Partially trying to push the boundaries of what this board will allow (to an extent I am still interested in the content of this thread)
If you dont consider this thread to be board related please say so instead of reporting
What would you /his/torians consider as a "good" and at least mostly historically accurate video games
given due to the free nature of games most games focus on the end result being accurate more than the means.
However some games are undeniably focused on portraying some historical events correctly or at least portraying the culture and mentality of the time periods correctly.
Pic related (though the later games got a bit weird)
I prefer ages of empire 2, as it had just enough freedom to play and create unique armies and combinations but not too graphical in such that it made my old comp lag.
I still play this game a lot though
It's okay, like all gsg it just starts at a historically accurate point and then you can fuck with anything and blob and incest to your hearts content; they're only historically accurate in the sense that things are roughly as they were. It's a lot more player-centric than something like Victoria 2, though.
CK2 and Victoria 2 are good, EU4 is very much hit and miss (personally I don't like it at all), EU3 was good but is dated and Hearts of Iron 3 is very dense and the AI still is derpy and pretty bad if you don't stay on the historical railroad.
Also I don't see what's particularly bad about this for a thread so long as this sort of thing is uncommon, it's just regular crossposting (that's actually relevant).
Sorry, I forget people don't browse vidya shit as much as me and my fellow autists.
Grand Strategy Games, what the /vg/ chaps call (mostly) Paradox games that deal with a large amount of control over a historical strategy game (politics, economy, war, etc.). As I said, they all pretty much start you in a world that's meant to be as historically accurate as possible at a specific date, and you then play from there doing whatever you want.
Cossacks was great.
/his/ should play a game of napoleonic wars to celebrate its establishment.
>/his/ should play a game of napoleonic wars
We all know how it would end
Victoria 2 is by far the best 19th/20th century game for those interested in picking up bits of real knowledge while playing.
You'll know more than virtually anyone you meet on the street about geography, wars that happened during the era, the inventions and discoveries that propelled the Industrial Revolution, and much more. There is plenty to read and immerse yourself in if you have the time and patience.
The music in all of the Paradox games really touch me, Victoria 2 included.
>Victoria III when?
I'm ambivalent about this. I love Victoria 2 and it would really disappoint me to see Victoria 3 as a watered-down and poor successor.
It's like when a sequel to a great movie should have never been made.
I feel the same way towards Hearts of Iron 4. I already know I'm going to buy it, but I'm really nervous it's going to let me down compared to HoI 3 and Darkest Hour.
HoI4 looks like it will be awful and casualised to ensure a greater market/playerbase than 'those sadistic/autistic enough to put up with the obscene learning curve'.
Not that HoI3 is exceptional or anything, its military strategy gameplay and experience are very good but the whole game is just okay at best.
Victoria 3 would probably follow suit and be unbearably simple for many current fans of the game.
Also their game design somehow seems to get worse with every installment, EU4's map is awful and looks like it's made of playdough.
Nah m8,its too sandboxy,you can industrialize as subsaharian africans even,HOI3 is the only realistic gsg
Mount and Blade , specially some mods give you a good basic impression of medieval combat and regimental, 1800's combat.
It's pretty horrifying when you think about it sometimes and play it. Shit is scary.
its a great game, all of the paradox games are amazing imo, but the DLC is ridiculously expensive. I recommend just downloading it or torrenting it, the developers are known for being pretty autistic and they aren't a company i'd recommend buying from
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Paradox games are actually a good way to learn history.
On the first level, at least you learn some semblance of world geography at the start date of whatever game you're playing.
It can also inspire you to try to learn more about the time period that you've spent dozens to hundreds of hours playing in, and to look up the history of whatever country you're playing.
And if you get into modding for the sake of historicity, well then you've gone down the fucking rabbit hole. In a good way.
Total War is nice too, because it gives you some basic idea of the rudiments of battles. Not that they're really accurate at all, but it gives you a sense that playing AoE won't - you learn what formations are, and you get a basic sense of how battlefield tactics play out. Again, a very, very basic sense, which is, albeit, enough to make you look at any depiction of a battle in film and go "that's fucking retarded".
>Victoria 2 and Hearts of Iron 3
This. Though HoI 3 not quite as much.
Download the Victoria Ultimate mod, use the 2000 start, and play as a major power. Everything starts to become very clear.
Dat pic is the best summary of the playing the USSR I've ever seen kek
I agree completely with you lad. I dropped that mod after like two hours of playing. But the modern start inadvertently captures some aspects of modern foreign/domestic policy really fucking well.
*willy waggling in the distance*
Posting video games on /his/ is asking for it to be honest.
If we start talking about 40k or Sins of a Solar Empire, then yeah. But historical stuff should be fine, i learned more about ancient rome playing Rome total war than i did in history classes
Alt history, by definition, is not history. History is an account of the past, 'alt history' is speculative interest discussion, the same as saying on any board "what if X?"
I don't see how it's constructive whatsoever to a board dedicated to history (ie, 'actual' history, or 'past' history).
I'm not trying to be hostile, I can see why it's interesting as works of fiction, but this board isn't meant to be for that.
Then why does spooky fiction belong on /x/ instead of /lit/, and etc?
I realise this is like saying science fiction should belong on /sci/, but what is historical fiction if not historical? Why is discussing the repercussions of, say, an entirely different fourth crusade better suited to /lit/ than /his/?
Why would a book named "Agent of Byzantium" have a better place on /lit/ than the board specifically made for its subject matter?
I think it's fine, so long as it isn't shit like "Why haven't you converted Sweden to Islam by 1300? xDDDDD"
Historical games are popular because they spur interest and imagination, and since so many things in history could've easily gone another way, getting a bunch of anons together who are at least somewhat knowledgeable to talk about it is comfy as fuck.
I like Total War games even if they're not very historically accurate. It's more about how they'll get you interested in the setting and encourage you to learn more about the setting. The games are very hit or miss though and generally have terrible launches.
Historical fiction is not historical; history is an account of the past. Historical fiction has nothing to do with the past.
Maybe there could be a 'what if' general or a daily/weekly thing for a discussion on something people would want to debate, but I still don't personally see how that's worthwhile at all other than that it'd have posting of people knowledgeable of actual history to inform of what would be plausible in divergence.
What we absolutely do not need is streams of threads that just ask things like "what if Rome never fell?", "what if Hitler was assassinated" etc. and barely contribute to actual historical discussion, because they'll be reposted non-stop and people will just start making them with very little actual interest in contributing or creating an intelligent debate.
>Implying not going full Liberal as an industrialized nation late game isn't literally the best strategy.
Your framework and assumptions are disgusting, but I eventually agree that this isn't the best place to have any condusive Alt-History talk. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just maybe it shouldn't happen here too much.
As a medievalist, CK2 is fucking abysmal at portraying the Middle Ages and it depresses me.
Vicky 2 and HoI3 are generally considered the worst Paradox grand strategy games. They are the two of the big four titles where you have a huge amount of people who prefer their predecessors (Vicky + HoI2) over them. Both of them have "It plays itself!" syndrome, Vicky 2 in particular is so fucking inscrutable that no one knows how its internals work, not even the devs, and both were shitty ahistorical messes on release, horrible successors to polished games.
EU4 and CK2 have their share of problems but they are still the best recommendations for newbies to GSG. EU4 because it gets so much dev attention to level out its weirdness and add content, and CK2 because it's self-contained and pretty easy.
>though the later games got a bit weird
oh are you meant to be some hell oldfag with those games that you never tried 2, 3 or mythology? yeah, thought so.
the later age of empires/mythology were the best, the first aoe was so bad they literally gave it out in cornflakes boxes years ago.
If you have problems with Total War & accuracy then just go mod.
I know Rome 2 was pretty shit but the Divide et Impera mod makes the game a lot better desu senpai
>Loads of new units that follow a historical accurate evolution(pre-marian roman troops)
>Navies no longer retarded
>Slower battles that force you to rotate reserves
Civ 5 is at least culturally accurate. The music is played with, wherever possible, indigenous instruments and uses, wherever possible, melodies important to the civilization at hand. Personally I find this to be more historically accurate than where "borders" were located in 1444.
He masturbates over it being period accurate besides the magic girl doing magic stuff.
Its hard to not masturbate over proper melee, mordhau, segregation and church. Especially when so little media does it properly.
Just play some of the more obscure and phenomenal mods. For instance, Invasio Barbarorum 2: Conquestvs Britannae is a mod set after the Romans leave Britain in the 5th century. There's also a phenomenal CK2 mod set in the same period called the Winter King.
Rome II is mechanically fucked because you can't do a controlled retreat, the only option is to make your men rout out of combat, basically. Kind of sucks, especially for hoplite-type warfare.
You can in Divide et Impera. Units route MUCH slower, and do not get massive moral hit if you withdraw them from combat(unless they are chased down)
So you can easily withdraw units while covering them with others.
>Vicky 2 in particular is so fucking inscrutable that no one knows how its internals work, not even the devs, and both were shitty ahistorical messes on release, horrible successors to polished games.
I liked the POP class system in Vicky 2, but yeah gameplay for any country that's not one of the big 10-20 is bland as fuck (and even for the larger countries it's pretty bland).
>If you go off the historical railroad
Holy shit you aren't kidding. My first playthrough as France somehow caused the Czechs to refuse the pact of Munich and go to war. This brought in Poland, and subsequently the Allies. And that's how WW2 became a historical foot note in 1938 in the preparation for the fight against the Soviets.
Never heard people call Victoria 2 one of worst gsg.
For Paradox games (which you definitely want to get into if you want some historical strategy) start with either Europa Universalis 4 or Crusader Kings 2 because they're the easiest to learn, but Victoria 2 and Darkest Hour are probably my favourites.
Also if you want a brutally realistic sort of at the expense of fun WW2 RTS play Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star.
Play Darkest Hour, it's basically HoI3 without the horrific levels of micromanagement.
Gary Grigsby's War in the East for the Ostfront. I've tried to get into it myself but it's just far too daunting. Also tried out some AGEOD games and they're not too difficult to get into, they've got games covering different parts of history.