Are there any historically accurate video games?

It is reskinned Blitzkrieg with new maps.

I'm referring to attila mostly, but you're absolutely right about Medieval 1 & 2

Dont forget Liquoria 2 and Hoi3

iron hearts iv. Its prolly the hardest game in the history of games. good luck.

Looks like a reskinned Sudden Strike.

Probably the only historically accurate games are the vehicle simulations like the flight simulator IL-2 Sturmovic series, and Paradox titles at least try be somewhat historically plausible grand strategy games (but fail spectacularly when you can take over the world in 1948 as Switzerland), but if you want historical accuracy, you'll have a hard time in videogames.

There are a lot of historically inspired videogames, though:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hg54SCNIHrP7xaoDrw9xrFTekQZ_Eg6N175s8ywl1ng/edit#gid=562314500

These are about the closest three, although they're still far from it. About as good as the vidya gets at it atm.

Il-2 Sturmovik, Silent Hunter 3 and 4. Operation Flashpoint is accurate in the sense of actual 1980s tech, even though the events of the game never happened.

Liquoria is probably the best historical non-WW2 game ever made. Also HoI 2 >>> HoI 3

>.Medieval 2 features Russia and HRE as a single unified country

No it does not. Though there are many issues I have with Medieval 2 that are the most downright retarded shit.

Actually it does at least when it comes to HRE. CK2 portrays this shit way better even though it's still not accurate enough.

A game with accurate HRE mechanics would have to be an entire game in itself

[spoiler]darkest days[/spoiler]

Correct, but portraying them as a single nation like in Medi 2 is absolute nonsense.
I actually like that in CK2 they at least have the feudal vassalage system somehow figured out, in Total Shit if someone completely beats you in a war you just stop existing.

Cossacks ii you fucking plebs

Civilization

Not accurate. Still good though.

Uh, yeah it does user.

They're literally a single polity in the game.

wasn't the HRE at the onsert of MED 2 more centraliz

RUssia is just the name they have they have given the the realms of the Novgorod republic for some rasons. They got one city, novgorod, everything else of Russia or the russ is independent rebels.
Don't see why a united HRE is worse than a united robber barons France

Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad

>Faithfully recreated locations from Stalingrad
>Accurate uniforms
>Accurate vehicles and realistic tank combat
>Correct weapons with the exception of the MKB42

Good thing that the modding community is very active for all TW games.

Age of Empire I & II

mandete

nothing close to one of the more realistic ones, clearly one of the better ones

>Sumerians hacking a Greek hoplite factory with sticks until it starts burning and collapses
>accurate

...

I prefer watching aztec eagle warriors stabbing a byzantine fortified wall until it burns and turns to rubble

>Lists one of the easiest paradox games
Couldn't have even mentioned HOI 3 atleast?

> Its prolly the hardest game in the history of games. good luck.
What the fuck are you talking about

HOI4 is easy shit even on highest difficulty. I've beaten the Soviets as Poland three times with just infantry and cavalry, taking under a million casualties each time. I didn't even have anti-tank guns.

CMANO

>inb4 my scenario stands

This

HOI3 isn't amazing but it's a lot harder than HOI4 because you can't just draw a line on a map and let your units fight everything out. It requires some strategic thinking.

One time as the Germans the Soviet AI actually managed to invade my land and encircle 300k German and Italian men in East Prussia, then drove to Berlin opposed only by Volkssturm units.

I think you both are being rused

That's what i'm trying to say...

CK2, EUIV and Victoria II are pretty accurate

lol

That's what I'm saying, all of them are horribly innacurate.

It started as a mod to Blitzkreig, then a Finnish/Russian company picked it up.

but you said Russia is one united country, which it isn't ((they probably just named Novgorod Russia so the player wouldn't unite it all and still have to play as Novgorod)) and that HRE should be less united than France, no?

>"I don't care if it's a 100 tonne wooden schooner. Surface and prepare the deck gun, Kameraden!"

Europa Barbarorum.

DEI for rome 2

problem is, historical accuracy=too fucking easy

Only way to make total war difficult is to have missiles function at 5000x the effectiveness they actually had, have infantry die at like 10 a second, and have infantry battles last 3 minutes.

Meanwhile in DEI, it's 45 minutes into the battle and you just sent the princepes in. You've lost maybe 20 men to missile fire, as it should be, and the Roman infantry that is outnumbered 8 to 1 is steadily holding and winning the battle.

An hour later, your 2000 romans have just slaughtered 14 thousand barbarians. Historically accurate and also way too fucking easy.

Can you use it with pirated Rome 2? I want to spend a couple of hours memeing it up as rome

God i hated searching for hours for big merchants and then all i'd get was some fishing boat and flotilla of destroyers trying to pin me

hearty kek

>Historically accurate
Really?

>Faithfully recreated locations from Stalingrad

except most maps were littered with props and waist-level cover because they wanted more automatic close range run & gun, while the actual battles were fought at rifle ranges.

god what they did to the original RO maps still angers me.

The battles themselves last hours and missile fire is more realistic. You can actually do the real formations like the triplex because arrow fire doesnt force your infantry to commit like it does in vanilla, they can fire 10 volleys at an infantry unit and youll lose like 3 men. Breaking off doesn't cause mass casualties so you can actually run your hastati back through the princepes and so forth. Only thing I'd say is off is the cavalry is actually a bit too weak.

Furthermore, the campaign gameplay is massively more realistic. Supply lines are a thing, you have to built supply ships in your fleets to trail alongside your armies to feed them if they don't have a supplied lattice link to a friendly territory that also has buildings in it set up to supply armies.

So, you can't just send stacks out willy nilly or they'll starve, you actually have to plan logistics and make sure your conquest path can be supplied.

All this amazing shit, and their only real problem is that historically accurate battles take forever and are extremely easy and boring. Also playing against rome just isn't fair, it's like impossible to beat them because missiles are shit and cavalry isn't good enough to break them.

>An hour later, your 2000 romans have just slaughtered 14 thousand barbarians.
>Historically accurate

>except most maps were littered with props and waist-level cover because they wanted more automatic close range run & gun, while the actual battles were fought at rifle ranges.
Haven't played the original RO. Was it much better than RO2? Not many people play it anymore.

Rome 2 is an absolute shit game and you should never play it for any reason. Just wait until Ancient Empires comes out for Attila if you need a SPQR fix.

I were thinking about the Romans easialy beating off 5< times as many barbarians
sounds like someting a romanophile may say but what do I know?

EUIV is pretty realistic except for Napoleon who only generated 4 mana per month instead of the historically accurate 6 mana per month.

see: boudicca's rebellion, Caesar's conquest of gaul

if you can't flank the romans, they'll win eventually. Doesn't matter what the numbers are, romans do not lose head to head slogfests. They'll easily beat armies 3-5 times their size as long as they can just hold the line without being flanked.

If you read Caesar's diary you'll see that the Romans basically never lost their center, all of the tactical moves Caesar made was to secure his flanks so his literally unstoppable center could just keep slaughtering whatever was in front of it.

British bias!

The problem is these things are just another coat of paint over an inherently inaccurate simulation, on par really with unit mods that change a Hollywood skin to an Osprey one. Supply lines are only a thing in the form of traits and maluses.

>trusting the numbers the romans gave

Nevermind that we're taking a chronicle at face value here, you're suggesting that tens of thousands of fighters are slaughtered in little more than an hour as being at all realistic.

the issue with total war is that A LOT of what goes into a battle should be pre-battle manouvering, stand-offs, skirmishes and scouting for the perfect battleground. Between the overworld map and the battle map, there should be a third form of gameplay in which the formation deployment happens as well as local area movements and minute details like whether your army rests, eats or prepares well.

the biggest, most annoying problem with Rome 2 in particular is that the overworld maps are fucking shit, tiny, few settlements, warped distances and almost no freedom of movement with all the geographical barriers, just bottleneck after bottleneck.

it's in general more "rough" but that also means more realistic. The maps are undoubtedly larger and thus long range combat matters much more and so do vehicles, which there are many many more of, guns are deadly and in realistic numbers(not everyone gets to unlock an obscure prototype and plays with automatic, and there are no stupid balance decisions like no panzerfausts) and there are no hollywood black and white suppression effects, your screen just shakes violently and noises are debilitatingly loud, you actually dread getting shelled from how much it stresses you.

Historians agree that even when the Romans exaggerate they're still usually outnumbered like 2 to 1.

Romans like to count the woman and children of barbarian hordes, so when the Romans say it was 10k vs 300k, it was really more like 10k vs 100k, which is still something insane like a 10 to 1 advantage

it happened at cannae in only a couple more hours, and 60k died so I can see 14k in an hour being possible. Still, maybe I wasn't particular enough, 14k was their total force and obviously they didn't all lay dead at the end, they actually broke probably at around 5-8k and the rest ran and we're slaughtered in the next hour or so I spent running them down and fighting the ones that came back.

One thing I'll say a total war game will never get right is the casualties before a retreat is sounded. Armies were morally fragile and could break after just a small percentage was killed, whereas naturally you get higher death counts faster in total war because moral is unrealistically strong and it makes for poor game balance to have battles last 4 hours or whatever. I mean shit, you come home from work and you get to play one battle before you go to sleep. Doesn't seem like fun to me.

That's not really the problem here, it's that we're to believe so many people died in so little time before industrialized warfare.

The problem with historical accuracy is that being accurate to the sources doesn't actually mean being realistic also.

mass slaughters like that have happened in history, it's not entirely unrealistic. Hannibal dished out more than a few, there's the old Phyrric War aptly named for its massive death tolls on both sides, and who could forget all the times armies have sacked cities and put the entire population to the sword.

Mass slaughter in a couple of hours happened more times than you're willing to admit at the moment because it doesn't suit your argument.

star wars

My argument is that it's unrealistic. Having it written in a chronicle doesn't make it so.

would be fun if the single battles were just off the wall which happens sometimes.

the morale thing is complex, the games DO allow for units to shit their tunics in situations where it's clear they're fucked(surrounded, tired, under heavy fire, fighting terrifying unit), but it's finnicky how and when the conditions are fulfilled.

UNREGISTERED HYPERCAM 2

>Be Goths
>See enemy archers
Se stöörme!

KOEI used to make good tbs games based on real historical maps and borders w/ actual historical generals down to local recruitment. I dunno if they still do. I used to enjoy nobunaga's ambition II and romance of the three kingdoms II quite a bit.

japanese castles typically use extensive stone foundations and terraforming.

Victoria 2 is the closest I've seen but it still has problems.

liquor factory simulator

yeah

That and the anachronistic ancap faggots who pop a rebellion at the first sign of weakness.

...

Though I mock many aspects of the game, it's about as historically accurate a game can get and still be fun

Most people really underestimate how difficult it is to make a game fun and historically accurate

I recognize that filename...
It's a small world huh

For sure. I've never come closer to empathizing with Nazi Germany than when I got my shit pushed in and my empire dismantled as Austria-Hungary because I picked the wrong side on the issue of Polish independence.

Try the "Voltaire's nightmare" mod for eu4. The map is restricted to the
>""""h""""
>""""r""""
>""""e""""
only.

>not playing ostfront
Kys

>that feel when being the only one defending a flanking approach to our positions as AT
>only occasional German tank comes through
>see them coming from 300 meters away
>hold and wait
>they think nobody's here
>they turn to head to our lines bearing their side to me
>pop

PTRD rifle is so much fun in early war battles.

>correct weapons
>the SVT-40 bolt is plum colored

"no"

kingdomcomerpg.com/

This would be if it wasn't vaporware.

Speaking of Blitzkrieg, I loved it. One of the very few RTS games that actually showed the importance of artillery and reconnaissance.

How is it vaporware?

CivCity Rome is cool.

>get ambushed by a fucking armenian army that is comprised of three armies
>literally 4 times my size
>shit shit shit
>in desert, position infantry between two ridges, cavalry on other side of them on the flanks
>only 4 units of cavalry
>...
>...
>... wait, are those just archers?
>what the fuck why is he sending about 20 companies of archers far ahead of main force?
>charge with cavalry, decimate every single one
>two companies are down to 1 guy, but still
>their main army advances between the two ridges directly into a core of praetorians and armoured legionaries
>they have no cavalry
>Oh and my archers, which I've hidden behind the ridges.
>literally agincourt

Sorry, forgot to get rid of trip from sumerian thread.

Mount and Blade native isn't historical accurate though. If you want historical accuracy you can try Viking Conquest for dark ages Europe(or Brytenwalda), Gekokujo for Japan and 1257 AD for 13th century Europe

Mount and Blade isn't historically accurate no matter what mods you pull over it because the base engine is so retarded and limited.

Don't get me wrong, I have several thousands of hours (it may well be 10000+) in the various M&B games and mods, and the modding community produces some really neat stuff...but the base gameplay is just too far removed from reality to call it realistic or, by extension, historically accurate.

Unless you're just referring to the costumes, then yeah - some of the mods have really nice items.

Apology accepted, polite friend.

>Decimated every single one
>He doesn't know what decimation is

u wot m8 ill decimate you alroight

I will have my 17.5 (on average) pounds of flesh.