books on the era that people know I could get into, that would be appreciated.

:cool: :cool:

Colfax · January 2011

Well dont forget its a video game. There is not a lot in the way of accuracy or else it would not be fun. However, i could not possibly list it all now, but there are some accuracies. For example, the 33rd of Foot is how English soldiers really looked, but the normal English line infantry is not accurate. When the game was released, the Prussian soldiers were wearing White. This was not totally inaccurate but Fredrick the Great had them wearing blue which they were changed to in a patch. There is a lot. In terms of books, well, just start reading!

dominator920 · January 2011

I agree keeping in mind that Empire: Total War is a video game and not an actual history book is a good way to look at it. the English and French do go into full out war, in the French and Indian war 1754-1763 far from 1705 when France and England come to first blows in the game which had later sprung into the seven years war which erupted many nations at the time into war. Only the French in real life allied with the Indians to lead a conquest into the British Colonies. The French did not suceed.
However the whole idea of Total War is to make your own history, weither it's the French and British go to war in 1705 or the United States Rebelled agains the French King in America, make your own history, put greatness in your Empires name and fear in ever other

Dominator 920

DarkSideHome · January 2011

And remember that Empire spans 100 years, arguably some of the most turbulent wars happened during this period with countries disappearing entirely while others coming into being while others getting fragmented, etc.. Therefore there is not much room in the game to allow for historical accuracy and CA tried to represent the period while taking lots of liberty. They went for authenticity over accuracy as the game's ultimate goal is to give you an authentic experience of the era, not recreating the history.

LordMars · January 2011

agree with all that has been said, I think they did a pretty good job after all its a game not a historial simulator, there are some mods that imporove it

Pikenier · January 2011

Dark Side wrote: »

And remember that Empire spans 100 years, arguably some of the most turbulent wars happened during this period with countries disappearing entirely while others coming into being while others getting fragmented, etc..

Hmm ... the only major faction disappearing was Poland in 1795 near to the end of the game. The only one getting fragmented would be the Mughals. Empire and NTW are the two TW games with the fewest political and border changes between the start and end dates of the campaigns imho.

edit: atleast in the main theatre Europe. The French lost their North American territory while the US rebelled and the British conquered Bengal and the east coast of India. This was it with drastical changes.

Banzaileader123 · January 2011

The only inaccuracy I can think of off the top of my head is the sound of the firearms.

Angus Murray · March 2011

Well historical accurate it isnt ye can always creat the great 'What if's' of history wich is the great thing about the game. But im very ****ed that they completly ignore the Jacobite risings.
Idd die to play Scotland as a nation with the Highland Clansmen.

They are locked into the game but not playable...

Napoleon 2nd · March 2011

^ either make a mod or get one from the TWC?

mesor · March 2011

Only thing i really found is the men are a bit to similar.

If you look at it historically then a unit of british line men would be far superior to any other while its militia and cavelry are weaker.
American militia were often superior to there regular troops.
French cavelry was amongst the most powerfull in that period.

The list goes on and on the rest is fine more or less it just bugs me to see the british line men which in that period were arguably the most powerfull and profesional infantry army on the face of the earth weakened to the point where american infantry who at that point were in the fledgling stages and were very low on well trained men and good equipment.

( yes im british and im also a soldier and have a diploma in british colonial history so i know a great deal about the british military of that period and im very protective of its reputation so i dislike seeing it possed this way. )

Which is why i play british a lot and refuse to ever be defeated in a fight by any army no matter wat the odds.

jbenvenut · March 2014

Historical facts that I know of: Hannover, Bavaria, Westphalia, and most German kingdoms that are portrayed in ETW did not exist until 1806 when the Holy Roman Germanic Empire was dissolved during the Napoleonic Wars. Leopold I of Austria is actually Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor.

Historical events: From what I experienced while playing the game, apparently the Austrian War of Succession happens after the Spanish War of Succession. In fact, it was the other way around. The Spanish War of Succession happened after the death of Charles II, king of Spain, in 1701. The Austrian War of Succession happened in 1740 after the death of Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor (going back with what I said before about the German States).

I think, since this was made to be a game, CA took some liberty to incorporate certain events to make the game more challenging. If you play as France, it would make it easier to invade Spain in 1701 than to invade Austria being that it is out of arms' lenght and you would have to invade all the Germanic States in between. But what happened in real life was that, after the Spanish War of Succession, Spain became a realm of the Bourbon dynasty. Ironically, Spain is a "natural ally" of France in the game since the game since the beginning when in fact, France and Spain were mortal enemies. Hapsburgs and the French (from the Valois to the Bourbons) did not like each other at all. I guess that CA did it to make up for such huge historical inaccuracies.

Other things are just minor. For example, historical successsion in France and Spain. Louis XIV dies before Charles II of Spain in the game but in reality it was the other way around. Also, France was ruled by Louis XV after 1723 with Phillipe II, Duke of Orléans, being the king regent instead of the queens that I had to play with during that time period as leaders of the faction. But these things are minor (although I would have preferred a more accurate historical based succession)

I do not know if this satisfies your thirst of knowledge about historical facts but I thought they should have been pointed out.

Un cordial saludo

Che · March 2014

Pikenier wrote: »

Hmm ... the only major faction disappearing was Poland in 1795 near to the end of the game. The only one getting fragmented would be the Mughals. Empire and NTW are the two TW games with the fewest political and border changes between the start and end dates of the campaigns imho.

edit: atleast in the main theatre Europe. The French lost their North American territory while the US rebelled and the British conquered Bengal and the east coast of India. This was it with drastical changes.

And Haiti?

jbenvenut wrote: »

Historical facts that I know of: Hannover, Bavaria, Westphalia, and most German kingdoms that are portrayed in ETW did not exist until 1806 when the Holy Roman Germanic Empire was dissolved during the Napoleonic Wars. Leopold I of Austria is actually Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor.

Historical events: From what I experienced while playing the game, apparently the Austrian War of Succession happens after the Spanish War of Succession. In fact, it was the other way around. The Spanish War of Succession happened after the death of Charles II, king of Spain, in 1701. The Austrian War of Succession happened in 1740 after the death of Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor (going back with what I said before about the German States).

I think, since this was made to be a game, CA took some liberty to incorporate certain events to make the game more challenging. If you play as France, it would make it easier to invade Spain in 1701 than to invade Austria being that it is out of arms' lenght and you would have to invade all the Germanic States in between. But what happened in real life was that, after the Spanish War of Succession, Spain became a realm of the Bourbon dynasty. Ironically, Spain is a "natural ally" of France in the game since the game since the beginning when in fact, France and Spain were mortal enemies. Hapsburgs and the French (from the Valois to the Bourbons) did not like each other at all. I guess that CA did it to make up for such huge historical inaccuracies.

Other things are just minor. For example, historical successsion in France and Spain. Louis XIV dies before Charles II of Spain in the game but in reality it was the other way around. Also, France was ruled by Louis XV after 1723 with Phillipe II, Duke of Orléans, being the king regent instead of the queens that I had to play with during that time period as leaders of the faction. But these things are minor (although I would have preferred a more accurate historical based succession)

I do not know if this satisfies your thirst of knowledge about historical facts but I thought they should have been pointed out.

Un cordial saludo

My experience of the game is that deaths of monarchs happen randomly - the year it happens differs in different games - e.g. in one game, the initial king of France died within the first 3 years, and in another game, he lived 5-10 years longer, or something like that.

Also, the gender of heirs born to royal families varies - e.g. I've noticed sometimes the French royals have a daughter, Sophie, and other times they have a son, Louis.

ImperialScout · April 2014

CA Dave wrote: »

Im genuinely curious as to how historically accurate the content of ETW is. We already had a discussion on NTW about this, So it would be interesting to see if it was an improvement/step back from empire.

I played ETW to death ages ago, and being honest, knew little about such the era when I did, so kinda just took it as read that it was right. Now, having played NTW to death, Im completely in love with the era, and keep finding myself in water stones reading books on Napoleonic warfare :P But I want to widen my knowledge now

Anything - from the flags to the soldier's boots - accuracy of muskets - historical events, etc etc. Im really interested!

Plus if anyone knows any good historical books on the era that people know I could get into, that would be appreciated.

:cool: :cool:

Detroit wasn't founded until 1701. There were three missions and a trading outpost/fort established in Michigan in the 1600'sand the region was administered through Canada. Ships as large as Brigs sailed on the great lakes towards the end of the 18th century.

MountainMan · April 2014

Accuracy and realism are not always the same. It would be accurate for Louis XIV to die in 1715 for example. Knowing this will happen isn't realistic at all. Not having Haiti in the game is an outright mistake. But overall the game plays like it should.

ThunderboltDragon · April 2014

The problem with too much historical realism and historical accuracy would be that
every campaign would be the same.The regents would be the same, they would be born and
die at the same year in every campaign.It would be quite boring in the long term if each campaign
would be too similar to the each other.

rexdale.goonz · April 2014

mesor wrote: »

reputation

So you refuse to right the Sikhs? :P

You are correct though, in the name of 'balance' they have made everything generic.

As to later posters, I don't think the OP means historically accurate in terms of events but in terms of weapons, logistics, and tactics.

I would say it's 50-50 as our British friend here has stated.

An example is the Sikh Infantry having lower melee ratings than any of the europeans; despite them having better steel at the time, and living by the sword for generations.

We can look to mods, but even then I don't know how much modders know this stuff and change it. Artillery also seems to be a bit under-powered..

English only in these Forums.

captaincapafew · April 2014

mesor wrote: »

Only thing i really found is the men are a bit to similar.

If you look at it historically then a unit of british line men would be far superior to any other while its militia and cavelry are weaker.
American militia were often superior to there regular troops.
French cavelry was amongst the most powerfull in that period.

The list goes on and on the rest is fine more or less it just bugs me to see the british line men which in that period were arguably the most powerfull and profesional infantry army on the face of the earth weakened to the point where american infantry who at that point were in the fledgling stages and were very low on well trained men and good equipment.

( yes im british and im also a soldier and have a diploma in british colonial history so i know a great deal about the british military of that period and im very protective of its reputation so i dislike seeing it possed this way. )

Which is why i play british a lot and refuse to ever be defeated in a fight by any army no matter wat the odds.

I am an American and I completely agree with you on that. The British soldiers were outstanding line soldiers. I think that is why CA went with the special units like the 33rd foot but limited them in terms of the amount that can be created. They most likely wanted to keep the nations equal by having really similar generic line infantry/cavalry/light infantry. What I like that they did with the generic infantry is they had different types of infantry depending on weather it was a colony or not. Because a british colonial soldier should be weaker than the soldiers from the more well supplied and trained mainland. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

Edit: Forgot to check the dates on that one woops. sorry.

ImperialScout · April 2014

I almost forgot, historically both grenades and to a lesser extent pikes were no longer used by 1700. The Swedish army and the Russian army still utilized Pikes effectively until about 1721 but even then it was extremely rare. Grenades on the other hand were virtually never used in land battles by this period. Their effectiveness ended with the demise of the Spanish Tercio. They were still occasionally employed on ships but never on open battlefields.

Rockets are another issue entirely. During this period only Indians (from India) utilized them in land battles. It wasn't until the Napoleonic wars that the British developed a land based Rocket Battery, well actually it was only half of a battery. I haven't been able to get an exact figure but it is safe to say less then 100 men at any given time before 1815 were actually deployed on a battlefield with rockets. Considering over 650,000 men took part in the battle of nations this half strength battery of rockets is both a century out of place and entirely over represented.

One last thing. I personally do not think British line infantry (aka Scottish/Irish under the command of a British officer that bought their command) were all that more skilled then their mainland counterparts. I know I know, I just angered about 50% of the members of this forum not to mention almost every single employee of CA. Oh well deal with it because for every example you can give of a British lines success I can give two Prussian and two French examples. I also am fairly certain the Polish cavalry was superior to French (why else would the rest of Europe copy them and or hire them?), Dutch militias were superior to American (near constant fighting with the Spanish gave them better organization and discipline), and British Ocean going Ships were superior to every one else's (Venice still had the largest and most powerful inland sea fleet and the Venetian Arsenal saw to that). Of course this is just my opinion which is about all any of us have on here.

Mils · June 2015

Hello Dave, I'm glad that you're asking this question because I wanted to talk about it to a CA member. Did you work on Empire ? Any chance that I can make suggestions to designers ?

Inaccuracy about nations and events isn't the most bothering since the Total War series always have been of the "sandbox" style, where it is the player who decides History.

What is most bothering is inaccuracy about weapon technologies. Total War is about war, so you could expect at least some accuracy in the portraying of weapons. Yet, Empire is full of those inconsistencies :

-The game starts in 1700 with an extremely poor variety of cavalry units. In real life, Cuirassiers and Dragoons have had been around since the 16th century. Most European countries didn't abandon armor for their heavy cavalry well until the 19th century. And they had pistols.

-About the same thing for ships : Not until late in the campaign can you build 1st rate warships, whereas in real life those had been around since the 1670. France and Sweden already had very heavy warships like the Soleil Royal.

-No Grape Shot and No Explosive Shells until you research the technology for it. In real life, those projectiles are as old as artillery itself. Carcass shot was first used by the French in 1672.

-No fire by ranks until you research the technology for it. In real life, Fire by rank was used since at least the 17th century. Even the Japanese used it at the battle of Nagashino, where front men would crouch or prone to let the rear men fire.

-Bayonets... Do you think people didn't know what a bayonet is in the 1700s ?

These inconsistencies are not only inaccurate from an historical aspect, they also cripple the gameplay because the player has to spend many hours in the Campaign before getting interesting battles. I don't know why Total War games always start with such poor choice of units, but it is what I hate the most about the series.

Also, I think Empire does not well represent how good the Prussian army was.

plz fix it

P.S : the site unlogged me so I had to spent another hour typing this post, thank you Total War Forums !

Corpius · June 2015

Thread is more than 4 years old itself, and the last post was over a year ago. Please do not dig up ancient threads.

Closed.

Welcome

Quick Links

Categories

Historical accuracy?

Comments