Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

  1. #1

    Default Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    - Taking into account only vanilla games, no mods, which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2 Total War? Take into consideration Rome 1 with all expansions and Rome 2 with Ancestral Update and all dlcs.

    - Now taking into account mods, would you change your decision?

    - Overall, which Total War game do you prefer: Rome 1 or Rome 2? Consider here both as vanilla but fully updated.

    I have both games: Rome 1 and Rome 2 but I played Rome 2 very few times, I can't play it with max. settings but I am planning to purchase a better computer and one of the main reasons is Rome 2 Total War.

  2. #2
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,828

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Rome 2, mainly because they used some EB concepts.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  3. #3
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    1) Vanilla: 2, there is absolutely no debate.

    2) With mods: Hard to say. I haven't played 2's mods but I did contribute to Ancient Empires (I believe it's now a submod of Divide et Impera) and got the impression that those guys were taking historical research very seriously. I loved Rome 1's mods (played Total Realism, Europa Barbarorum and Roma Surrectum), though I recall people assuming that they were more historical just because they used fancy languages and units based in archeological findings withouth really caring/knowing whether those languages and units were properly applied (for instance I seem to recall the (historically celtic) Lusitanian faction in EB using some modern basque names (related to Iberian, but not to celtic) or using Iberian equipment (like falcatas).

    3) Overall Hard to be objective about this. Rome 2 is undeniably a much better game in pretty much every aspect, though Rome 1 was revolutionary for its time and came out when I was a teenager, so I am helplessly biased and nostalgic about it, played it far longer than Rome 2 and I'd say I enjoyed it more given the context... though today I wouldn't touch it with a stick and rather play Rome 2 anyday.
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; March 27, 2019 at 07:28 PM.

  4. #4
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,976

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    It really depends on how you defend historical accuracy. The majority of the customers focus on units and the European factions, where Rome II easily prevais, because the new engine allows more factions to be available (so the weird coalitions of Rome I are replaced with fragmented tribes) and because, as z3n mentioned, Creative Assembly didn't hesitate to freely copy-paste the work of the first Europa Barbarorum. In fact, sometimes they even used the original assets of the research team, in order to enrich the roster of the more obscure factions. However, in other aspects, which I personally find more important, Rome II lacks severely behind its predecessor. For instance, the Skype diplomacy is completely absurd for a game set in Antiquity, while the old system of diplomat-agents simulated much more convincingly the old institution of embassies. The same observation applies to taxation (it was never standard), urban planning (arbitrary limits at building slots), onomastics (Christian and Assyrian names for Macedonian and Persian generals, respectively) imperial administration (no concept of dynamic public order and corruption, according to geographic isolation) and etc. Meanwhile, historicity truly collapses in the eastern portion of the map, where the eastern satrapies of the Seleucid Empire have given their place to a bunch of largely imaginary protectorates. My favourite example is the mighty kingdom of Media, which Creative Assembly succeeded in locating it to Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), instead of the actual region of Media (modern north-western Iran). Therefore, I would say that the answer to your question is determined, according to each individual's preferences and priorities. For someone like me who mostly appreciates the onomastics and the Middle East, Rome's II chaos is a bitter pill to swallow.

  5. #5
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,824

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    From the part of units and textures RomeII was slightly more accurate simply because it had no Pharaonic Egyprians but Ptolemies.
    On the game features though...Rome I was more accurate for the following reasons.
    It had much more variety os settlements.
    Strat_map settlement models were actually conected with the battle map ones.
    1: AI could use 1-4 armies and besiege a city from entirely diferent directions ussing each one of the armies its own siege equipment such ladder, rams and siege towers.
    2: There was sapping as wall assault method.
    3: Rome I had from the start what RomeII NEEDED an extra campaign to show the diferent political fammilies of Rome.
    4: Settlement population had growth but also population degreasing factors with RECRUITMENT as the major one.
    5: Settlements could have all walls of any kind separatly from the size of the settlement each self (something the even M2TW lost as a feature).
    6: You could have actually endless buildings to ballance your cities and not only 4-6 building slots.
    7: Rome I could use "captains" to move armies and even fight with them.
    The list is endless but i will stop with them.
    Rome II has the advandage of real time naval battles and landings but naval battles rarely played by the majority of players simply because a warship with archers does the same damage with a transport ship with archers as well.!!
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  6. #6
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,182

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    It's true that Rome: Total War had some good features which late games tend not to have and that Rome II has real-time naval battles. It used to be the case that warships weren't much use, but that's changed when the game was updated. A warship with archers can usually sink a transport with archers, if it belongs to a faction whose ships have rams, so the warship does a lot more damage. I enjoy being able to land marines and potentially capture a port with marines alone (or to use them to support an army) - marines finally act like marines.

    When a turn represents a year, I don't have a problem with being able to initiate diplomacy with a nation I have contact with by clicking a button. The player in Rome II sometimes does need to send characters across the map for diplomacy - if you want to initiate diplomacy with a nation you don't have a border with (or connect with through a trade route). You can only initiate diplomacy with nations you have contact with. It's normal to send a ship to contact other nations so you can build your trade network, for example.

    As I see it, the building slots and the army limits reflect the facts that nations' resources and manpower aren't unlimited - which seems historical to me. Your cities can be balanced - for example with a 4-slot major city it's not difficult to build a barracks, a temple and an entertainment building or a commercial building, providing a balance of military and economic usefulness. Later on, some of these buildings can be converted (perhaps the settlement will be a front-line fortress in a major war early in a century, then a quiet garrison town in the mid-century, then become a peaceful economic centre by the century's end). Additional slots will become available as the city grows.

    Naval battles aren't the only feature of Rome II which is a step towards historical accuracy. Imperium re-creates the problems of managing a large empire (increased corruption and risk of civil war). The true line of sight system means that light cavalry are useful for their scouting (which they would have historically been used for) and it combines well with systems from earlier games (like guerrilla deployment and the ability to hide in different terrain). The more aggressive AI feels more realistic too - as Carthage, for example, I faced a serious invasion from Rome. Secessions mean that any empire we lead can have a civil war in the vanilla game, not just Rome.

    I'm not claiming that Rome II is anything like strictly historically accurate. I'm saying that at times I feel that I'm experiencing something like the challenges which ancient nations had - such as when my late-period Carthaginian empire relied increasingly on cheap levy troops from Celtic client states, just as late-period Rome relied increasingly on auxiliaries. Total War games are historical sandboxes, in my view, they're not trying to be a literal or linear re-enactment of history. I like that - I'd rather change history than follow it.
    Last edited by Alwyn; March 31, 2019 at 07:03 AM.

  7. #7
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,976

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Well there is no doubt that everyone is entitled to his opinion, in such subjectively determined matters. After all, I recognize the fact that my focus on the terrible representation of the Middle East and onomastics is just a minority view. To be honest, what startles me the most about the second issue is that, nowadays, a quick browse of the relevant Wikipedia articles would sufficiently cover any need for variety, without having to employ the obviously anachronistic names of Akkadian monarchs and Monophysite monks. Anyway, my rant, aside, let's close with a small note about the Imperium system. Both Rome I and Medieval II featured an identical mechanism, which also undermined further territorial expansion with penalties concerning corruption and public order. Personally, I prefer the older version, because it is more dynamic and affects every region separately, based not on a bar automatically filled with each new annexation, but on the geographic distance between the capital and the provincial centers of power. It just felt more realistic to me.

    P.S. I understand that the Skype diplomacy looks now more practical, but, especially in Antiquity, that's not how diplomacy worked. Organising and manning embassies was a very complicated procedure (about which, we are quite familiar, thanks to epigraphic testimony), which the diplomat-agents of the older games represented rather accurately. Very frequently, the journey of the ambassadors was intercepted by a neutral or hostile entity, which thus managed to completely interrupt the diplomatic relations between two states. The most typical example is the massacre of the delegation of the Peloponnesian League, tasked to seal an alliance between it and the Achaemenid Empire, by the Athenias, as narrated by Thucydides.

  8. #8
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,182

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    You make good points about the representation of eastern nations and historical names (was this better in vanilla Rome Total War?).

    That's a good point, too, about historical ambassadors being intercepted - your historical example is a good one. It's true that Rome II only partially allows for interception, when the player is sending characters or units to establish diplomatic relations with previously uncontacted factions.

    You said that Rome Total War and Medieval II had "identical" systems to Rome II's Imperium because it increased corruption and lowered public order. However, Rome II's system doesn't just do those things. It also limits the number of armies you can recruit (a simple manpower system) and increases the risk of secession/civil war for all factions (not just Roman ones). When Skantarios was interviewed about how he wrote the famous Medieval II AAR I am Skantarios, the interviewer (Beer Money) asked how he had a civil war:

    HOW did you pull off the civil war? It was epic by the way. And how long did that take?

    I wrote a fairly extensive explanation of that in the thread and how I did it. You can find it here. Basically, it involved fighting a series of custom battles based off the composition of the armies facing each other. Since the game wouldn’t allow me to fight my own faction against each other, I wound up having to change the skins of the opponents (in this case Novgorod) to those of the Byzantines and then fighting custom battles pitting the Romans/Byzantines against the reskinned units of Novgorod. I also had to modify the overview and results screenshots to get the names right. When I had to bring in the Hungarians, I resorted to some cheating by doing a “move_character” command to bring them in.

    How long did it take? I guess “forever” is too imprecise. I honestly don’t know but it was probably somewhere between 20 and 30 hours to do the mods to the files, the custom battles, and editing the screen shots. The writing was even more time. All in all, it is not recommended and something that I will most likely never do again. - Beer Money, An Interview with Skantarios
    In his comment in his AAR on having a civil war in Medieval II, Skantarios wrote:

    The short answer was, it wasn't easy. I will also never do it again for a variety of reasons. Finally, I would not recommend this and it is easy to break your game in the process.
    That's very different from my experience of secession wars in Rome II.

    It's true that distance to capital should increase corruption; it would be quite difficult to own the number of regions needed for high Imperium levels in Rome II, without having regions a long way from your capital.
    Last edited by Alwyn; March 31, 2019 at 08:59 AM.

  9. #9
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,824

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    @Abdülmecid I
    I will agree with your points. Distance from the capital played a crusial role to corruption and even was a major factor to rebelions.
    I also agree the points about diplomacy. Now it comes to mind a realy forgoten MTW-1 agent feature. When AI was gathering alot of armies close to your borders, a pop up message apeared as message from your spies that there is a possibility that that faction may or may not invade your lands.
    @Alwyn
    About the army limitation there is a lot of discussion. Remember that Rome only with Latium in its possesion had 4 legions and 4 ally legions = total 8 legions.
    Later it had thousands of troops in every corner of the known world separated in legions to end up -only in the end- with 28 proffesional legions because it dispanded the legions that were formed by citizens.
    So the army limitation is a matter of money and human resources that ROME I shown better. If you were recruited too many men from a settlement that settlement never grown!! That was totaly accuratly that unforthunatly M2TW lost it as a feature.
    About navel battles. Rams are an asset to warships. But you forget that warships in RomeII's time frame were ALL equipted with balistas and catapults , something that RomeII never fixed even in Attila!
    As for Skantarios comments for a Roman (byzantine) civil war...In my AAR with SS 6.1 i had such a civil war and in TGC mod local uprissings are possible when Emperor's authority drops and also when certain historical civil war events are triggered.
    For such civl wars we were forced to re-entroduse the "shadow" faction feature of RTW/BI one.
    A visual example:
    Loyalist Aristocrats -also known as Acritae or Dynatoi etc-..

    Vardas Phokas and Vardas Scleros rebelion aristocrats:

    Creating a full scale civil war is not only a re-coloring of textures but a huge task that CA/SEGA never accomplished in Rome II and Attila that rebels soldiers ussing EXACT SAME textures with loyalists.
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  10. #10
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,182

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    About the army limitation there is a lot of discussion. Remember that Rome only with Latium in its possesion had 4 legions and 4 ally legions = total 8 legions.
    Later it had thousands of troops in every corner of the known world separated in legions to end up -only in the end- with 28 proffesional legions because it dispanded the legions that were formed by citizens. So the army limitation is a matter of money and human resources that ROME I shown better.
    I see it differently. Rome II's Imperium system works quite well, in my view, producing the effect you describe - smaller nations have fewer armies, larger nations have more.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    About navel battles. Rams are an asset to warships. But you forget that warships in RomeII's time frame were ALL equipted with balistas and catapults , something that RomeII never fixed even in Attila!
    I'm not "forgetting" that - I haven't seen evidence that "ALL" warships in this era had artillery. There are a lot of factions in Rome II - from the Iceni and the Lusitani in the west to the Roxolani and Bactria in the west - and the Grand Campaign alone can easily cover 300-year time period. The sources I can find suggest that artillery was common on Roman warships, not that it was universal - and that's just one faction.

    I understand that not everyone enjoys naval battles. I see being able to play them - and being able to use different tactics (ramming, boarding, ranged fire, artillery) as more historical than not being able to play them.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    As for Skantarios comments for a Roman (byzantine) civil war...In my AAR with SS 6.1 i had such a civil war and in TGC mod local uprissings are possible when Emperor's authority drops and also when certain historical civil war events are triggered.
    For such civl wars we were forced to re-entroduse the "shadow" faction feature of RTW/BI one.
    It's great to hear that modders have been able to do this. The textures in your screenshots look really good.

    I notice that you seem to be comparing modded older games with vanilla Rome II. I'm comparing vanilla Rome II to vanilla Rome: Total War. Rome II allows us to have civil wars with any playable faction, Rome Total War allows Roman factions to have a civil war.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Creating a full scale civil war is not only a re-coloring of textures but a huge task that CA/SEGA never accomplished in Rome II and Attila that rebels soldiers ussing EXACT SAME textures with loyalists.
    As I see it, the creators of Rome II allowed players to experience a civil war in three different ways: through the Imperator Augustus campaign, through the Empire Divided campaign and through the politics system in the Grand Campaign. In Rome II's Grand Campaign, players can see the potential causes of secession or civil wr. We can try different political strategies, such as promoting commanders who belong to rival parties and giving rival parties regional autonomy through loyalty edicts, or refusing to promote them and assigning them to command small forces which the player should be able to beat if a civil war breaks out. We can see which parts of our empire are governed by rival parties and we can take steps to increase the influence of our ruling party, reducing the area which rivals govern. You mention rebels having the same textures - I have no difficulty identifying which units are mine when I'm fighting a secessionist army and it's not surprising that they'd use the same uniforms, at least initially.
    Last edited by Alwyn; April 06, 2019 at 04:52 AM.

  11. #11
    Bran Mac Born's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,976

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    I would say neither. These are sandbox arcade games. They have the veneer of a historical game. The worst thing about them is the campaign map-a total cartoon that has nothing to do with the real historical period.

  12. #12
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,182

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    I agree that they're sandboxes. I like sandbox strategy games, giving us the opportunity to re-write history so that Carthage wins the Punic Wars or so a different rival leader wins the civil wars represented by the Imperator Augustus or Empire Divided campaigns, for example.

    The idea that Rome II is 'arcade' seems popular. With arcade games like Space Invaders and Asteroids, success is about fast reflexes and you have to keep doing the same thing correctly or you're dead. Rome II relies on strategies and tactics, you can experiment with different styles of play, make mistakes and lose some battles, yet still survive. I enjoyed the commentaries on the Milk & Cookies Tournament and the Blue Tournament by Maximus Decimus Meridius and the battle commentaries by Heir of Carthage, they show how armies of the same faction can be led to victory or defeat, depending on how well the player chooses units and on the tactics used. For me, this shows that Rome II (like its predecessor) is not like an arcade game.

    I imagine that there are plenty of historical inaccuracies in the campaign map. If your point is that Total War games are strategy games inspired by history rather than historical re-enactments, I agree. Historical re-enactments are fun to watch in RL, but I wouldn't want to play a game which simply re-enacted history.

  13. #13
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,824

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    I agree that they're sandboxes. I like sandbox strategy games, giving us the opportunity to re-write history so that Carthage wins the Punic Wars or so a different rival leader wins the civil wars represented by the Imperator Augustus or Empire Divided campaigns, for example.

    The idea that Rome II is 'arcade' seems popular. With arcade games like Space Invaders and Asteroids, success is about fast reflexes and you have to keep doing the same thing correctly or you're dead. Rome II relies on strategies and tactics, you can experiment with different styles of play, make mistakes and lose some battles, yet still survive. I enjoyed the commentaries on the Milk & Cookies Tournament and the Blue Tournament by Maximus Decimus Meridius and the battle commentaries by Heir of Carthage, they show how armies of the same faction can be led to victory or defeat, depending on how well the player chooses units and on the tactics used. For me, this shows that Rome II (like its predecessor) is not like an arcade game.

    I imagine that there are plenty of historical inaccuracies in the campaign map. If your point is that Total War games are strategy games inspired by history rather than historical re-enactments, I agree. Historical re-enactments are fun to watch in RL, but I wouldn't want to play a game which simply re-enacted history.
    Again -as you said- its a matter of taste... But there is a catch...
    Total war game series became famous because one unique feature they introdused since Shogun I. The real command of thousands/hundreds if you like soldiers in a "real" battlefield.
    Untill then game like AoEs and others gave a cartoonistic sence of battles.
    Even today Shogun I and MTW 1 battles in open fields look rather more realistic than those of Rome II and Attila despite the chasm of graphics.
    It has to do with the deep realisation feature of battles those two old games had against to simplistic look of battles the last two historical games offer!!
    I had to agree in an other thread that MTW-1 had the best cavalry gameplay in all other TW games ever. I will agree that TW games rely mostly in the feature "what if" and that is the magic of those games. But there is also a catch here. What if means that you start with a basis , a historical background that you have been chalenged to change if you can. You said that Rome II offered Roman Civil wars with two separated campaigns. Strange...IN RTW-1 you did not have to buy two campaigns to have civil wars simply because SPQR could order the other 3 Roman famillies to turn against you.
    About naval battles. I do like the ramming system but it was a real surproce to me -corect me if i am wrong- when i saw a M2TW naval battles features in them.
    In ETW and in Shogun II you could capture a ship , repair it and use it for you.
    In Rome II AND Attila even if you capture an enemy ship in the end of the battle that enemy ship apears in enemy hands with redused crew!!!!
    I would like the "Marines" use too if there was a real settlement battlefields that could make them realistic.
    In Rome II things are slightly better with walled settlements but there is a restriction of how many ships a coast can affort to allow land their marines.
    In Attila we have cities that their towers look like church belfries instead of walls and walls melt by rain and wind!!!
    A great feature (naval landings) gets destroyed by aufull features that never got their fixes!
    Instead the in-capable CA/SEGA development team created "fantacy" features to by pass their incapacity to solve problems.
    In Rome II I WAS EXPECTED atleast the same siege abillity of AI of RTW 1! Instead we had "idiot" soldiers trying to burn down iron gates with torches!
    In Attila torches became useless simply because now the player or AI uses the Horns of Jesus Navi and crumple and get down the walls with NOTHING!
    Atleast in Rome I and M2TW when game desided what city model will use for a certain location it stayed with it. In Rome II -that had a small variety of equal size settlements- everytime you loaded a siege of THE SAME SETTLEMENT you find a diferent model.
    CA/SEGA devs instead of fixxing that they went a step further. ONLY ONE SETTLEMENT MODEL PER TYPE/PER SIZE/PER CULTURE... Great stradegy games...
    About inaccuracies. These are part of the game. Why? Because none of us lived in that era to know everything.
    Here is a part of our preview of Roman Tagmatic Units :
    If we had to give a title in our presentation of the Imperial (Tagmatic) Forces of the Medieval Roman Empire we had no other choice than this one. Nothing is certain. Alexander the Great felt that he had no Homer like historian with him to write down with details his victories and his achievements. Exactly the same “problem” had the Roman Emperors of the middle ages. The problem was/is that those that wrote those“stories” describing events of their times did not add details because a) they wrote to their modern, to them, readers and more details were unnecessary or, b) they were nothing more than “story” writers and they had no expertise in describing details that could allow readers to fully understand how the soldiers of the time we describe, looked like.
    Conclusion: Its not the historical inaccuracies that destroyed the last two TW historical titles. Its that lack of abillity of their developers to create an game that could simulate to a degree a stradegy game.
    Realistic city models with walls
    Realistic siege AI
    Realistic Battle AI
    Atleast move succefull features of previus games to the last ones.
    Testing TGC mod and played thousands of battles in M2TW game that has WORST siege AI than ROME I , I can not ignore the abillity of AI controled units to re-use ladders, siege towers and rams to assault 2nd line of walls.
    Rome II AND Attila siege AI can not assault walls AT ALL!!!!
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  14. #14
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,182

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Again -as you said- its a matter of taste... But there is a catch...
    Total war game series became famous because one unique feature they introdused since Shogun I. The real command of thousands/hundreds if you like soldiers in a "real" battlefield.
    We agree that people's tastes differ and that battles are a major feature which attract people to Total War games.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Untill then game like AoEs and others gave a cartoonistic sence of battles.
    Even today Shogun I and MTW 1 battles in open fields look rather more realistic than those of Rome II and Attila despite the chasm of graphics. It has to do with the deep realisation feature of battles those two old games had against to simplistic look of battles the last two historical games offer!!
    What are those "deep realisation features", specifically?

    In Rome II, I enjoy features such as guerrilla deployment, the ability of some ranged units to 'fire while remaining hidden' and a true line of sight system. This makes fighting a stealthy faction such as the Suebi, in forest in Germania, very different from fighting a Greek state on an open plain under a summer sun. Finally, light cavalry are useful for their actual purpose of scouting ahead.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    You said that Rome II offered Roman Civil wars with two separated campaigns. Strange...IN RTW-1 you did not have to buy two campaigns to have civil wars simply because SPQR could order the other 3 Roman famillies to turn against you.
    Not quite, I said that Rome II offers civil wars for all factions - not just civil wars for Roman factions, like vanilla RTW. I said that Rome II offers civil wars in three campaigns, not two - Imperator Augustus, Empire Divided and the Grand Campaign. When you've bought the Rome II base game, you don't have to buy Imperator Augustus, it's free. If you buy the Rome II base game, any playable faction can have a civil war in the Grand Campaign and the Imperator Augustus campaign is set during one of the major Roman civil wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    About naval battles. I do like the ramming system but it was a real surproce to me -corect me if i am wrong- when i saw a M2TW naval battles features in them.
    What do you mean by "M2TW naval battle features"?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    In ETW and in Shogun II you could capture a ship , repair it and use it for you.
    That's true, and it's a shame that Rome II doesn't have this too.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    I would like the "Marines" use too if there was a real settlement battlefields that could make them realistic.
    The port settlement battlefields look good to me. As you said, tastes differ.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    In Rome II things are slightly better with walled settlements but there is a restriction of how many ships a coast can affort to allow land their marines.
    There used to be a restriction on how many ships we could land. I wonder how recently you've played Rome II - that restriction was removed and players can now land all their troops (unless you're playing on a Mac, where players are still on patch 17 if I remember correctly.)

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    A great feature (naval landings) gets destroyed by aufull features that never got their fixes!
    We agree that naval landings are a great feature. We all make mistakes and it's understandable that you'd be mistaken about this, if you haven't played Rome II for a while (or if you're playing it on a Mac). The problem you describe was real but has been fixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Instead the in-capable CA/SEGA development team created "fantacy" features to by pass their incapacity to solve problems.
    In Rome II I WAS EXPECTED atleast the same siege abillity of AI of RTW 1! Instead we had "idiot" soldiers trying to burn down iron gates with torches!
    When the game was released, yes the burning-torches thing seems to have been common. Yes, it wouldn't be realistic to burn an iron gate with torches.

    However, Rome II has had 20 patches/updates since it was released. I played some sieges yesterday, fighting in support of an ally (run by the AI). My ally used ladders and siege towers to take a series of walled cities, such as Alexandria. My army was there in support but wasn't actually needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Rome II AND Attila siege AI can not assault walls AT ALL!!!!
    As I said, I watched an AI faction assault walls with siege equipment yesterday.
    Last edited by Alwyn; April 07, 2019 at 09:52 AM.

  15. #15
    CommodusIV's Avatar Teutonic Coronavirus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1,265
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    While it is key to have a disclaimer that neither game is particularly accurate at the end of the day nor is it supposed to be true accuracy, I don't think it is a proper reply to the question to say 'neither' or linger too far on this point since the thread is specifically asking "which is more accurate", not to which extent or if it colloquially can even be considered accurate in the first place. With that out of the way I'll just throw in my opinion. It does not address the full picture of things and I have not played either game in some time, so there are bound to be flaws and errors in my basis of fact.

    There's a lot of elements to take into account and I'm no historian, so I'm not exactly judging on straight accuracy - almost impossible to do without more effort than would go into this kind of post - and more on plausibility, based on what would make sense when applied to real scenarios. This can only go so far when it's a video game, yes, I know. In any case, I'll start with the map in general. The context of the gameplay and how it rolls.

    In this respect Rome 1 loses very badly. Rome 2 has the larger Old World, the more detailed map, the more life ( comparing present factions, it's not even a close contest). Rome 2 hosts the more accurate setup of names (where each place on the map is attempted to be given a historically accurate name, owner, and situation rather than a broad catch all faction to fit in an otherwise rebel controlled region for all states aside from Rome, which we'll get to). In short, most factions in Rome 1 are historically just wrong as they have one state for each area despite the areas often having multiple contending political entities. In Rome 1 there is simply no question and the entire matter is glossed over and simplified until another blanket faction takes it on. In Rome 2 it is indeed true anarchy and better represents the condition of having no real government and instead what was often a bunch of tribes squabbling until such a time leaders came around strong enough to bring unity. Rome 1 has a simplistic map, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in general, but does count as a negative when the question is one of attention to historical detail. You can state objectively that as far as laying out the world, Rome 2 does a better job. Comparing in the sense of what happens next is pretty futile since both games actively encourage utterly weird, inaccurate what-ifs. There are still ways to judge what comes next, but first I'll specifically address Rome, of course integral to any sort of historical argument.

    Ultimately? I'd say Rome 2 takes it on this count too. Both attempt to portray the divisive political nature of the faction and instigate a scenario where civil war occurs and one side takes everything. For its time Rome 1's take was a novel concept and certainly more than sufficient. However, unfair as it is to pit the methodology of an older, less refined system against a newer game, fair doesn't really factor into it when we are delving into raw accuracy for the sum of relevant factors. I discount previously made and future arguments that in any way depend on saying that Rome 1 is older, thus it should be given more credit. Not for this question. So, to look at what happens. Rome 1 pays unique attention to the political standing of Rome to the extent that all other factions are quite superficial since Rome was given the priority of having multiple subfactions. The game in practice has four unique factions doing their thing bound by alliance and occasional missions to SPQR. Each are independent arms pursuing their own goals with perhaps occasional military assistance from each other, generally happening should the player pursue it. Eventually, perhaps inevitably, the resulting juggernauts (in the assumption that all survive and grow big) will splinter and proceed to fight each other and/or SPQR. Ideally, one faction results with having most, if not all territories held by some roman faction or another. This would result in the Empire as the game would portray it. All other factions are, for lack of a better explanation, named and set up as though they are all fated to become their modern world common interpretations. For all intents and purposes Caesar defeated Gaul as a faction and he is remembered more often than not in a way that Rome 1 portrays; as one big faction that a roman subfaction beat the out of. Brutii-lead forces defeated The Greek States and are remembered doing so to the collective entity.

    Rome 2 addresses Rome's political situation in a completely different way, as well as unity and politics in general. Rather than use rebels to designate meaningless side factions and have blanket named factions, Rome 2 goes to a very deep level of naming as much as it can possibly find on the historical board and then within those factions setting up political conditions that can result in the factions splintering into two sides. Each faction has this potential, particularly Rome, which is endowed with more parties to micromanage as a nod to Rome's well known cutthroat condition. The key differences here that I'm addressing are twofold. For the above scenario, a Roman player is using Rome, the sum faction and its attention, to destroy the many states that make up the Greek States. It is an inverse of what Rome 1 did, using a sub piece of Rome to destroy the blanket whole. The player is paying whack a mole with Gallic lords unless Gallic factions have already been taken over by one larger tribe consisting of leaders based on one of the smaller tribes, or perhaps said tribes formed into a true confederation. This is very plausible and the reason why this takes the cake for me is because Rome was not multiple subfactions forever doing their own thing until they're destroyed. Rome was indeed a state with a leadership that generally focused on a particular thing, and the times when it didn't are represented in political instability, imperium, and ultimately, the civil war mechanic.

    There is one field where Rome 1 may well take a point, though it is a very arguable score. Rome 1 generally, at least until much later on (but this would apply to both games anyways) has the faction representing an area firmly established in the area of its name by the time player-caused wars begin. Rome 2 by contrast can have completely obscure/irrelevant/dated factions come out of absolutely nowhere and become massive because, well, that's just what happened. Rome 1 skirts the question by having a simpler concept - British lords invaded Gaul. More vague and potentially excusable than "little faction that did nothing from nowhere took over britain and then attacked the spartan-gallic state that decided to take over all of gaul and has random germanic supertribes as its main allies". However, I think this can be countered by saying since we weren't there and since things in history can be dramatically affected by seemingly small details,, it is plausible and accurate for those states to have a chance of forming up the way they did. Rome 2 allows that to be explored in specific detail, even if it is far from accurate (just as the gameplay of both ends up being).

    It's possible to argue for units and how they work between the games, but I really don't have an opinion on it nor do I think anything particularly stands out, so I'll straight up avoid it and go to something more specific: how naval combat is approached.

    I don't think that the fact Rome 2 approaches it and Rome 1 doesn't is a point towards accuracy. It simply opens the door to say "how", and if it's done badly, it can be worse than the dismissive "you just autoresolve everything" attitude Rome 1 makes. Since naval combat wasn't a priority anyways in that era, you can say it's a small plus if Rome 2 bungles the portrayal, especially if great naval handling in Rome 2 results in historically inaccurate or implausible benefits. Here's my thought.

    Rome 2 does not bungle the combat, as it is for the most part plausible, even if I do consider it a bit arcadey in a sense I'll get into later. There was a time I'd say it definitely did a poor job that would drop its ranking, since you could simply be a good rammer and cause disproportionately massive casualties with methods that simply weren't a thing. Having more, again, isn't to say it's more accurate - at that point I'd have said it was just bad attention. However, the ability was restricted and so I think this is less applicable. Still, it's far from perfect and I'd call the balance equal. Rome 1 isn't more accurate considering it doesn't even address the question, but what Rome 2 does isn't necessarily better. It just is.


    I'll digress off the topic for a moment to try and convey the point on arcadey. It's not exactly related, but it's in the thread, so here we go:
    The idea that Rome II is 'arcade' seems popular. With arcade games like Space Invaders and Asteroids, success is about fast reflexes and you have to keep doing the same thing correctly or you're dead. Rome II relies on strategies and tactics, you can experiment with different styles of play, make mistakes and lose some battles, yet still survive.
    (etc)
    For me, this shows that Rome II (like its predecessor) is not like an arcade game.
    In most reasonable uses of the complaint, the game is not actually called arcade. It's called arcade like, more arcade like than other games of the series, or 'arcadey'/some form of that in short. It is obviously not an arcade game - that is a literal interpretation. To see why the impression comes up we must see how units work in relation to each other. My first example - not as relevant anymore, but I will still use it - is naval combat. Naval combat could easily become an all or nothing with ships constantly sinking by ramming them again and again with good micro. That sort of micro and precision control is completely inaccurate.

    On a wider scale the game is said to be more arcade like because the battles are shorter than those in prior entries and because the way units interact makes them feel as though they carry less weight on average. A charge in, say, Medieval 2, is a charge with units solidly meeting each other. A cavalry charge in particular "sinks in", deals its damage, but generally can't go straight through. In Rome 2 you can absolutely go straight through and it is very easy to pull units through each other. That's always been a strategy and blending units into each other for chaotic man to man combat is perfectly pausible and accurate, but Rome 2 takes this to an extreme by comparison, with the pull through and seeming lack of impact with cavalry especially coming to almost absurd levels when thinking about how a real life cavalry charge would work. In this I'd say Rome 1 takes the battlefield edge in relation to the rest of my post, because Rome 1 has generally more realistic combat than the shorter and less 'meaty' combat of Rome 2. Rome 1's armies feel the impact and require specific efforts to retrain and get back up to speed. Skirmishes are far more possible. Rome 2 by contrast deals in doomstack vs doomstack much more often than not, just replenish after a fight virtually anywhere (that seeming lack of consequence and effort to recover, by the way, contributes to the 'arcadey' reputation). IOt's not arcade by itself, it's elements that seem more so than other works in the series being compared to).

    Overall to cut this short - despite there being more content that could be said - I'll digress and conclude that while Rome 2 absolutely has the more nuanced campaign map and attention to historical detail, Rome 1 has more strength and substance to its combat interactions. More plausible interactions, and, I'd argue, accurate as well. It's not by an extreme margin and I would still say Rome 2 takes the overall historical cake by having more substance of a historical and plausible nature than Rome 1 does. In some specific ways Rome 1 can win, but I don't think those ways win out in the bigger picture.

    Edit: Accounting for mods and in relation to the metrics above I would call them roughly even, but that's just because I haven't gone into specifics enough. I don't particularly care about Rome 1 modding, and so I can't really judge what it has to offer. Rome 2 historical modding I know is very solid and would be worthy of contention, but EB is my main thought when I say roughly even, and EB is nothing if not thorough. So, in order to say one way or another, I'd have to go deep into gameplay mechanics that I just haven't measured here and can't measure without spending undue time on the matter.
    Last edited by CommodusIV; April 08, 2019 at 06:23 AM.

  16. #16
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,976

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    For me, remaining hidden, while throwing arrows at your enemy, breaks immersion, because I do not find it very realistic, in an age when long-range rifles had not been invented. I understand that it makes playing as ''guerilla'' tribles a completely different experience to deploying a regular army of an urbanised empire, but, according to my personal standards, realism and plausibility should be a bigger priority than artificial variety (one of the reasons why I am not that infautated with Rome II). Anyway, I already mentioned how sorely I miss the ''Distance-to-Capital'' feature, but the second most important mechanic, whose absence I consider responsible for the boredom I suffer from when playing anything post-Empire, is the manual replenishment. Ironically, although in Napoleon and Shogun, attrition and food have been added to the game, logistics and reinforcing have been greatly regressed, in my opinion. Nowadays, recovering from your casualties is either totally automatic or simply requires the push of a button (Empire). I suppose that many customers disliked recruiting and sending units to the front, in a similar manner at how the old ''diplomat agent'' could become a bit tedious, but the result was the complete disappearance of the logistical train.

    Right now, I do not care about my units, because my Parthian cataphracts can recover their total strength in a matter of months, despite being deployed in the depths of Germania, while the French Royal Guard doubled in size, while campaigning in the middle of Venezuela. Call me old-fashioned, but I sincerely enjoyed enjoyed establishing a long line of reinforcements between my Sassanid armies in Gaul and Mesopotamia, where the Soghdian soldiers (the only heavy infantry unit of Persia) were available. A second front or a pyrrhic victory meant that my forces would be threatened with imminent collapse, as my damaged infantry could not defend itself against the Frankish invaders and the Roman legionaries, without the timely arrival of reinforcements from Iran. The old system was probably abandoned, because the artificial intelligence was not capable of handling it appropriately, but I personally expect from a professional developper to actually fix the issue, instead of ditching it altogether. The restricted building options, the simplified fiscal and trade systems, the ''levellification'' of the trait/retinue mechanic, the disappearance of the distance from capital and the implementation of the auto-replenishment is why I am not anymore interested in newer Total War titles. These faults cannot be counter-balanced by minor improvements, like the (apparently temporary) addition of semi-functionable naval warfare or a more realistic line of sight.

    P.S. Auto-replenishment, together with the broken auto-resolve mechanic, is why Rome II is absurdly easy. Due to the fact that the auto-resolve is very advantageous to numerical superiority (and spearmen) and that it distributes casualties in a comically equal way, it is bizarrely easy to conquer Western Europe, without fighting a single battle, even on legendary difficulty. Just spam an abundance of cheap armies, full of conscripted levies, which, thanks to their numbers and the sloppiness of auto-resolve, will casually defeat your opponents and quickly replenish their losses. Of course, I heavily recommend not to actually abuse these glaring failures of the game, but their mere existence is a constant reminder of how fragile the structure of Rome II is:

  17. #17
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,182

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    For me, remaining hidden, while throwing arrows at your enemy, breaks immersion, because I do not find it very realistic, in an age when long-range rifles had not been invented.
    You're a Roman legionary in a dark forest in Germania. It's a cold winter, you can see your breath when you breathe out. It's foggy, it's evening, the sun is barely above the horizon and your vision is restricted by your helmet. The soldier beside you drops with an arrow in his neck and you hear war-cries from the left, the right and the rear. Do you know where the archer is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    I understand that it makes playing as ''guerilla'' tribles a completely different experience to deploying a regular army of an urbanised empire, but, according to my personal standards, realism and plausibility should be a bigger priority than artificial variety (one of the reasons why I am not that infautated with Rome II).
    Is it realistic that you know where the enemy army is - as you did in earlier games - without needing to send scouts (and even if the army is composed of heavy infantry and doesn't contain any unit which would plausibly serve as scouts)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Anyway, I already mentioned how sorely I miss the ''Distance-to-Capital'' feature [...]
    Distance to capital is based on the idea that, the furthest a city is from the capital, the more corruption it has - is that right? While that sounds logical, I wonder how well it fits with the evidence. Shoudn't this mean that the capital would be less corrupt than distant cities? However, in Rome's capital, the Praetorian Guard "assassinated and installed new sovereigns at will, and once even auctioned the spot off to the highest bidder" (source). The corruption of some wealthy Romans such as Marcus Licinius Crassus was legendary:

    Crassus hosted a banquet for the entire voting public of Rome (10,000 people) that lasted for several days. Each participant was also given an allowance of three months of grain. His ostentatious displays gave us the word crass. [...]

    Crassus was most likely the largest property owner in Rome. He also purchased property with money obtained through underhanded methods. While serving as a lieutenant in the civil war of 88-82 he able to buy land formally held by the enemy at bargain prices, sometimes by murdering its owners. [...]

    Crassus was not unlike successful modern businessmen who contribute large sums of money to a political parties in return for favors or high level government positions. He gave loans to nearly every Senator and hosted lavish parties for the influential and powerful. Through shrewd use of his money to gain political influence he reached the position of triumvir, one of the three people responsible for controlling the apparatus of state. - source
    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    [...], but the second most important mechanic, whose absence I consider responsible for the boredom I suffer from when playing anything post-Empire, is the manual replenishment.
    Are you saying that you suffer from boredom in newer games because you don't have to repeately click on units to replenish them? It's not as if the player isn't going to want to replenish depleted units. In Empire, having to keep clicking on depleted units to replenish them isn't a source of enjoyment (or strategic interest) for me, at least. I prefer the automatic system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Ironically, although in Napoleon and Shogun, attrition and food have been added to the game, logistics and reinforcing have been greatly regressed, in my opinion. Nowadays, recovering from your casualties is either totally automatic or simply requires the push of a button (Empire). I suppose that many customers disliked recruiting and sending units to the front, in a similar manner at how the old ''diplomat agent'' could become a bit tedious, but the result was the complete disappearance of the logistical train.
    I see it differently. In Rome II, the high cost (in food) of top-tier barracks and other high-level buildings means that my empire becomes more powerful and more fragile as its gets larger, as happened to Rome historically - it became a very powerful empire, but the city of Rome was vulnerable because it depended on massive food imports, for example. In Rome II, as in history, if a faction loses the regions which it relied on for its food supply, it will be in trouble.

    Also, since top-tier barracks have a high food cost, only a few cities will have them - making logistics and reinforcing important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Right now, I do not care about my units, because my Parthian cataphracts can recover their total strength in a matter of months, despite being deployed in the depths of Germania, while the French Royal Guard doubled in size, while campaigning in the middle of Venezuela.
    Not in Rome II they won't, if your Parthian cataphracts are in a Germanic region you don't control. Rome II has been criticised for having too-rapid replenishment in enemy lands. In fact, as long as I've been playing the game, replenishment in enemy lands has been zero.

    I care about my units, particularly if I needed top-tier barracks to recruit them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Call me old-fashioned, but I sincerely enjoyed enjoyed establishing a long line of reinforcements between my Sassanid armies in Gaul and Mesopotamia, where the Soghdian soldiers (the only heavy infantry unit of Persia) were available.
    Me too, which is why I enjoy the challenge of relying on a few top-tier barracks in a large empire in Rome II. Of course, sometimes you can plan ahead and build that barracks near the front line, but you don't always choose the wars you fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    The restricted building options, the simplified fiscal and trade systems, the ''levellification'' of the trait/retinue mechanic, the disappearance of the distance from capital and the implementation of the auto-replenishment is why I am not anymore interested in newer Total War titles. These faults cannot be counter-balanced by minor improvements, like the (apparently temporary) addition of semi-functionable naval warfare or a more realistic line of sight.
    I understand that you see it that way. I don't see restricted building options as a fault, for me it's more realistic to make choices based on limited resources. The fiscal and trade systems in Rome II look good to me. Rome II's Imperium system reflects the increased corruption of a large empire - including significant corruption in your capital. The naval warfare isn't perfect, but (for me) it's an improvement on only being able to auto-resolve naval battles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    P.S. Auto-replenishment, together with the broken auto-resolve mechanic, is why Rome II is absurdly easy. Due to the fact that the auto-resolve is very advantageous to numerical superiority (and spearmen) and that it distributes casualties in a comically equal way, it is bizarrely easy to conquer Western Europe, without fighting a single battle, even on legendary difficulty.
    Yes, there are ways to exploit Rome II. Older Total War games have exploits too, don't they? It's not hard to find examples of exploits for older games with a simple search. Rome II removes some exploits which I remember from earlier games, such as stretching your lines super-thin, like spaghetti, to reduce casualties from ranged fire.

    With the Ancestral update, I'm seeing more aggressive AI behaviour on the campaign and battlefield. I played a Carthage campaign before this update (the basis for my New Town AAR) and it was quite easy, because Rome declared war but they made no serious attempt to invade north Africa. My strategy as Carthage was to abandon my outer colonies and go east to conquer Egypt before returning to fight Rome. The strategy was quite easy to implement - at that point, I'd have agreed with you that the game was too easy. However, after the Ancestral patch, I tried the same strategy in a new Carthage campaign and saw different behaviour from Rome. Rome landed small armies to raid inland (to try to draw my large armies away from my coastal cities) while their main legions waited off-shore. Then they landed a legionary army which broke through my defences - using their late-period units while I was still using middle-period Carthaginian soldiers - and they continued to expand in north Africa. That was definitely challenging!
    Last edited by Alwyn; April 07, 2019 at 11:50 AM.

  18. #18
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,828

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Right now, I do not care about my units, because my Parthian cataphracts can recover their total strength in a matter of months, despite being deployed in the depths of Germania, while the French Royal Guard doubled in size, while campaigning in the middle of Venezuela. Call me old-fashioned, but I sincerely enjoyed enjoyed establishing a long line of reinforcements between my Sassanid armies in Gaul and Mesopotamia, where the Soghdian soldiers (the only heavy infantry unit of Persia) were available. A second front or a pyrrhic victory meant that my forces would be threatened with imminent collapse, as my damaged infantry could not defend itself against the Frankish invaders and the Roman legionaries, without the timely arrival of reinforcements from Iran. The old system was probably abandoned, because the artificial intelligence was not capable of handling it appropriately, but I personally expect from a professional developper to actually fix the issue, instead of ditching it altogether. The restricted building options, the simplified fiscal and trade systems, the ''levellification'' of the trait/retinue mechanic, the disappearance of the distance from capital and the implementation of the auto-replenishment is why I am not anymore interested in newer Total War titles. These faults cannot be counter-balanced by minor improvements, like the (apparently temporary) addition of semi-functionable naval warfare or a more realistic line of sight.
    Yes, I completely agree with this. It's why newer games are completely unplayable for me unless I use a mod like DeI which simulates the manpower mechanic.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  19. #19
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Germanic since 500BC, Arabic since 2015
    Posts
    2,287

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    CA: Rome 2 is not historically accurate, it's "historically authentic".

    At least in Rome 1, warfare and politics were portrayed as a man's business. Feminism in Antiquity, ridiculous.
    HATE SPEECH ISN'T REAL

  20. #20

    Default Re: Which Rome Total War is more historically accurate Rome 1 or Rome 2?

    Without a doiubt vanilla Rome 2 is more historically accurate/authentic than vanillla Rome 1

    Modded they both are.

    Which do I prefer? Well to be honest I like both and currently have both installed on my hard drive.

    Rome 2
    I like the sea battles and the dlc campaigns.

    Rome 1
    I like Barbarian Invasion and overhauls such as Europa Barbarorum.
    Last edited by herne_the _hunter; April 07, 2019 at 09:59 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •