which is the most realistic pc game about

MTW II isn't out yet, according to gamespot, its slated for release in november.  It seems somewhat presumptuous to call it the most realistic game already.  I personally would say that a computer game has very little cause to be historically accurate.  Often, the need to create a challenge trumps realism (how many times playing the first MTW have provinces with perfect loyalty ratings rebelled just as you started a different war?). 

Also, in the end, you always know way, way more than any hostorical figure would.   A truly realistic computer game would have you lay plans, and have the computer execute them, dealing with chalenges as they came up, just like a historical general.  Wouldn't that be fun?  We want to be in control of everything, which is entirely unrealistic. 

Historical realism doesn't sell and isn't that entertaining to play.  A well balanced and designed computer game does and is. 

The TW series is so terrible in accuracy. If you call MTW or M2TW accurate then you should revise your meaning of accuracy. As bagelofdoom stated, there are no accurate games of history, but I think the one that has the most accuracy is the SH series. They have made it very simple; they have pictured the way of peasants as they did indeed work (take the garbage in SH2 for example. don't clean it and die) so. Also, pretty impressive is NotRE (Celtic Kings: Punic Wars or Nemesis of the Roman Empire) at the campaigns.

With no doubt Stronghold Crusader

Originally posted by rider The TW series is so terrible in accuracy. If you call MTW or M2TW accurate then you should revise your meaning of accuracy. As bagelofdoom stated, there are no accurate games of history, but I think the one that has the most accuracy is the SH series. They have made it very simple; they have pictured the way of peasants as they did indeed work (take the garbage in SH2 for example. don't clean it and die) so. Also, pretty impressive is NotRE (Celtic Kings: Punic Wars or Nemesis of the Roman Empire) at the campaigns.   But TW series are all (can't talk about Shogun) unaccurate in their basic and simple points. Romans using archers, pheww.

Let's not forget the faction colors in RTW. They are the dumbest thing I have every seen implemented in a video game. There were never green legionarries, or pink horse archers. The faction colors are just plain stupid, as you can recognize your units by their banners. Also, I would have to say another horribly unrealistic game is Age of Empires II. I mean, swordsmen destorying stone walls? Archers shooting over a stone wall to hit an enemy?  Let us not forget archers that are able to carry thousands of arrows, and skirmishers that carry hundreds of spears.

Is Age Of Kings a good game?

ok, thanks.

I, too, endorse the Paradox games, particularly Europa Universalis II.  It is by far the best historical game I have seen.  There are mods made by various users that increase the historical accuracy, in particular the AGCEEP mod.  I have learned a ton of history by playing some of the little countries in that game.

I will also point out that Knights of Honor never reached its full potential, as the developer stopped patching it while it still had significant flaws.  There are some user mods to help it, but there are problems nonetheless.  It is an enjoyable game to play, though.


Edited by DSMyers1 - 01-Sep-2006 at 16:25

Even though AOE II and AOE II Conquerors were not that historically accurate, they had frigging excellant gameplay. Can't hold a candle to TW series graphics wise, but do they ever kick arse in gameplay.

medieval total war 2 would be super cool and accurate i guess.mtw 1 made me feel the mediecal ages very well.his successor will be great!!!

you cant say Hearts of Iron was inaccurate it is legendary...