Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-29729442-20161212012142/@comment-76.127.37.224-20170520031230

Blademaster Jauffre wrote:

76.127.37.224 wrote: To add to my above comment, technically Skyrim does get a medieval war right, as does mount and blade.Trade didn't stop just because there was a war. People didn't just kill eachother at random, technically life went on as normal, with a few exceptions. This is true even now. If I were to send you to a nation that was at war, unless you were in combat you'd probably not even think there was a war. Your concept of what war "feels like" probably comes from movies and the way it's depicted in those is always wrong. Total War games get the concept of a "war" extremely well, only on the frontlines are you truly affected, aside from possible port blockations.

But the war in Skyrim is not real in the slightest, you don't defend a capital Hold with some 20 soldiers at the frontlines, nor do you attack with waves of 20 soldiers at a time. True but technically not all conflicts worked that way. Some ancient "wars" were settled with a single rather small battle. Granted those only involved small villages/tribes. but the point stands there were "wars" similar to what's shown in Skyrim. It would be better if the larger forces were shown in conflict, in skyrim given the size of the parties involved. But, them not being there doesn't make it not "real."