Masters of Orion

Actually sword types do play a very huge role in combat. The roman legions preferred the gladius (a type of short sword) due to the combat formations and shields that they used. Because the formations were so tight, there wasn''t a lot of room to swing. Conversely, the Picts and Gauls preferred fighting with much longer bigger swords (the forebears of claymores) because of their fighting style which was like a skirmish combat. During the crusades, the european knights used swords more as bludgeoning instruments which happened to be able to cut, but since the Saracens didn''t use metallic armor, their swords were much sharper (to many sword buffs, damascene blades are second only to Japanese blades in terms of metallurgy and craftsmanship...and equalled only by Indonesian blades such as the Kris). People tend to have a romantic notion that Japanese blades and style of fighting were the best form of swordsmanship on the planet, but the truth is that the katana was designed to be used as a cavalry blade, much like sabres in the west. On the ground, the katana was still a capable weapon, but there were numerous reports during WWII of Japanese dying at the hands of skilled filipinos using escrima or Kali. The Katana was designed as a cavalry blade, not a foot soldier''s blade.

As for the various armor levels this may be a good idea, depending on the time frame. This can also allow for the possibility of catching troops with their pants down...literally....as was the case with the English troops surprising the Vikings at the battle of Stamford Bridge. The Vikings were caught off guard, and many did not have time to put on their chain mail or grab their shields.

I think for melee style RTS games, one of the most important aspects is how units are organized, rather than individual skill. One on one, a German barbarian would probably crush a roman legionnaire, but the thing is, it was almost never one on one. When Europe faced the mongols, they simply didn''t know how to deal with a cavalry force that could shoot from horseback. The trick then is having different "countries" with different organizational styles. Some countries preferred fighting in certain formations, while others used different organizational structures and formations.

I think this is a highly overlooked aspect of wargames, at least on computers. In miniatures or tabletop games, this is virtually a prereq for any game trying to be authentic.

quote: Original post by Dauntless I think this is a highly overlooked aspect of wargames, at least on computers. In miniatures or tabletop games, this is virtually a prereq for any game trying to be authentic.

WEll, that''s the ultimate problem, isnt''t it. Do you want your game to be authentic, or fun/easy to learn.
Guys like you or me are happy to learn the historical influence of nitty gritty details : Shaka Zulu and his new blade for close combat fighting, the volley fire and English discipline at Rork''s Drift, the pike and its use by the Swiss mercenaries to repel the cavalry that so far was dominating Europe''s battlefields, the reloading system developed by the Prussians that won them the war in 1870 (well, I am a bit fuzzy on that one), the evolution of uniforms in WWI (see the French in Red/Blue at the beginning, that quickly was changed to the "horizon blue")...
The problem is that most people dont really like all that stuff.
I mean, come on, I can spend my day reading this kind of stuff on the Net, and I always wanted to play wargames (I am talking tabletop with lots of hexagons and no pictures anywhere), but the fact is that most implementations on the PC were trying to be an hybrid... the real stuff with pictures but no historical background (at least none that I would want to read on a screen).

How would you make all the historical stuff interesting ?

Personally I think you should just restrict the scope of the game. Make the timeline extremely small so that you can focus on little details ?
Or go the other way, and do it "Age of ..." style. No respect for anything historical, but good game gameplay-wise.
One of the historical ones that I actually enjoyed had to be Gettysburg (dont remember the author, but I am sure you''d know the one I am on about).
Focus the attention on just ONE battle, but with ALL the little details that made the victory possible for one side or the other.
That''s one of the joy of wargaming IMHO : "what if"

Of course, if your target audience still think that Austria is that big place with Kangaroos, and Blitzkrieg is a new energy drink...


Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

Hey someone should make a game that simulates some people standing around playing a table top game! Then when your opponents aren''t looking you can reach over and steal there little dudes!

Seriously ahw make many excellent points.

Computer wargames are more appealing to me than tabletop games for many reasons: If you try to implement a fog of war on a tabletop then you have to have a referee of some sort, Complex rules systems usually degenerate to "well, we''ll just say my forces get a resupply of ammo and fuel at this point...", and the age old delimna of finding like minded individuals to play with. (also i''m not a big time hobbyist/modeler/miniature painter like alot of tabletoppers are)

Computer wargames let the game be as complex or simple as the developer wants.