03-04-2013, 02:01 AM
As I said in my first post, such programs can be used as useful tools to raise interest. What I find hilarious is the author's effort to actually claim that the mechanics of the said game are faithful to the actual mechanics of battle... He goes as far as justifying certain flaws he saw with the argument that the game was designed for Roman armies and not for Greek ones!! Now, discussing what is (the very few things that are) and what is not (the vast majority of factors) realistic in RTW battles would be a very long engagement and I guess that most of us have at one time or another been confronted with the occasional friend who thinks he understands how battles were fought because he is great at TW and I find them as funny as those who think they could win WWII by themselves because they rock at Medal of Honor... But teaching that this actually is close to the mechanics of the battles in question as the author professes? More realistic than Age of Empires? Sure... Realistic? Nope.
Statements of the author :
"That said, RTW’s combat model is reasonably faithful to conventional ideas about ancient warfare—enough to warrant using the game as an interpretation of the past."
"Roman options, for example, include all the various types of infantry available in the Republic as well as early and later imperial legionaries. Weapons are also portrayed essentially accurately. The Greek phalanxes fight with spears while the Roman hastati have both pila (javelins) and gladii (short swords). Additionally, formations are faithful to what historians assume was true of the past. Troops that historically fought in close order, such as hoplites and Roman legionaries, do so in the game. Loose order troops from history also maintain their spacing in the game. Finally, although maneuvering troops in the game is assuredly far easier than it was in real life, troops commanded by mouse clicks are not always quick to react and take time and space to change formations. In these respects, RTW is faithful to historians’ understandings of ancient warfare."
This is where I disagree and the reasons why I came to doubt whether the author really knows anything about combat mechanics. Using models, like boardgames too, to initiate students into history and relevant issues is in itself a very interesting issue that, if well prepared, can prove very valuable to the teaching process. There, I totally agree with him.
Statements of the author :
"That said, RTW’s combat model is reasonably faithful to conventional ideas about ancient warfare—enough to warrant using the game as an interpretation of the past."
"Roman options, for example, include all the various types of infantry available in the Republic as well as early and later imperial legionaries. Weapons are also portrayed essentially accurately. The Greek phalanxes fight with spears while the Roman hastati have both pila (javelins) and gladii (short swords). Additionally, formations are faithful to what historians assume was true of the past. Troops that historically fought in close order, such as hoplites and Roman legionaries, do so in the game. Loose order troops from history also maintain their spacing in the game. Finally, although maneuvering troops in the game is assuredly far easier than it was in real life, troops commanded by mouse clicks are not always quick to react and take time and space to change formations. In these respects, RTW is faithful to historians’ understandings of ancient warfare."
This is where I disagree and the reasons why I came to doubt whether the author really knows anything about combat mechanics. Using models, like boardgames too, to initiate students into history and relevant issues is in itself a very interesting issue that, if well prepared, can prove very valuable to the teaching process. There, I totally agree with him.
