How accurate is this game?

I don`t to axe this thread but how real fire arrows are? Is leindebeiege saying they don`t exist is true?

Infinitely superior

>burning pigs

Those are one of the few historically accurate units though.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig

>H
>R
>E
>one faction

>NEON PINK PAJAMA PARTHIANS

The Greeks could rule the world... Alexander did.

Gods.. I hate Gauls, even before they put out my father's eyes.

Eh, could have been a good expansion.

Carthage's intro is funny.

>muh crying children
>romans telling lies about us!

>H
>R
>E
>one faction

It was one faction during M2TW start date, which is in 1080.

The HRE you speak of was formed through the early 14th century which ended in 1356 through the Golden Bull.

rekt

Europa Barbarorum makes RTW more realistic.
Stainless Steel makes M2TW more realistic.

They are essential mods, vanilla is shit.

Starting out as that faction causes you to get fucked from all sides, so I'd say pretty spot on still.

Meh. Most of the army would've still dressed in Egyptian attire ( as did the leaders themselves ) and would've, of course, consisted of Egyptian conscripts.
So not entirely inaccurate.

Is stainless steel the one they made that you get with kingdoms? You know the one with molten stuff that falls from the gates?

Oh wait that's retro fit , ignore this question

/www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Historical_Accuracy_of_Rome_Total_War

if you're a romaboo and looking for historical authentic mod then you should try roma surrectum 3, it's the best rtw mod out there

Not at all.

Some of the mods for it are much more accurate.

>mfw Poland campaign

ever wipe 6 mongol full stacks then siege their capital in a single night because you're on crusade? O man.

>Every unit and building has a long description

That's a GROSS understatement.

Holy fuck that mod is a book with clickable buttons. I've been in like 4 battles after dozens of turns.

>i think the children will be quiet tonight...

fucking creepy

It literally has roman ninjas so it's 100% accurate.

It still doesn't change what at least in my opinion is the biggest problem: Battles are way too deadly, and pursuit is easy as shit.

You look at guys like Bury's work, and most diodochi battles against each other averaged about 15-30% casualties for the losing side, and considerably less for the winning.

In EB, or really anything on the total war framework, once someone start routing, it's easy as shit to have a small force of cavalry scoop up the entire enemy force, meaning that 100% wipeouts are the norm, not the stunning and history making exceptions, which in turn makes aggression pay off too much, it's too easy to fight a big battle, completely obliterate an enemy, and take over all their holdings in a few months.

Granted, I'm not 100% sure how you'd fix it without changing overwhelming aspects of the game and probably not making it TW anymore, but it's not really realistic either, even if EB is detailed beyond belief.

Have you tried EB 2 yet? Is it any good?

>Granted, I'm not 100% sure how you'd fix it without changing overwhelming aspects of the game and probably not making it TW anymore

just make routed units regroup and cover eachothers' retreat

Where can i buy neon pink parthian pajamas?

The Holy Roman Emperor (you, the player) only starts out with a small part of the HRE's overall territory, so I'd say that's pretty accurate.

nah, that just means you can expand in every direction. As with the Western Roman Empire in the Barbarian Invasion expansion for Rome, the way to play it is by doing lightning strikes in every direction right at the beginning, no matter how bankrupt or overstretched that would normally leave you.

A fighting retreat option would be rad where once a battle is considered lost, the winner can elect to pursue and the loser has to guide his army far enough away to be safe, maybe even reverse the loss if he's brilliant or if it was part of the plan all along.

Probably for game-balancing reasons.

If we wanted 100 percent realism battles would take days of mostly pre-engagement maneuvering, and the actual melee itself would be hours of units hacking at each other with barely any casualties.

It's just accurate enough to make you feel like an emperor while playing it but fake enough to still be fun

No, it's just because Total War was basically a retuned RTS game like AoE with slightly less micro to facilitate locked groups and bigger battles.

that's basically an option the player already has, you can withdraw units, some units recover after routing and wait at the back, the only problem is that they've never managed to code it on the AI properly.

HOWEVER, and i say i'm very pleased when it happens, sometimes the enemy just fucks off and retreats on it's own when it loses units it needs to win, like a raiding army of mostly cavalry besieging you with a few peasants moving their siege engines. I've also had armies leave when i harass them with artillery, killing off a few units while they fail to find a weak spot to engage me with.

Sometimes when they're fucked in numbers they'll camp at an edge of the map so when you rout them they'll get to safety quicker. I've had more luck with rational AI on Rome 2 of all things, where they really do try to screen their units through cover and use terrain.

>shittons of phalanx units
>not pseudo hellenic

>is it accurate?

no not really

>is it still fun

yeah. no telling how many hundreds of hours I sunk into it and Barbarian Invasion back in high school.

It's very good, more accurate then the first one.

>"Peace? There can be no peace! No peace with Romans! Men of stone and iron and LIES. There can be only WAR"

what did he mean by this?

It's
>Gauls. I hate Gauls. My grandfather hated them too, even before they took his eyes out.

Damn casual

Not at all, they have fucking ninja romans ffs

rome 2 was more accurate

Look at these fools who don't understand the desert.

>Perhaps he'll bring with him...
>AN ARMY OF ELEPHANTS

OVER THE ALPS PERHAPS?!

Those Carthaginian elephant riders...

About as accurate as this

This is hysterical

youtube.com/watch?v=1XQU8k8XVAA

btw the children will be quiet tonight = sacrifice to Baal

ninja romans are cool tho

psh nothing personal Gaul

>Latin edition
*teleports behind you
pshht, non odium, Galle

THEEE DAAAAAAAAAY ISS OUUUUUURRSSSSSSSSSS

youtube.com/watch?v=chPRYXS0YZI

HE'D LOSE HALF HIS MEN FROM ATTRITION ALONE, THE OTHER HALF WOULD DESERT.

Senators! I daresay that would be QUITE a feat.

I bet Baal didn't even send you a vision.

youtube.com/watch?v=alYzPppDnK8

this guy's remakes' are great

almost makes you want to play Rome 2

Visions come, but they do not leave

Is there any way to make rome 2 an actual challenge? Played it earlier today and just fucking steamrolled the Romans as the Arverni

I haven't actually played R2, but I have played a lot of other total war games, and if you really want the game to be a challenge, autocalc all the battles, which I presume is still an option.

Thats no fun, the whole point of the game is to fight battles. If you autocalc its just a numbers game and becomes a shitty diplomacy simulator.

Yes, but the enormous advantage the human enjoys over the AI is the advantage in real time tactical combat, which is enormously hard to make an AI for. If you want a challenge, you'll almost certainly have to give that up.

Divide Et Impera mod makes the game more interesting, at least. Anything but the main campaign is kinda hard, since there are more constraints, but Romans are stupid OP and you can go around with underpowered armies and slug it out with full stacks if you know how to use the to their fullest.

the upside is that recruiting actual Roman core units is hard as hell and requires you to draw your armies back or commit to culturally and economically annex a region.

What features does that mod add? I had radiousmod but the units that were added to the game were way too historically inaccurate for me so i uninstalled

>bring a bunch of club men vs missile cav
>play the battle
>get stomped repeatedly because you've got fucking clubs
>autocalc
>decisive victory
R2's auto calc is pretty bad, it ends up making the game easier. And that's without trying to game it, I'm sure you could come up with some real dogshit comps that will roll over any AI army.

>Army of 20/20 eastern spearmen beat a quality 15/20 unit of Hoplites, Phallanx, Citizen cav, hippeus lancers and cretan archers

well it's generally a realism mod, it adds more edict options, now armies can patrol regions and seas to increase public order instead of just being useless when not mobilized, there's a whole supply system where navies and armies slowly drain and suffer penalties and loses, etc

Multiplayer. Everyone, play multiplayer.

>abstract variables like units of 13/20 quality
>realism

What? I meant that an army of 20 of the worst units in the game (Eastern Spearmen) will beat a balanced army of 15 quality units if you use the autocalc because it only factors in rank and numbers

For some reason this is how I end up playing the game. The battles just arent any fun for me anymore, and I don't know why.

20 is the limit of units you can have, each has between 40 and 120 men in it

For me, its because either im horribly overpowered and spend more time chasing skirmishers, or i get curbstomped after defending the same town six times with the same garrison. It is very rare that i end up with a set piece, balanced battle.

the Ptolemies were at first unwilling to use the Egyptians as soldiers because of the way that they had treated them, so it would have been mainly greeks and mercs

>While battles in Rome are nothing short of spectacular, at least for its time, they lack crucial realism in terms of army size due to technical. While it is possible to have battles with over ten thousand soldiers in custom games or multiplayer mode, most battles in single player or practical multiplayer are fought with less than six thousand men. In actual history, most battles were on the magnitude of tens of thousands of men. The reduction in the amount of men has dramatic consequences on the tactics employed in battle. In Rome: Total War, phalanx units are ubiquitous across several armies. However, due to the limitations on battle size, phalanxes are less effective because they can be easily outmaneuvered and outflanked, especially with cavalry. In actual battles, the phalanx lines could be miles long – making it much more difficult to surround. As a consequence of small unit size, players often use tactics such as placing phalanx units in a tight box, something that caught on especially well with multiplayer battles.

>A second notable deviation from realism is the strength of cavalry in battles. As explained above, outflanking maneuvers are relatively easy to execute, thus already making cavalry very dangerous on the battlefield. The actual power of cavalry in combat is no less yielding, as they are capable of charging extremely well into infantry. For example, cataphract units are able to charge head in and defeat any phalanx unit other than Spartans. The strength of cavalry is also enhanced in the unit collision system. Whereas units that cluttered closely suffered combat penalty in Medieval Total War, the same is not true in Rome. Thus, it has been common for players, especially online players, to “stack” cavalry units on top and charge as a single “blob.” Due to the charge-collision system, stacked cavalry can cause extremely high kill rates on the moment of impact and is extremely difficult to defend against with anything but the best infantry.

Why are all the Carthaginian soldiers so light-skinned?

Even the Romans shouldn't be that pale.

Every faction except Rome starts of with -10,000 money and one 4 unit army

>Every faction except Rome starts of with -10,000 money
This has always bothered me. How the fuck do they expect me to begin a new campaign when I'm virtually starting in the red?

Obviously this has not to do with the game but the fact computers cannot run battles with hundreds of thousands and that would take huge micro management.

PS just git gud and cover your flanks either with infantry or cavalry and have your archers shoot their cav down. Charging from the front is a guaranteed death sentence for cav and cavalry (especially shock cav) will win in the initial engagement but if they arent recalled and left to fight on they almost always lose decisively. Covering your flanks with spears isnt hard...

Even for the great HANNIBAL BARCA *DUN DUN DUN*

VARUS

...

THE SENATE EXPECTS DEFEAT, YET THE GODDESS FORTVNA FAVOURS THE BOLD

>but the fact computers cannot run battles with hundreds of thousands and that would take huge micro management.

Try Wargame: Red Dragon if you want ball bursting levels of micro. Total war suffers from having bad AI really, you shouldn't have to micro to the level you already do, units should be capable of following rough orders but also to take their own logical choices like moving into favorable positions, tighten or face their ranks towards visible enemies, and attack enemies nearby when they're confident of not being flanked and have certain superiority.

Yes, mahsta.

I will speak with them at once.

varus
where are my legions
I need them back
please varus give back legions
what have you done with them
where are they
varus
I need my legions back
varus
please

It's fun watching people who put Wikipedia pages with 30k-50k casualties in every single battle as reference debate whether or not a game is accurate.

To add to that, in Rome 2, Divide et Impera seems to be the closest mod to Europa Barbarorum.

Do people really have to ask this question?

Aren't the purple/green/red/blue romans and the Pajama wearing everyone else enough to convince you it's a fantasy-arcade themed to look like history?

If you read the thread, you'd know there are mods that make it good.

MY LIEGE!

*dehydrated voice*

ORDEEEEERS

EBs soundtrack is great as well. everything feels authentic to the time period

youtube.com/watch?v=OihCg50glpU

Just play EB.

I want to say that outside of the music and superb skins EB was shit and I had to mod the FUCK out of it to make it playable. As for "historically accurate", bullshit! you know what's historically accurate? Arming your men as best you can and training them as much as you deem acceptable. Any TW game whose units you've modded to within historically plausible criteria is instantly the most historically realistic mod available because that's exactly what should/would have happened if your awesome self (the player) had been in charge.

Fuck you all.

>3 independent Roman houses
Their reasoning for doing this was actually really great from a gameplay perspective. It was meant to simulate Rome's ability to wage war and expand on various fronts at once. The AI of the game didn't permit this without rewriting and adding to its complexity and size so they just did this work-around with the system they had. It was actually quite ingenious and deserved more praise than it got.

MY FAMILY, THE HOUSE OF SCIPII