Increase the Replay Value of Historical Battles

[sull51]

This could be done by setting up a rating system where one would play both sides of battle and be given a rating based on point total or formula and a title (Imperator to Soon to be Executed!) Back in 1990's a company called QQP developed a series of games (Perfect General 1,2 Lost Admiral etc) which led me play to play the scenario many times to improve my score

[76mm]

I think that being able to change the deployments in these battles would add more to replayability. It is not as if we have much detail about the deployments for most of these battles anyway.

[devoncop]

Whilst I like the idea of the OP, the suggestion that deployments could be changed means you would no longer be refighting a "historical battle" which largely negates the point of the exercise surely?

[76mm]

Whilst I like the idea of the OP, the suggestion that deployments could be changed means you would no longer be refighting a "historical battle" which largely negates the point of the exercise surely?

Two points:
1) As mentioned in my original post, I don't think that we have detailed historical deployment information for hardly any of the "historical" battles. So how is changing from one ahistorical deployment to another somehow less "historical"? Moreover, just by changing the AI level you are changing the historic situation, by adding additional enemy forces.
2) Most "historical" games provide alternate deployment set ups to increase replayability, and I don't see why ancients battles should be any different. Sure General X deployed his troops in a certain way in the battle, but that hardly means that that formation was the only way he could have deployed his troops.

[Cheimison]

Whilst I like the idea of the OP, the suggestion that deployments could be changed means you would no longer be refighting a "historical battle" which largely negates the point of the exercise surely?

Two points:
1) As mentioned in my original post, I don't think that we have detailed historical deployment information for hardly any of the "historical" battles. So how is changing from one ahistorical deployment to another somehow less "historical"? Moreover, just by changing the AI level you are changing the historic situation, by adding additional enemy forces.
2) Most "historical" games provide alternate deployment set ups to increase replayability, and I don't see why ancients battles should be any different. Sure General X deployed his troops in a certain way in the battle, but that hardly means that that formation was the only way he could have deployed his troops.

Really all that would need to be done is to create an option when you play a historical battle, "Use Historical Deployment?" Y/N

[76mm]

Really all that would need to be done is to create an option when you play a historical battle, "Use Historical Deployment?" Y/N

That's the point I'm trying to make--there is no "historical deployment"--as far as I know we have no information, or at least no reliable information, about how troops were deployed for about 99% of ancient battles.

[jamespcrowley]

Definitely in favour of anything that adds replayability to 'historical' battles.

[carll11]

Definitely in favour of anything that adds replayability to 'historical' battles.

+1

[Cheimison]

That's the point I'm trying to make--there is no "historical deployment"--as far as I know we have no information, or at least no reliable information, about how troops were deployed for about 99% of ancient battles.

Totally true. In fact, we know very, very little about how long battles lasted - especially in the era before Hellenistic kingdoms. Hoplite battles may have lasted seconds, minutes, tens of minutes - there is literally nothing in the descriptions we have that can be used as a 'clock'. In general the amount of arguments going on over the historicity of unit performance, numbers and deployment is absurd. If you read real history, and not game flavour text and History Channel shows, it's very clear that it's extremely conjectural on almost every count, from equipment, to terrain, to numbers, to who was actually commanding what, to why the battle was actually fought. And that's for the battles we HAVE actual reporting on. There must have been hundreds and thousands that we have no evidence or mention of whatsoever. People tend to be heavily biased towards existing accounts, even though it's corroboration - not a lack of contradiction - that gives weight to a historical account.
Most historicity arguments in games are based on bad epistemology and methodology. Though that's probably true of most arguments in general.