Which is more historically accurate?

[misterbull]

Rome total Realism, Europa Barbarum or Roma Surrectum?

I have treid RTR and it's way better than vanilla, but I've heard that EB is more historical than RTR. I never heard about RS except that its graphics rock.

Oh and what's with the graphics in different mods? They have too much color compared to historical soldiers.

[ImperatorCaesar]

Only played RS, but I love how historical the legions are. I've heard good things about EB, historically.

[blado]

A lot of the people on the EB team are historians, so I would think it would be EB that is the most historically accurate.

[Rex Basiliscus]

Well, you pretty much answered your own question.
RTR has good "theatre" based campaigns (Iberia and Second Punic War), but what I like the most is the micromanaging part, as they really took it to another level with those small regions.
RS has multiple Roman legions, a beautifully designed map, graphics, beautiful units etc It's all there in the mod description
But EB is the most historical mod for this era, which is what you were asking for. But I advise you, if you can, install all three of them and try them out, because it is worth it!

[misterbull]

Well, you pretty much answered your own question.
RTR has good "theatre" based campaigns (Iberia and Second Punic War), but what I like the most is the micromanaging part, as they really took it to another level with those small regions.
RS has multiple Roman legions, a beautifully designed map, graphics, beautiful units etc It's all there in the mod description
But EB is the most historical mod for this era, which is what you were asking for. But I advise you, if you can, install all three of them and try them out, because it is worth it!

Thanks for the quick response. It's been bugging me. I'm a stickler for historical realism, so I'll go with EB. But, RSII has the best graphics, so I'm going to try that out because it looks beautiful. Besides, I always learn something about the modders' mindset when I check out all the factions and which ones were created/removed.

[Salahedin]

I'm a great fan of EB, and it is for sure the most historically accurate.
In fact it is so filled with historical data that you can spend months reading them and still be learning something new.
It is not focused on Rome's history however, (that's why I wanted to give this RS2 a try, and for god's sake I'm quite impressed too! Great job here also) because historically the "barbarians" were in fact much more civilized than we, post-roman so-called civilized people,.usually suspect.
So I would also advise you to try both, if you don't have any plan for the next 2 years, I mean.

[pokeytrev]

I'm a great fan of EB, and it is for sure the most historically accurate.
In fact it is so filled with historical data that you can spend months reading them and still be learning something new.
It is not focused on Rome's history however, (that's why I wanted to give this RS2 a try, and for god's sake I'm quite impressed too! Great job here also) because historically the "barbarians" were in fact much more civilized than we, post-roman so-called civilized people,.usually suspect.
So I would also advise you to try both, if you don't have any plan for the next 2 years, I mean.

Wait a minute... how are the "barbarians" more civilized than we "so-called civilized people"?

[johnnieangel]

Ive played all three as well as RS2. Im hooked on RS1 ( for the past 3 months!) almost daily. if you want historical accuracy I agree go with EB, I love playing the legions though. too many crashes on RS2 I me thinks.....the team as a whole has put in soo much research. Brilliant lads, all.

[Drtad]

RSII isn't that unhistorical compared to EB. Some parts are more historical than EB, imho (but on the whole, yes, EB is technically more historical).

[Wulfburk]

EB for sure, good thing to do is play EB with the RSII enviroments

[Milligon]

I have to say I am quite impressed of the history aspect of RS2, as it's the only mod I am playing these days. But having played EB forever, RS2 doesn't have some of the historical stuff such as the yearly history message. Also playing the Greeks (I think) in EB, there were historical messages that would pop up after taking a city on that particular region. But I these are the two best mods out there, though I am curious to see what the new RTR VII will be like .

[tone]

It depends on which aspect of history you mean. There is so much history that no one mod can claim to have it all covered. They're all a lot of fun and provide some good education....there's historical stuff in EB that RS2 doesn't have and vice versa.

[misterbull]

It depends on which aspect of history you mean. There is so much history that no one mod can claim to have it all covered. They're all a lot of fun and provide some good education....there's historical stuff in EB that RS2 doesn't have and vice versa.

Yes, I'd like to specify for the multiplayer portion. That would include unit types, unit roster, historical factions based on history rather than balance, armor types based on era, lack of fantasy units, historical colors, historical standards/legions, historical formations, artillery and arrow accuracy based on history, and finally historically realistic costs of units.

[Nota']

1. Babarian just means foreigner.
2. The celtic and other kinds of "babarian" were not more civilised than the "so-called civilized people", its just people portray them as savages sometimes, and they werent. It is pretty easy to argue that the romans were more 'Barbaric' then the celts.

[Imperator of Rome]

1. Babarian just means foreigner.
2. The celtic and other kinds of "babarian" were not more civilised than the "so-called civilized people", its just people portray them as savages sometimes, and they werent. It is pretty easy to argue that the romans were more 'Barbaric' then the celts.

Other then that, it is speculated that the Romans adopted the Lorica Hamata from the Gauls, and it's definitely true that they adopted the Montefortino helm from the Gauls. As for the most historical mod, it's EB. It has way more parameters for its reforms and its reforms are more in depth. I do not like the current RSII reforms are the classic generic Marian legionaries are made obsolete rather quickly when in EB, they were basically the main infantry type you will be using post Polybian. RSII does boost a rather great adherence to accuracy as far as unit appearance and especially Roman equipment are concerned. Both mods have some interesting info, EB just has more and RSII has some info that isn't in EB.

[Brusilov]

1. Babarian just means foreigner.
2. The celtic and other kinds of "babarian" were not more civilised than the "so-called civilized people", its just people portray them as savages sometimes, and they werent. It is pretty easy to argue that the romans were more 'Barbaric' then the celts.

The stict definition of a barbarian (in Greek) was anyone that did not speak Greek.

[Nota']

The stict definition of a barbarian (in Greek) was anyone that did not speak Greek.

Technicalities

[The Doubtful Guest]

Overall I'd go with EB. However, EB is so historically accurate it actually takes away some of the fun factor of playing. (In my opinion)

I like how RS2 is like the happy medium of also being almost as historical as EB, but being a lot more fun to play.

Try them all though! RS has the amazing Map, units, skins, legions, etc. etc.

EB has tons of sweet little nuances and fanatical attention to historical accuracy.

RTR...eh lol I've personally never truly enjoyed any of them. They all either seem too limited with the units and time frame or scripted to hell. I am looking forward to their next release though, even though I hate their "minor settlements" idea.

[dvk901]

I thing also people should remember that RS2 and EB had different 'visions' about how to handle history. RS2 attempts to 'portray' the era historically, but makes less attempt to 'keep' it historical. So you start with a historical situation, and you'll see units progress with historical looks, but once you click the start button, history is in the player's making. EB made a far greater effort to keep things progressing historically...which is fine...it's just a different way of doing things.

For example, we have an initial revolt in Italy for the Romans, and a secondary revolt at a certain point when the faction leader becomes Emperor, and you hold 'X' amount of regions. These provide the 'essence' of what happened, but make no attempt to provide every detail correctly.

[C.Maximus]

I thing also people should remember that RS2 and EB had different 'visions' about how to handle history. RS2 attempts to 'portray' the era historically, but makes less attempt to 'keep' it historical. So you start with a historical situation, and you'll see units progress with historical looks, but once you click the start button, history is in the player's making. EB made a far greater effort to keep things progressing historically...which is fine...it's just a different way of doing things.

For example, we have an initial revolt in Italy for the Romans, and a secondary revolt at a certain point when the faction leader becomes Emperor, and you hold 'X' amount of regions. These provide the 'essence' of what happened, but make no attempt to provide every detail correctly.

Perfect way of putting it my campaign is not historical but my units and starting positions are