Total War Realism

Once battle begins you as a commander have extremely limited options. It would be extremely uncommon if you had a vantage point that could see the entire battlefield without dust and able to relay orders. If you had shit troops or are ambushed, you cant commander them to success.

Also in no society are you able to spam heavy cavalry or "elite" units non stop. There was a pool of talent/resources and it would be unlikely to succeed.

You would also hardly be able to control the building policy of the entire empire.

Also diplomacy has always been a critical component of human society, especially in a period like Rome.

That said, would fixing all of these be "fun"? Maybe some elements, perhaps hardcore realism people would like it but realistic Rome Total War would be sitting in a rome and people telling you about whats happening on the borders of the empire 1-2 weeks after it happened and talking to a bunch of old fucks who control the senate and hate your guts but whom you hope can deal with whatever situation needs doing.

The Brit tribes did used to throw heads at their enemies sometimes, but I doubt they had entire units. I think RTW took myths and mentions too far, i.e units of gladiators and those shadow romans, war pigs and war dogs etc.

The various types of Romans seemed mostly authentic but barbarians definitely got the Gladiator treatment.

The scale and near-nonexistent modelling of diplomacy or economics mean most of them have a realism of near zero. In particular the scale is just way off in all of them, especially Empire. Armies are too small to represent real battles well. The exception to this is Shogun, especially Fall of the Samurai. An average battle in FotS will kill more people than the entire war did.
Off the top of my ass:
1. Rome + Europa Barbarorum, which came closest to replicating the ancient world as a static map to paint on with halfway authentic units.
2. Probably Attila, with Fall of the Eagles?
3. Shogun 2 or Rome 2 (Rome 2 was bad gameplay wise but took numerous cues from Europa Barbarorum in terms of authenticity)
4. Medieval II, Napoleon
5. Empire
6. Rome 1 vanilla

>seemed
>ninja romans.
>urban praetorian cohorts

Vidya threads on Veeky Forums should be a bannable offence.

What's funny is that those are like one of the best units in the game

Or simply code the AI to make units retreat only up to a point and cover eachother upon withdrawal, moving in turns and reorganizing in lines at the back, maybe attempt to intercept your pursuit units with reserves or fake out retreats to force you to extend your formation. The enemy needs to be able to use some level of imagination and self preservation.

Morale is too much of an on/off switch, it should be easier to break a unit and make them run, but not to gully rout them blindly. The choice of battegrounds also mattered more, armies manouvering and posturing, scouting and skirmishing as they shadow eachother were important before. A battle should not be treated as a single event but as many stages within the map. Your army would arrive, set up camp, forage and scout in prelude, discovering the terrain advantages and tactical key points.

In Rome 2 you actually have this happen more.

>Once battle begins you as a commander have extremely limited options. It would be extremely uncommon if you had a vantage point that could see the entire battlefield without dust and able to relay orders. If you had shit troops or are ambushed, you cant commander them to success.

A partial solution would be an area of command for your general unit, and a line of vision for your general. Your general would have to personally head to where the units are supposed to be to give them orders, and then give more complex commands in exchange, like ignoring nearby enemies, deepening and flanking.

However, remember centurions had a lot of tactical freedom in Rome, it was not uncommon than a Cohort simply decided to take an opportunity or deal with a local situation by itself. This would be reflected by the player controlling them individually better.

I had this idea of a CK2 style game where instead of provinces you had soldiers or units controlled by a unit commander. Your personal relationships, ability, and level of organization would affect the level of control over these commanders, and you give orders the same way you send out diplomats in Paradox games.

3/10

you're aware there is a mod for rome total war that fixes that,

youtube.com/watch?v=CkgZZ1CuoxE

youtube.com/watch?v=uxFAWnFqPXo

That's actually more realistic than you might think. Ninjas were sometimes used as skirmishers and whatnot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja

"Following the Battle of Okehazama in 1560, Tokugawa employed a group of eighty Kōga ninja, led by Tomo Sukesada. They were tasked to raid an outpost of the Imagawa clan. The account of this assault is given in the Mikawa Go Fudoki, where it was written that Kōga ninja infiltrated the castle, set fire to its towers, and killed the castellan along with 200 of the garrison.[32] The Kōga ninja are said to have played a role in the later Battle of Sekigahara (1600), where several hundred Kōga assisted soldiers under Torii Mototada in the defence of Fushimi Castle.[33] After Tokugawa's victory at Sekigahara, the Iga acted as guards for the inner compounds of Edo Castle, while the Kōga acted as a police force and assisted in guarding the outer gate.[31] In 1614, the initial "winter campaign" at the Siege of Osaka saw the ninja in use once again. Miura Yoemon, a ninja in Tokugawa's service, recruited shinobi from the Iga region, and sent 10 ninja into Osaka Castle in an effort to foster antagonism between enemy commanders.[34] During the later "summer campaign", these hired ninja fought alongside regular troops at the Battle of Tennōji.[34]"

>ROME TOTAL WAR REALISM

lmao thats a shit mod

europa barbarorum with submods is way better

This is a great thread, but if you prefer the dank new meme of x destroyed y civilization, you are free to leave

They're not but they aren't really intended to be realistic. The total war games are casual arcade battle games. Theyre fun.

Unless you have a serious hard on for realism. Then most of the game would be organising supply and managing diplomacy. Most of the game would be spreadsheets broken up with the occasional battle.

I like the Total War games a lot, I don't play them exclusively for realism, but I'd just like to know what is fact and fiction, having real shit be fun is just a neat touch

Attila fixes a lot of the issues you're talking about. Famines are common in the mid to late game, your empire is constantly crumbling and angry at you, most regions aren't very wealthy, your trips revolt if left out in the field too long

Of course, in a lot of ways combat is actually worse, especially with the incredibly op cav and paper mache troops that die by the gobful in any sustained melee.

Back in those days your mouse only had one button so giving orders was a lot more challenging than it is represented in the total war games.

1/10
2.5/10 with hyper-historical mods like Roma Surrectum.
No argument

How authentic is EB? It seems like the creators have figured out everything, but as a historyfag, I realize that we don't know jack shit about most of the barbarian factions present there.

a lot more than jack shit is known about barbarian tribes that exist on the roman frontier

it wasn't some void, romans did in fact trade with them

>as a historyffag
they have actual academic sources in the game.

They made up and generalized alot of shit. Even about Romans
No surprise really. Alot of history, even well documented, is full of "probably's" and "maybe's".

That sounds a lot like the stillborn that was EU:Rome, aka Populist Simulator

>The units themselves are realistic I guess
The Beastmen faction in fucking Warhammer are more realistic than the DLC in Rome 2

Just buy that DLC. Sounds easy enough.

Just making the point realism is a secondary concern to Creative Assembly, I could also get into how fire arrows don't work and Shoguns 2's stupid meme one v one fights within units, along with a lot of other shit

That is f*cking autistic i swear to god. That, to mee is way over the top. I tried playing it but its too autistic, too many new units, too many new buildings, factions, cities, e.t.c. Why can't modders just make a decent vanilla game with fixed units? Add a few more units, fix the shitty made up ones, polish a few factions and you're done. No new cities, buildings or what ever. Any mod that does this?

Imo the Thracian nobles in Rome 2 are the coolest looking units ever made in any total war game.

How so? EU: Rome was just EU but without content, based on the same kind of provincial map like all the others.

EU:Rome was entirely focused on character interactions much like CK but those characters weren't necessarily related, it was beneficial to have good generals not related to you, except it was always some populist cunt that won the elections anyway

DEI for Rome 2 is good. It adds supply lines and shit like that.

I reloaded atilla total war not to long ago but u guess there was an update

I kept on hearing strange screaming and squealing in the battle's, I finally zoomed in and found out they threw in shit tons of women

god I hate sensationalist history

woman warriors?

in ancient rome?

>tfw no gladiator gf

>tfw no EB voice pack for Rome 2
>EQUITES ROMANI

NTW3 is by far the most realistic mod for Napoleon, battles can last for hours

Fuck yeah, the EB voice work was top tier.

I really enjoyed Attila for showcasing a rare time period and focusing on established superpowers struggling to survive. Especially with either of the Romes, the sense of apocalyptic crisis makes it more memorable than blobbing across the map.

Total War only models one strategy: hammer and anvil. In so far that this is a real strategy, it is accurate, but Total War is pretty bad in other aspects. Such as the fact that the best strategy is to always line your army out as wide as possible and engage with 100% of your army at the same time.

Why did the Romans use these small swords? compared to Medieval swords they are pretty much daggers

They go well with the shield, you'd know this if you've ever been in a fight. Block with your left arm and punch the shit out of their guts with the right

they were meant to fight in tight formation where you can't swing a sword

The gladius was very effective when used in formation.

What's the best mod?

Europa Barbarorum

Roma Surrectum 2

Rome Total Realism VII

Caesar in Gaul and Britain sounds pretty fun though.

>Why did the Romans use these small swords? compared to Medieval swords they are pretty much daggers

Because they were meant to be used in tight situations, you basically stabbed behind the large shield, large swords would be harder to use. In medieval times armor got a lot better so the need for shields was reduced, but the need for bigger heavier weapons increased.

Europa Barbarorum definitely but it crashes every 20 fucking minutes and it's on the ancient Rome 1 engine. Divide et Impera for Rome 2 is currently my favorite mod, it's kind of like EB for Rome 2 but not as in depth.

>that feel when living in lands populated by Thracians
>pottery starts popping up in my aunts back yard
>calls the authorities
>Thracian burial, urns a broken helm and an almost intact bronze falx.
>Everything gets taken to a museum
>mfw when she should have called me first
>i have no face

Is there a mod that removes the dumb "big province - part province" separation from Rome 2? I can't play any of the newer games, because the campaign map is pure cancer that forces you to either suppress revolts 24/7 or conquer everything at once, fuck rivers or national borders.

FUCK THAT IS NICE I AM MAD JELLY

In Attila, iirc, the only women should be in basic, low tier levies.

There is none. But I prefer the new system for gameplay reasons, mainly that it spreads out economic centers.

>too many new units, too many new buildings, factions, cities, e.t.c. Why can't modders just make a decent vanilla game with fixed units?

because there are fundamental limitations to certain mechanics.

Europa Barbarorum does a rough simulation of cultural and administrative conversion to pace the expansion of your faction, since the numbers are quite different to reflect that strive for realism in the first place. It's not that complicated, you just need to be able to read more than three paragraphs of text.

also Rome 2's Divide Et Impera does exactly what you want but also adds a subtle manpower and population tiers that affect your growth and recruitment, it's a great mod.

a)the main form of attack being the thrust, a longer blade was not necessary to be effective when combined with the large shields

b)longer swords were harder to transport and wield

c)longer swords were more expensive and took longer to make since they needed to be stronger

That's what they're in.

And all I saw was a fucking picture...

>game dev wants to make a fun game.
whoa

Shogun 2 isn't a fun game.

>he doesn't raugh as oiled gooks die

>the japs didn't kill his granpappy back in 'nam
>he doesn't enjoy killing japanese people with giant machine guns

If you can get it to work, Roma Surrectum 2. If not, Europa Barbarorum.

Speaking of war games. How would people rank the Warhammer Fantasy wargame in terms of accuracy, disregarding all the fantasy elements and how that would affect tactics?

Because all swords of the era were pretty short, metallurgy wasn't very developed yet and swords were the main weapon for the Roman army (a rarity in most armies of the antiquities and middle ages) and there should be conservation with how much steel should be used.
Medieval armies mostly carried spears, swords were extremely rare and only carried by rich people such as knights.

Its pretty up there but at the same time it has its limitations. e.g. magic use, some of the sieges the numbers and a few of the mechanics limitations.

I just cant wait for Warhammer II, that shit looks epic as fuck.

Roman sword and shield tactics were very lethal with well trained troops.

I'm very bothered by the strange laser looking arrows and how weightless and fast paced combat looks. Is that an issue in game?

I meant the tabletop game, not Total War: Warhammer.

It's a beer and pretzels game, it's better than 40K though if you want tactics and shit. Fuck Age of Sigmar

I'm not very well read on older conflicts but for Napoleon Total War there are varying degrees of realism.

The first realistic aspect is that for nearly all the countries i can field an entire battalion (sometimes more) with or without their reserve which means a single player can field a regiment at times and play them in the actual formations they would have fought in.
The irrealistic side of this is that AI even on hard doesn't follow military regulations and formations so they throw retarded lines at you.

Another point of it being not realistic is that the most known battles in the Napoleonic Era could field tens of thousands of men with generals leading armies on various flanks but in Total War it's hard to field beyond 3ish thousand men alone which would be a fraction of the real deal.

Another point of irrealism is the lack of field hospitals, the mass wounded men making their way back after volleys, the carriages picking them up, and finally the fact that infantry squares vs cav should have an entire battalion and not a single company.

About companies, it is also irrealistic that they each carry flags and that they are not divided into platoons which the Austrians for example had 6 platoons for almost 200 men.

The vanilla game has trash uniforms i recommend TW3 mod, a lot of great factions and awesome uniforms.

Furthermore, we see line battles as being silly today because of the fact that in NTW and often tiems we see single companies in a line firing at a single rectangle of enemy men but in reality there would not be these kind of chaotic and silly squares firing from every angle. Instead entire battalions would fight in large formations with the front companies doing their thing (the wounded making their way back) and either breaking the enemy or themselves retreating en masse which would leave the second line of companies to take action and the course of action can vary with many possibilities but even with that said another aspect weights in.

Total War games lack the amount of smoke in battle. In most cases a battlefield was almost entirely covered with smoke and formations had to be kept and ready to do as they were told despite seeing much.

What's wrong with Age of Sigmar? I only came across it recently when someone posted a waifu holding up Sigmar merchandise while at work (some nerd shit store) and people voiced the same sentiment.

Some mods have very realistic units and balance closer to what was real. But recreating the logistics and politics of war is close to impossible.

I don't play games, I play in only one game "Human life on the Earth"

It's disgusting, killed a perfectly good game to make it into Fantasy 40K with some of the shittest fluff I have ever had the misfortune of reading

Can I read about that somewhere?

Just go to the Veeky Forums wiki

I can't find it.

1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer:_Age_of_Sigmar#The_Age_of_Sigmar

Ah, that's it, thanks.