Realistic medieval game?

[Squallion]

What if I want the medieval version of combat mission? As realistic as possible. Closest to reality as I can get. Is there any such thing?

I have every total war game. I think they are a little actiony

Edit: Not necessarily medieval, but melee. Or perhaps even Napoleonic. Please don't suggest Histwar. I feel like that game's interface and controls are absurdly difficult.

[kuri]

There is actually a major interface overhaul in the works for Histwar: Napoleon, however the devs ran into difficulties and haven't really heard peep from them in a while.

[Squallion]

There is actually a major interface overhaul in the works for Histwar: Napoleon, however the devs ran into difficulties and haven't really heard peep from them in a while.

With a friendly interface and WSAD camera movement, I could love that game. Sincerely. I guess if there's nothing on a simulator level pertaining to melee combat, I'm going to have to total war. >.<

I feel the need for phalanx, sword, armor. Things of that nature!

[lurrp]

It's not precisely what you asked for, but I HIGHLY recommend the (board) wargame "Blood and Roses" by GMT. It covers the Wars of the Roses and is both quite playable and immersive. One of my new favorite games. It gives a real period feel, with armies of heavily armored dismounted knights supported by the ubiquitous longbow and surprising numbers of firearms. It's also quite simple to play solitaire, I do it all the time. As for computer games, maybe Great Battles Medieval? I found it a decent game, but nothing special. Could be worth a shot.

[womble]

Mount and Blade is melee/bow. It's a first person perspective RPG but there are lots of others fighting around you, with every blow and arrow tracked.

There's the Warhammer computer game; not sure if that's available anywhere any more. It doesn't do the simulation thing very straitly though; it's a "roll a bucket of D6" ruleset.

There are some total realism mods for TW; they might float your boat.

[Oddball_E8]

I've played a couple of the realism mods for Medieval Total War and they are pretty good.

Mount and blade is nice too, but as womble said, it's not a strategy game exactly.

[Blazing 88's]

What if I want the medieval version of combat mission? As realistic as possible. Closest to reality as I can get. Is there any such thing?

I have every total war game. I think they are a little actiony

Edit: Not necessarily medieval, but melee. Or perhaps even Napoleonic. Please don't suggest Histwar. I feel like that game's interface and controls are absurdly difficult.

Not quite like combat mission, however one fun lopping of heads and limbs off game:

http://www.tornbanner.com/chivalry/

(Multiplayer, can us single player only for training before going online)

It's not precisely what you asked for, but I HIGHLY recommend the (board) wargame "Blood and Roses" by GMT. It covers the Wars of the Roses and is both quite playable and immersive. One of my new favorite games. It gives a real period feel, with armies of heavily armored dismounted knights supported by the ubiquitous longbow and surprising numbers of firearms. It's also quite simple to play solitaire, I do it all the time. As for computer games, maybe Great Battles Medieval? I found it a decent game, but nothing special. Could be worth a shot.

Have you checked out War of the Roses the game?

http://www.waroftherosesthegame.com/

Or War of the Vikings:

http://www.warofthevikings.com/

[agusto]

What if I want the medieval version of combat mission? As realistic as possible. Closest to reality as I can get. Is there any such thing?

I have every total war game. I think they are a little actiony

Did you try out the Divide et Impera mod for RTW2? It makes the game quite more realistic when compared to vanilla. Battles in DeI are slower paced, more tactically challenging and unit sizes & looks are also more historical etc.

[MikeyD]

A short while ago I was reading an authoritative history of medieval warfare. If a game did the genre *accurately* people would probably be disappointed. Nobody should believe the inflated numbers about vast hordes waging battle. You simply couldn't transport, feed or communicate with 'hordes' back then. Medieval war was all about 'personal valor', the closest you came to trained foot infantry were the valets supporting the individual knights. The height of generalship was simply getting the knights on the same field facing eachother, rather like herding cats. Beyond that it had all the tactical finesse of a paintball tournament.

[sburke]

I think you are underestimating paintball.

I have a fairly extensive medieval library and warfare was an extremely chancy prospect at best.

[altipueri]

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be an unseemly brawl.

[JasonC]

Cry Havoc (individual man counters, melee).

(Simplified) Great Battles of History (full armies in full battles).

Oh, it is possible you meant computer games only...

[JasonC]

MikeyD - medieval infantry is vastly underrated, unjustly so. From Charles Martel to Swiss pikemen to English longbowmen, they very frequently gave better than they got...

[agusto]

Intresting discussion. I have never been into ancient/medevial warfare too much, but judging from some of the Wikipedia articles on ancient battles, warfare between lets say the times of Alexander the Great and the conquest of Rome in 410 AD seems to have been highly coordinated. Was the art of war lost during the middle ages or am i under a wrong impression of what warfare was like in antiquety?

[Squallion]

Not quite like combat mission, however one fun lopping of heads and limbs off game:

http://www.tornbanner.com/chivalry/

(Multiplayer, can us single player only for training before going online)

Have you checked out War of the Roses the game?

http://www.waroftherosesthegame.com/

Or War of the Vikings:

http://www.warofthevikings.com/

I'm sorry. I meant strategy games. I already have those first person combat games. I do enjoy them on occasion.

[Offshoot]

1C, the people behind 'Theater of War' as sold on BF's site, made some medieval combat games. Titles include 'Real Warfare 2: Northern Crusades' and 'Real warfare 1242'. They have a more Eastern European slant and the very few reviews I found were generally positive, but I haven't played them myself.

[Squallion]

Did you try out the Divide et Impera mod for RTW2? It makes the game quite more realistic when compared to vanilla. Battles in DeI are slower paced, more tactically challenging and unit sizes & looks are also more historical etc.

I have. I have 350 hours or so into trying to like Rome 2. Something feels wrong. I can't stick with it well. Usually quit immediately after the AI attempts to besiege me and either runs in circles or sits outside of the walls.

Time to rev it up and try again? I think Rome Total Realism 2 is also in the works, if not released.

[John Kettler]

Squallion,

What a bizarre thread to find in the CMRT Forum, though I suppose that, having invoked CM, you could take quite a stretch and argue that knights are tanks and you think CM Lance/Longsword/Glaive, Mace, etc. should allow for clashes between the Teutonic Knights and the joint forces of the Poles and Lithuanians.

The ensuing discussions are quite fascinating, but, heretical as the notion may seem, I do believe this is prime fodder for the General Discussion Forum. Frankly, it needs some life injected into it!

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

If you want a very dense read on the topic of medieval warfare you should hunt down volume III of Hans Delbruck's monumental series 'History of the Art of War', the volume named, appropriatey enough, "Medieval Warfare". 700 pages including the index. Starts with Charlemagne and continues through the Swiss confederation.

Basically yes, all Greek and Roman military history was completely forgotten, or the ancient texts translated into impossible fantasy formations that nobody ever tried to enact on the field.

Bringing the topic back to CM, I can't imagine this game engine ever evolving in such a way to bring you warfare like that. You'd have to throw all military technique learned over the past 300 years out the window

Oh, I almost forgot, this is was the fate of Hans Delbruck, according to the film "Young Frankenstein".

[JasonC]

Agusto - the art of war was not lost, but technique evolved, and old ones lost to new in part because the changing mobilization systems (political rather than military technique) could not produce forces that could perform like older ones, and could produce new formation types that readily defeated the available old style ones.

Specifically, late ancient world infantry was not drilled to the high classical standard. Cavalry had been very limited in numbers, armament, and technique in the high classical age (a Roman legion had 300 horse to 4400 infantry e.g., and it shock ability was very limited). The immediately following technology relied on mailed horsemen with heavy weapons as the arm of decision, exploiting the vulnerability of infantry masses once their flanks were turned. The side that won the early shock of cavalries on the wings therefore won the whole battle.

That then set off a purely cavalry race, in which cavalry changed its form to fight other cavalry, finding two distinct optima - either pure shock on the heaviest horses and in the heaviest armor, or a nearly pure reliance on horse archery.

Late medieval infantry became effective again when it specifically armed for anti cavalry roles and drilled for it, as pikemen or longbowmen. Both were effective vs shock cavalry, but limited in effectiveness vs missile cavalry. The latter ruled Asia into the time of firearms as a result. In Europe, it was trumped operationally by systems of fortification rather than tactically in field battle - it could ravage countrysides, but not take cities and had to move on to stay supplied by raiding fresh land, sooner than it could take walled cities and castle strongholds.

That led to a distinct late medieval era in Europe specifically, in which drill anti shock infantry became more important than shock cavalry. Firearm infantry then grew out of that form, and proved superior to all other arms, once the limitations of the most primitive firearms were overcome, technically.

A Roman legion was certainly better drilled than late medieval forces. That drill returned in the age of reason, and was made vastly more effective when the men had socket bayonet muskets not javelins for arms. If they had only javelins they would have been crushed by cavalry of the same era, for all their drill - a legion with collapsed flanks had been shown to be a vulnerable mob as early as Cannae...

[Hister]

Kingdom Come: Deliverence is going to be the most realistic/historically correct of them all. Not sure about the tactical part though. If I remember correctly they said you would take place and be able to command in a massive field battle. Let's wait and see.

[Baneman]

I have. I have 350 hours or so into trying to like Rome 2. Something feels wrong. I can't stick with it well. Usually quit immediately after the AI attempts to besiege me and either runs in circles or sits outside of the walls.

Time to rev it up and try again? I think Rome Total Realism 2 is also in the works, if not released.

Yeah, I used to play Total War games, but Rome2 just killed the franchise for me.

I managed to see the writing on the wall early enough to send my copy back to the shop for a refund ( ie. the problems - that bugged me - were designed in and no patches were ever going to fix that ), but I'm sorry to see it go that way.

[Duckman]

The Total War games with mods (primarily to slow things down and increase fatigue), sensible unit selection (no exotica), and restricted camera is CM-ish.

It's been a while since I played TW, but I think there is a game mode where you can only see what your general sees which combined with camera restriction means you realistically have to ride around the battlefield giving orders. The effect is quite similar to real-time CM where you have to position units well and rely on the Tac AI a lot.

[Erwin]

Yes, that's correct.

The original Total War games are still very good. I still play the first version Total War Rome from time to time. I understand the newer versions have problems(?). What is especially compelling about the TW series is that it's great to have the tactical game a la CM, but also have a grand strategic game on top.

[db_zero]

I'm going to catch hell for this, but I liked Stronghold when it first came out.

I'm hoping Stronghold Crusader 2 is decent.

looks like there is a Stronghold HD patch for the old series. May have to try it.