4 ms·
From my very, very brief reading on the subject, I would look up discussions of the historical accuracy of the battles (particularly the more ancient ones). It
by jml7c5 7y ago
From my very, very brief reading on the subject, I would look up discussions of the historical accuracy of the battles (particularly the more ancient ones). It seems that in real life, battles would typically take _much_ longer (an entire day), with breaks, small skirmishes, etc. The idea that each unit could be directed in coordinated, rapid, precise, and decisive movement with one unit throwing itself wholesale into the other and either obiterating or being obliterated does not really reflect reality.
I hate to give such an uninformed perspective on here (where expertise is valued so highly), and I hope people will correct me if I am wrong. But skepticism, assuming it's not blind and unchangeable but to ensure accuracy, is usually a good thing.
Still some fantastic games, though. Wonderful, very satisfying and engaging tactical strategy.
- z3phyr 7y agoMost of the time in ancient battles was spent in reforming the lines while the combatants watched each other from a distance. In between there were a few skirmishes, a lot of swearing and battle cries and all waiting for an opportune moment or looking for a weakness in formation. Committing to engagements, like we see in the movies and games would have risk in the breaking of the lines and an eventual route.