On the topic of realism in RTW Vanilla

[micromegas]

The concept of realism came up in another thread so I started a new one. Now I’m a former tabletop wargamer and a military history enthusiast (though my knowledge of dates and times is very very limitied) so this is an important point for me.

I know there’s a lot of people say that the vanilla version of RTW isn’t realistic but I think realism in an electronic game can only take you so far. And I think the vanilla version is realistic enough while preserving playability. Here’s why:

1.) For this time period we are very limited by what we actually know about history. For example it's impossible to tell how a Macedonian pikeman matches up against a Roman legionnaire. There was maybe only a couple of battles where they met and there are way too many other factors that come into play (ie: morale, terrain, weariness of armies from the campaign, socio-politic factors etc.). For this reason it’s impossible to know the relative strengths of units, we can only guess.

2.) Furthermore historians only have a rough idea of the make up of armies of that time. They can only infer the outcomes from ancient historians who based their accounts on word-of-mouth accounts of actual events. So without going into it too much, we can only ever hope for the SEMBLANCE of realism. I think it's a fallacy to try and pretend one mod is more realistic than another because we are so limited in what we actually know.

3.) Now I've looked at the unit lists for the EB mod and the problem that I see is that they provide too much unit variety. What I mean is that by providing all the factions with a lot of variety it becomes difficult to distinguish between them. All the hellenic factions, for example, look the same. Furthermore this allows you to fight any style you want with a hellenic faction, because you can have an entire army of heavy cavalry and what not, this makes the game actually less "realistic". I personally think it's a good idea to limit the number of troops that certain factions get so that there is distinction among them and we can have discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of each one.

4.) A lot of people also mention that the game is imbalanced amongst the factions. Well history was certainly not balanced, not by a long shot. A general would typically only initiate a battle in which he thought had an advantage (or out of desperation, this is a general statement please don’t focus on it too much). To me it’s also interesting to fight battles at a disadvantage, this is what war is all about.

5.) Finally, there is a always a balance that you have to strike between realism and playability, the real battles of the era had armies 50,000 – 100,000 people and battles would last an entire day. I don’t have the computer power nor the time to recreate that. The game also added things like wardogs and gladiators, and I don’t mind this as much, it’s just for fun and that’s what were here for anyway.

So in conclusion, yes the game isn’t the most realistic representation of the era. But I think it does a fairly good job while balancing playability. My question is what would be a realistic representation of the era that would still be playable? Does giving the romans 10 different types of legionnaires, or the greeks 20 different types of hoplites and heavy cavalry really make the game more realistic? And how could we ever verify it with our incomplete historic records? In fact what exactly is realism? We can only ever hope for a fun strategic game and the semblance of historicity. I know I’ll prolly get beat up for this but my internet-self can handle it.

[unfortunate crow]

While I enjoyed Rome Total Realism, one of my gripes about it was that is just wasn't fun. Having a unit of gladiators, or unleashing hounds on your routing enemies is just fun....I can't really even say why. And yes, 10 types of hoplite in one faction is just annoying.

Well that, and the obvious anti-Rome, pro-Macedon leaning of the mod.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I only like RTR because Egypt is Hellenistic, and Rome is not split into several factions. Maybe I'll mod RTW 1.5 to start a bit earlier and include only one Roman faction, but that's beyond my knowledge of modding now.

Indeed, even if I play RTR, I've found out that Vanilla RTW has a lot more action and fun. The lack of music in the environment (maybe that's just my version), the varied unit colours that would never get boring. And should I say? The unit cards and graphics in RTW vanilla beat anything made in most mods, including RTR; I've seen some mods that have a good amount of graphical perfection, but I did not try them and one of the worst issues I have with RTR and SPQR are ugly unit cards.

5.) Finally, there is a always a balance that you have to strike between realism and playability, the real battles of the era had armies 50,000 – 100,000 people and battles would last an entire day. I don’t have the computer power nor the time to recreate that. The game also added things like wardogs and gladiators, and I don’t mind this as much, it’s just for fun and that’s what were here for anyway.

Maybe in the future we'll have computer power to recreate this kind of battles, but 'till now we're limited to 10000 men. Gladiators and Wardogs aren't entirely unrealistic. For unrealistic features, I like to accept I'm rewriting history instead of just repeating it; the game is about this, getting ahistorical since day 1. In my view, this is better than trying to follow rigid historical patterns.

And so, since I'm rewriting history, why not put a Praetorian Guard to guard the Senators? The game says their real role in history, but since I'm in completely different universe, then why not? I mean, things still must look like "Rome" and "Greece" as they were, but the degree of "unrealism" in vanilla is just acceptable. It doesn't take out the "Roman" flavour of the game nor does it eliminate essential Roman units in history.

[Jake.Q]

I didnt like rtr spartans have to look like spartans and lord knows the only unti that matters for me is spartans

[Samuel Adams]

wow...

Well I have to say on my part, RTW vanilla did something great in that a.) it's playable without mods, b.) you can re-write history (in my first campaign three years ago I played as the Julii, and didn't stop unti l'd taken every settlement on the map. Rome was the very last one, under the SPQR, which as a new TW player I didn't think was good to take as I respected the republic...).
C.) it's fun to play. It was revolutionary, the first TW game I played, and after meet-in-the-middle more hit points wins AoE2, it was awesome.

Then I saw Roma Surrectum a about three months ago. I had recently re-purchased RTW and had in the 2 year hiatus studied Rome's military more in depth, and had seen that many of the units of RTW could use a good revamping.

I didn't know about this forum, though, nor about mods of any sort. I bought M2 and needed a strategy guide and stumbled on this site, where I saw such awesome mods as RS, EB, IBFD, etc.

Say what you may about their unit cards, the skinning on teh units is phenominal. The uber-bright colors of vanilla were odd, and the legions and other units a bit plain and un interesting.

RS is the mod I play, so I can't speak on behalf of or against EB as far as playability and how fun it is; however, with Roma Surrectum you have historic legions with historic AOR's. You may see this as "not fun" since the player has to take certain cities to recruit good units, and I will admit in a pinch I've been frusterated I have to march a legion to a region where I can't recruit one to stave off an invasion. This is especially true pre-marian reforms in RS, where you only get town watch, velites, adn equites in non-AOR cities.

As far as re-writing history, you're correct. That's the aim of the game, and no two campaigns are the same. In one campaign I played in RS, teh Germans were steamrolled by the free people and destroyed almost at teh onset of the game. Next one I played, the Germans took out everything in their path and conquered everything in the east, so modern history would have been the Russians were germanic, Britain still spoke Gaelic, etc.

But with that, the units you spoke of needing to be specific to a certain faction should be re-writable too! What if the Romans had become a cavalry dominant superpower as opposed to an infantry one? I know that in my legions I have brought my cataphract cavalry from Byzantium and Parthia to the west many a time, as in the east even those mighty heavies fall prey to the spears of hoplites; yet against the barbarians they save many of my legionares from death. Why not?

realism in TW games is something to be interpreted by the individual player. If you like vanilla and don't want to mod it, that's all good and fine; not a big deal. But the units aren't as accurate as many of these mods have made them; my stance is, while re-writing history, I still want a certain degree of being able to "feel the period" while I'm playing. So no, a parthian cavalry unit probably wasn't used to crush the Gauls in 50 BC, but in 100 BC in my TW world they are a determining factor to the outcome of the game. And I certainly can't bash the work of the modders who have strived for historical accuracy, and in most cases either achieved it or are working hard to do so.

[micromegas]

I'd like to clarify that my original post wasn't about bashing the mods or the modders. I think they've all done a lot of good work, and I don't want to take anything away from them.

I was trying to defend the idea of RTW vanilla not being realistic and to have a discussion on what realism in a video game really means.

[polarbear297]

On my part I love the times for what the did. History. I like to follow my campaigns historically accurate, which is hard but i try my best. RTW is my favorite Total War game just for the fact that Rome conquers all of europe! There is no other Total War game that does this with the exception of Shogun (not sure). Total war means to me, that I must conquer all the land availabe.

I know the whole army and units subject is inaccurate. This doesnt mean much to me because I'm not a historian. I'm a player looking for a way to challenge and entertain myself through a game. If the units look good and are intresting to watch, then CA has fulfilled my cravings.

Realism means alot but there is a limit. You don't buy RTW to learn and study Roman times. You buy RTW to have fun. Fun. Everyone has there own outlook on this topic. So don't penalize me for what I have said. All I want is entertaiment. Fun.

[Gary88]

A lot of people also mention that the game is imbalanced amongst the factions. Well history was certainly not balanced, not by a long shot. A general would typically only initiate a battle in which he thought had an advantage (or out of desperation, this is a general statement please don’t focus on it too much). To me it’s also interesting to fight battles at a disadvantage, this is what war is all about.

whilst thats true it means big problems is games are designed imbalanced. it would be incredibly hard to play as any of the weaker factions, it already is to some extent but it would be even more so. also the online game would suffer hugely because you could only win with the romans

[Ludens]

While I agree with the OP we are limited in both our knowledge of and our ability to similute history, I don't think that realism mods are in vain. Heck, just by giving Egypt a proper Egyptian army, the realism of the game is undisputably increased. Similarly, although Rome consistently managed to defeat her opponents, Roman armies did not always win. In fact, they regularly got trashed pretty bad. Not so in the game, where Rome generally has a walkover and dominates the world a single century after the start. Her main opponent, Carthage, always crumbles and dies rather quickly. You never get to see a serious Punic war, like in history. Similarly, the Syrian wars practically always turn out in favour of Egypt, even though in reality the latter was reduced to impotence after the last Punic wars. I could go on like this, but I think the point is clear. Although exact simulation of history is impossible, improvements can be made.

3.) Now I've looked at the unit lists for the EB mod and the problem that I see is that they provide too much unit variety. What I mean is that by providing all the factions with a lot of variety it becomes difficult to distinguish between them. All the hellenic factions, for example, look the same. Furthermore this allows you to fight any style you want with a hellenic faction, because you can have an entire army of heavy cavalry and what not, this makes the game actually less "realistic". I personally think it's a good idea to limit the number of troops that certain factions get so that there is distinction among them and we can have discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of each one.

As a player of EB I have to disagree here. There is plenty of difference between the Hellenic factions. Not if you look at their standard units, which are indeed the standard phalanxes plus heavy cavalry, but if you look at the supporting troops. The Seleucids can recruit a wide variety of Eastern troops in their border provinces. The Ptolemies don't have that luxury, but they have access to a large pool of cheap, Egyptian levies. The Macedonians don't have auxillaries in their home provinces, but can find poleis-type troops to their south and crack Thracian skirmishers to their north. Bactria, on the other hand, has a greater emphasis on cavalry, because they have only limited access to phalangilites. However, even with them it is unwise to recruit an all-cavalry army because it is frigging expensive and not that effective too boot.

[sumaznguy]

I think the fact that the mods let you recruit lots of different troops for each faction is cool. It's like buying mercenaries but without being uber expensive.


And I am fond of most of the newer skins in the mods (RTR armoured hoplites look so amazing) , and the battle stances. Like EB hoplites look like actual hoplites with their spears in the air and not using phanlanx formation.

The only thing I liked about RTW Vanilla was easy to abuse ai. I could be filthy rich just by selling map information, trade rights and alliances to other factions. They pay so much for map information lol.

[Whiskeyjack]

Nice post Micromegas, i enjoyed reading it even if i dont agree with everything.

1. Partially agree with this point in that we cannot know how exactly particular units matched up historically-however we do know that the romans did not have everything there own way and would not simply roll over any other infantry unit as happens in vanilla.
2. Fair point-agree.
3. While i agree with this point as well, these mods certainly did a better job of giving hellenistic factions in particular more viable choices though as you say there are perhaps too many options. The reason all hellenic factions look similiar in these mods is because this was historically the case- any useful military innovation made by one would be swiftly copied by the others.
With regards to some hellenistic factions being too flexible with the addition of some non phalanx options this could easily be solved by giving these troop types a higher cost than equivalent troop type from another faction, this would balance their use to roles they would have been used for historically. As for your point about unit spam this is the fault of the game, a similair system should have been used as for the older games wherby when you took over a certain number of a troop type (4 i think it was) you had to pay an additional "tax" on this unit making spam armies less viable. Also just to point out spam armies are pretty much the norm in rtw as is.
4. This point really cuts to the core of the problem imo. I have no problem with a degree of imbalance which as you say would reflect history somewhat.
The way i see it, the problem with vanilla is the degree with which imbalance exists, having a system by wich romans>all or heavy infantry is automatically better than light even in bad terrain just seems a bit ludicrous. Also some faction's are not just disadvantaged- they are basically unviable in competetive play and this really hurts the game.
5. While i agree concessions have to be made in terms of "reality" for the game to remain playabe, vanilla fails to strike this balance.

In regards to your conclusion i cant really agree with it, of all the games i have played Vanilla seems to be the worst culprit in terms of poor balancing. No adding in multiple copies of legions or hoplites wont help the game be more fun or realistic(in fact vanilla already has too many of these "redundant" units already), but as an example, would you say giving hellenic factions a unit roughly equivalent to princepes in place of one of their redundant units would lessen the fun of the game?
As i said earlier i accept that the game can never be totally realistic without hurting gameplay, but its is possible for a balance to be struck, you only need to look at shogun and mtw to see that. While they are not perfect they are significantly better than rtw in this regard.

p.s apologies for any spelling/grammer mistakes, i was tired when writing this.