![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think that we should do away with the Amazons as a different type of Rebel, only because I resently conquered that settlement with a very small force in the game, and I saw no Yubsets, meaning the Amazons are just another independent kingdom, and nothing special.
Yes but they do have unique chariots only found in that region so they are pretty special
SHould the yubtseb uprising be mentioned too? It is like an international army or something. 70.59.72.101 03:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi i play rtw and bi online as a member of the Sith clan and was wondering if it would be ok to mention them either on the main page or on a seperate (linked) page, mind you judging by the talk section i may have just reignited a very hot subject...-- Boris Johnson VC 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i won't bother now then, a pity mind you as clans are very important to the rtw online game (just go to the rtw lobbey), but i guess its a bit hard to keep it NPOV. -- Boris Johnson VC 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Boris, you should create a jedi order clans page, and give this vital eliment to the rtw online game the recognision it deserves. Don't worry about user DarthBinky, he's nothing but a vandal. P.S. I am also a member of an online gaming clan for rtw, the Jedi Order. -- La France 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Is user La France a sockpuppet as he only has one edit? If he is not perhaps he should create a Rome total war online clans page himself. -- Boris Johnson VC 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
In the criticisms section, somebody wrote that critics compare it to "arcade-like" RTS games like Rise of Nations and Age of Empires. Honestly, how can there be anything arcade-like about those games? Has this person even been in an arcade? This sounds like a generic POV insult rather than a factual statement. I've removed it until somebody wants to justify this statement to me.-- 71.112.234.168 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, compared to some it is a lot more arcade..y... For example, Hearts of Iron 2, or virtually any game made by Paradox Entertainment(Or was it Interactive?). I think in terms of arcade-style it goes just about like Rise of Nations > Rome: TW > Any game made by Paradox, but it is indeed nowhere near any game in an actual arcade...But can you call Rise of Nations arcade-like? Have you seen any RTS or TBS in an arcade ever? I don't know how to work this wikipedia site so I don't know how to make a new topic...so I'll just add what I gotta say here, perhaps the cheats should be listed on this article too? I've never used them as it's generally not my style....but it seems like the kind of information someone would be looking for on a wikipedia site. I found what I was looking for though(Where the nomads historically traveled to and how to unify Rome). Actually...how does the unification of rome work? Do you just randomly exit the alliance and declare war or is there some sort of event that happens? Because I could just be content going about conquering the others for a looong time, I don't need anymore enemies really....sorry for the long windedness and any wikipedia-noob mistakes I may have made -Brandon
Are they actually called that in the game?
However, there is no inaccuracy in assuming that the Bruti might well have ruled Rome given the chance. They were an ancient and powerful family, and while Brutus goes down in history as a defender of the Republic, it may well have been lipservice. We see Brutus as noble largely because Shakespeare characterizes him as such.
I think a lot of the problem stems from confusing two different Romans by the name of Brutus. One incited a revolution against the Monarchy of Rome after the rape of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquinius. The other, centuries later, was involved in the assassination of Julius Caesar. Same name, two different people, centuries apart. In the defence of the people being confused by this, I should add that both the famous men by the name of Brutus were Republicans. Understand however that "Brutus" was not a family name, and was instead the traditional Roman third name, a nickname based on a physical or character trait (in this case, "Dullard"). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.157.173.248 (
talk)
14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that recently 81.155.84.141 has started adding external links to mods. I'm pretty sure that there used to be external mod links listed and they were removed. Irrespective of the history, this has high potential of going down the same route as the whole clans issue (i.e. why is that mod listed and not another one). I think we should follow the example of Half_Life#Mods, where the mod community is even more significant than the Total War one, and only list internal wikipedia links to mods which have articles here. If a page for a specific mod can survive (as with Rome_Total_Realism and Europa_Barbarorum) then fine. Otherwise this is just going to get messy. I've deleted the external mod links for now. I don't think anyone can doubt my pro-mod credentials, but I don't see external links working at this time. Epistolary Richard 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. But I listed the most popular mods. Which is how they where chosen. I don't see a problem with that. Rome Total Realism EB have pages. And if you'll quit the moaning I'll go ahead and make one the best MP mod around, Napoleonic: Total War 2.
I've cleaned up the unofficial site links. The ORG had half a dozen and TWC was nowhere to be found, I've now given links to the mainpage of the three main fansites (ORG, TWC, heavengames). Professor420 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
In Barbarian Invasion I understand that Valentinian's heir is Leontius in the game, but as far as Gratian is concerned, im pretty confident that he is included as GRATIANUS FLAVIUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Mastermind 1125 ( talk • contribs)
Put up a split section tag. The expansion descriptions are certainly large enough, especially for Barbarian Invasion, to have their own articles. Every The Sims expansion has its own article and Barbarian Invasion alone has more information than most of them. I don't own Rome: Total War, so I wouldn't be comfortable working on content. -- theSpectator talk 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they should have their own pages as well. Rabakam 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Rabakam
Yeah it should get its own, the section is big enough
PaddyPyro
15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Under Historical accuracy in Barbarian Invasion is says "Some weapons modeled in the game do not reflect historical outfits. Notably, many Roman units still utilize the pilum, even though the Romans ceased carrying them about a century earlier." This is not true, anyone who plays the game can clearly see that the javelins used by the Romans are far from the earlier pilum. The weapon is ment to be the veruta, a smaller simpler javelin used by late Roman troops, similar to the Frankish angon. I'm removing the sentance about the pilum. -- TheKingOfTheSquirrels 16:53, 25 November 2006
how come the expansion does not have the heruli?
What's heruli? If it's a kingdom or people, my guess would obviously be that the developers decided not to put them in. Spartan198 ( talk) 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Recently I have purchases RTW and I was wondering what the difference was between CD-Rom and DVD-Rom? Also whilst looking around on ign.com I saw that to activate cheats you need to press the tilde key (~) I wasn't interested at first but when fighting my inner conscience and failing dismally I tried it but it didn't work. I am now very curious as to why not can anyone help?
81.105.121.67
22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Thedec
ok cheers Thedec 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Thedec
On the article it says "If the player attempts to go to the Senate screen, which normally tellsRoman factions about these four things, the game crashes" (whilst playing as SPQR) why is this? Thedec 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Thedec
Should there be more information - at least a line or two - about how a player can unlock the non-Roman playable factions? Darkmind1970 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
RTW is also a well known term for "Around the World" as used by independent travelers. Shouldn't RTW allow a visitor to select the content that they're looking for, rather than redirect directly to Rome: Total War ? Thanks. Mlepisto 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any, so I would just like someone to point out where they are so I can correct them. Hol e in the wall 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are there historical inaccuracies under both criticism and game play it seems very repetitive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.96.192 ( talk) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
If you want to be Emperor you should not attack the Senate before you have the whole Northern world. Maybe own more rich provinces like those owned originally by Macedonia or the Greek Cities. It would be a better idea to have an income of at least 10 thousand denarii as a minimum, and bear in mind that if you are one of the Roman factions this will seriously drop when you lose your trades rights with the other families.
That's nice and all, but this isn't a game faq. 98.208.81.38 ( talk) 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
there is a town called domus dulcis domus meaning home sweet home, see on the Dutch/Nederlands page for details. Mallerd 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea that the senate was playable. In fact, it says in the game manuel that they are non-playable. Any ideas? PBGuardsman 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) They are in fact playable if you edit the game files. you can play as the senate as long as you don't click the roman 'senate tab'. otherwise the game crashes Mallerd 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say that it is not recommended but I have only found minor bugs, I can cope with them. What Mallerd says is true about the Senate tab and also that there is no Senate offices but apart from these the bugs are minor. These are expected as the Senate is a "Superfaction" and you are pitted in a brutal war with the Italian Allies however nice you are
GOD 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
MAJOR EDIT I don'thave a clue what I was talking about, The Senate are riddled with bugs- the pila of SPQR units doesn't work as it should.. GOD 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Magnus 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Marian Reforms in RTW occur way too early, around 210 B.C. in reality Marius introduced them in 107 B.C., Marius wasn't even born when the reforms occur in RTW. Although undoubtedly they mean you are able to squash all other factions with Urban Cohorts and the like, does anyone know why they are so early in RTW?
In my game the reforms occured around 240 B.C., in about half the time it took in the 240 B.C. example. I'm going to change the article to make it more accurate. Crispus 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Marian Reforms occur when one of the cities in Italy (with the exception of Rome itself) reaches 'huge' level. I know this game in and out. SpartanGlory1983 ( talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983
Doesn't plumbing mean there have to be certain pipes underground or not? The game depicts it as a improvement of the aquaducts by making them bigger like the pont du gard. Besides that the water didn't flow on top of the aquaducts but inside them. 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In some Roman cities and towns, the aquaducts flowed right into underground pipes and tunnels. I think, though that this "building" is to be a general improvement on the health system of a city. 208.0.118.1 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Roman shields were made of triplex wood, the suggests their shields are made of metal, only the Town Watch appears to have wooden shields. Mallerd 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Are screenshots like the elephant charge allowed on the English wikipedia? I know that the Dutch have different rules for the use of images, but does that include the screenshots? Mallerd 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
hi just wondering if anybody knew if this game was playable online and if so how? thanks Almarquis 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can. What version do you have, I have 1.5 and I had the option to install Gamespy when I installed RTW. If you haven't already installed it, install it, and as I haven't played it online I would not know where to go from here but what you can do is check it out and if you are not getting anywhere post your question on a designated site for RTW for example TWCentre or The Org Magnus 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Naming a faction to be either playable or non playable is irrelevant imo as all factions are possible to be played. Magnus 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Something like this? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus2 ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This hasn't been mentioned - would it be worth mentioning the methods by which you can add to your family, e.g. bribery, candidate for adoption, marriage and the birth of sons, adoption of a commander who has proved himself in battle. BrokenSphere Msg me 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section for this. By the way I have been trying find out that info but this is not a fansite I was wondering is there any where else the info is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.124.51 ( talk) 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
What methods? The game sends you a message whether you want to accept an "adoptive son", or even a "man of the hour". The rest is automatically added to your family. Mallerd 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The methods of adding to your family, what I mentioned. It would be worth mentioning that this is how your family expands and continues and that people can die of old age, assassination, or in battle, as no one lives forever in the game. The adoptive son and marriage proposals for daughters is random, but you have to say yes or no every time you have these options given, so you have a choice, it is not automatic. However the bribery and man of the hour are things that you can influence yourself by bribing enemy generals that you think have potential and sending your forces into action against rebel groups with the intent to make the captain the man of the hour and thus adopt him, I have done the latter several times to greatly expand one of my faction's families with success. BrokenSphere Msg me 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Since family is such a critical aspect of gameplay the role your family members play deserves mention and could include other aspects not mentioned above, like you start out with a set of family members that you can add to by the means mentioned above, when males reach 16 they become generals, people can get married and have families, they can pick up good and bad traits and ancillaries, what are the consequences when all your male family members are killed, etc. BrokenSphere Msg me 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I do think it would be good idea for a family section considering its important role in the game 86.42.127.179 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Me too, I see you have more knowledge about the methods than myself. So, don't be afraid to add a section concerning those methods. Mallerd 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I added a section outlining what I mentioned above for families and another one for agents without going into too much detail, I think. Supplements/corrections to both are welcome. BrokenSphere Msg me 18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is because when a son is born it isn't a "part" of the family in the sense that you can send the newborn into battle etc. Perhaps a better description would be, birth of son (when aged to 16) or something like that. Mallerd 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So can you but the Alexander expansion pack in stores? Or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzumaki Dude ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No I believe not, only download or delivery. >> http://www.totalwar.com/ >> Expansions Mallerd 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The Alexander expansion can be bought in stores with the Eras boxed set. SpartanGlory1983 ( talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983
What about Barbarian Invasion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzumaki Dude ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Barbarian Invasion, too. It's available alone, packaged with RTW Gold, and in the Eras package. Spartan198 ( talk) 18:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Anyone know where I can go to either join or make a clan? I was hoping for a link on this article but I could not find one, where should I go from here? Magnus 10:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 10:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey friends i found a way to make all factions playable. In both Alexander BI and Rome. If you want to find how send a message to my talk page and also write signature so I can easily find and answer you. Tiberius Stormrider 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? ;) Mallerd 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
ooo wow thats some modding you have got going there Tiberius!!!
Kaeso Dio (
talk)
12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
RTW should have a disambiguation page and not redirect to this article. WinterSpw 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I also see that 'rtw' redirects here as well.... We need to make a disambiguation page for 'Rtw' because this is just ridiculous redirecting. WinterSpw 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
RTW is now a dab page which rtw redirects to, so neither term no longer goes here first. The other terms, release to web and round the world ticket precede the game so having RTW redirect here didn't make sense. BrokenSphere Msg me 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this, with not merging in a lot of the OR and game guide type content from those pages. That could be migrated to the RTW section of the TWC Wiki for more background and info. These are but 3 factions in the game. It could be possible to similarly write up articles on all the other factions, but on Wikipedia at least what would be the point of that without refs and secondary sources? -- BrokenSphere Msg me 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Various IPs keep changing the mention of Hannibal in the lead to mention that he is brilliant. While he is considered one of the finest commanders in military history, I have kept reverting such changes to the more neutral description currently in place because the label of brilliant in this article is POV. I fail to see why these same anons are keeping the mention of Julius Caesar as just that, because Caesar too is regarded as one of the finest commanders in history and is certainly one of the most well known Romans if not the most well known. Consistent edits by IPs of this type could qualify this article for semi-protection, but I doubt it would be indefinite. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I hate that edit from Republic of Macedonia to FYROM as well, because as you can see FYROM is a redirect to ROM. A semi-protect would be great. Mallerd ( talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That particular edit isn't coming up as much as the Hannibal one. I think it may be the same person or people with a dynamic IP because the edit is always exactly the same. I'm not sure how to trace this down though to nail it to a specific individual. BrokenSphere Msg me 02:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
With majority of the units in the Spanish arsenal direct copies of Carthage, it makes more sense to group them with the Carthaginian factions in a similar way the Thracian's are called a Hellenistic faction. please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.11.74 ( talk) 09:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Than can you call it a Cartho-Barbarian faction in it's bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.42.109 ( talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, in the files it says egypt is its own culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.55.117 ( talk) 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be better to say that the units were copied from Spain by the Carthaginians,rather than the other way around. SpartanGlory1983 ( talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983
Hi, can we use this image somewhere in the article? I thought it would be nice in a section, which is not in the article at the moment, how the campaign map works with different terrains and their influence on the battlemap. Including the sightings of nearby cities, fleets, forts etc. Mallerd ( talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be better I think if you could get a more central view of both armies that also enables the viewer to tell that the archers are on the hill. That seems intuitive to us but is likely not as obvious to people unfamiliar with the game. BrokenSphere Msg me 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Latin words are, in general, wholly or partially Anglicized in pronunciation; velites (Classical Latin /weːliteːs/) is pronounced /vɛlɪtes/ instead of the expected /vɛlɪtiz/ (compare the ending sounds of the English word indices). Similarly, the C in principes is pronounced as a hard [k] as in Classical Latin instead of the [s] expected for English. See Latin declension and Latin pronunciation.
I don't know if it was fixed in a patch (which means this can be deleted), but in 1.5 I know for sure that they pronounce velites and principes correctly. Mallerd ( talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I fought with a family member who is a tedious speaker the other day, before he gives his battle speech he has this long story. Does anyone know this? So we can put it at family traits on the battlefield? Mallerd ( talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The current article now has 2 mods that have received a significant degree of coverage in their own articles. Other mentions that didn't were removed and should probably be kept out. Any thoughts? BrokenSphere Msg me 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
EB and RTR aren't the only major mods. I think XGM, Roma Surrectum, and SPQR deserve mention. Spartan198 ( talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Carthage, in the game, is heavily portrayed as being influenced by Eastern culture i.e. mud houses and family portraits. From what I have read, Carthage was heavily influenced by Greek culture with the exception of religion, as they still worshiped Phoenician gods. Should this be added into the inaccuracy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.214.157 ( talk) 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Carthage was originally a Phoenician trading settlement,AFAIK. So,technically,they would still be eastern. Spartan198 ( talk) 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
That may be true, but a faction can't have more than one culture. Spartan198 ( talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Speaking of inaccuracy, I find it stupid that a square on the campaign map is shown as a small distance on the battle map. If I am fighting in Istria, I can see Patavium on the other side of the sea. Thinking of that a turn lasts 6 months and an army can walk 10-12 steps on highways that means about 24 weeks / 2 = 12 weeks. So I can see something that is on a marching distance of 12 weeks? Anyone agree with this? Mallerd ( talk) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The roles the player takes are not even "roughly" equivalent to those of Julius Caesar etc, as the single-player campaign begins in 270 BC, about two centuries before Caesar's generation was born. Just saying. -Pedro Grim, 12-4-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.45.7 ( talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
280 BC, not 270. 98.208.81.38 ( talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Why are the battle speeches gone? Mallerd ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Settlements assaulted by mercenaries also receive less cash than usual, as the mercenaries always take a disproportionate share of the plunder."
I removed the above line because it applies only to the Barbarian Invasion expansion, not RTW itself. Spartan198 ( talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
The three-faction Roman system in the game is entirely ahistorical. In fact, the Roman Republic was ruled exclusively by the Senate, which had substantially more power than is reflected in the game, and the various assemblies. Individual families might rule small provinces, but expansions to the empire would have been assigned to new governors, not left to the generals who conquered them. Generals, too, were selected by the Senate and assemblies, and the roles of governorship and generalship were not as conflated as they are in the game. There were cases where influential politicians such as Julius Caesar could quite possibly serve as both generals and governors, but they would only occur during the later Republic.
Actually the families did hold alot of proviences, there were seven major aristoracs/families. These did expand the empire on their own more than the senate which basically just sat in Rome deciding what was right for the republic to do next. Ceasar, Pompi and all the rebels from 44bc all tried to something about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by METALFREAK04 ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
My RTW will not even start half the time and when it does it freezes or shuts off the computer Ive only had it for like two years but its falling apart. Should we include some thing like "over time this game is prone to breaking down" in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.218.179 ( talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Historical inaccuracies section on this article should be removed. I do not remember such sections in articles for comparable games, despite their historical inaccuracies, and, additionally, many of the claims of the section here are debatable. This section is unnecessary, lacks proper citations, and has many things that are not historical inaccuracies at all (such as the section regarding the declension of the names). I am deleting this section until someone can justify its existence. 72.192.189.232 ( talk) 09:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Original research can't provide facts? 98.208.81.38 ( talk) 13:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Many inaccuracies are from the wikipedia articles that discuss the subjects. It's best to place them back for the simple reason that they are not original research. Mallerd ( talk) 13:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
I added a {{ Reflist}} so that the references can be viewed. It Is Me Here ( talk) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I see how you are thinking, but what about WP:COMMON? The game does portray itself as a historical game, for instance: "Vast armies are led by brilliant generals such as Hannibal, leader of the Carthaginians and Julius Caesar. Rome's greatest general and leader." Furthermore, the ingame descriptions of units and buildings are not (most of the time) fiction, but historical. It is no wonder that we started pointing out the inaccuracies of this game, and not Call of Duty 4, which scenario is modern, but not reality. Mallerd ( talk) 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said (implied), I support the historical inaccuracies section and I see your point. A solution could be: use some external sources, make some comparisons between historical sources and the game. We could possibly use Europa Barbarorum as a source. Furthermore, in both Rome and Barbarian Invasion Expansion, in most units, if not all of them, there is a large text. The first part describes in-game situation. The second-part usually begins with "Historically..." and describes the historical situation.For exemple in Legionary Cavalry, the second section explains it is a made-up unit, as cavalry was only auxilliary.We could probably use something like this.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk about nit picking...anyway, now you mention in-game (or along-with-game if you will) sources yourself, stating the game never said to be historically accurate. That may be true, but what ifmany people believe it is? For 'some' reason the historical inaccuracy section was created with these games only. That is what I mean with common sense, if they go here, look at this section they think "ohhh..it is not accurate?" Please elaborate on "but as I see it there are serious reliability issues with anonymous wikipedia editors comparing some historical texts with this game". I myself have added some sections, being (on this talk page) sections 4, 10, 11, 12, 13. There are some sections that I have found no reference to whatsoever, whether due to improper referencing in the articles about the subjects or just being badly written. I hope you are going about in those poorly referenced articles as well, in case that is all synthesized as well (sorry can't help to be annoyed). Mallerd ( talk) 19:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We do have a source stating RTW is inaccurate, but I knew already at the very first edit I made to this article that it was never the intention to create an accurate game. How people see it is different of course. Anyway, I find the WP:UNDUE section very disturbing. They apparantly have a solution to "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." by "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I find it disturbing that, the solution to something not being neutral is to treat something appropriate and to its significance. Well, if there is something more vulnerable to preference than those terms, tell me. If you feel comfortable by deleting this entire paragraph, do so, but do mention that there are historical inaccuracies, because Activision does not mention historically based armies but historical armies etc.
--The conquered mourns, the conqueror is undone.
Mallerd ( talk) 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had created "agents" and "family" as well, with Brokensphere. Those are fine, I hope? Well, if there is 1 thing that I've learned about Wikipedia policy here is that it cannot be changed, at least not by me. Language is on my part a huge barrier when I'm trying to discuss something. I can speak English, but not at the level I can speak Dutch of course. For some reason, comments about a policy get deleted very often. Good day to you
Mallerd (
talk)
07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added the citations required to show that while Rome: Total War claims to be an historically accurate game, in reality, it offers something very far removed from the known historical facts. Owenj544 ( talk) 17:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in your screenshot you have a unit of 80 hastati, how is that possible? Isn't the maxium 20? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.137.83 ( talk) 19:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think that we should do away with the Amazons as a different type of Rebel, only because I resently conquered that settlement with a very small force in the game, and I saw no Yubsets, meaning the Amazons are just another independent kingdom, and nothing special.
Yes but they do have unique chariots only found in that region so they are pretty special
SHould the yubtseb uprising be mentioned too? It is like an international army or something. 70.59.72.101 03:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi i play rtw and bi online as a member of the Sith clan and was wondering if it would be ok to mention them either on the main page or on a seperate (linked) page, mind you judging by the talk section i may have just reignited a very hot subject...-- Boris Johnson VC 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i won't bother now then, a pity mind you as clans are very important to the rtw online game (just go to the rtw lobbey), but i guess its a bit hard to keep it NPOV. -- Boris Johnson VC 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Boris, you should create a jedi order clans page, and give this vital eliment to the rtw online game the recognision it deserves. Don't worry about user DarthBinky, he's nothing but a vandal. P.S. I am also a member of an online gaming clan for rtw, the Jedi Order. -- La France 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Is user La France a sockpuppet as he only has one edit? If he is not perhaps he should create a Rome total war online clans page himself. -- Boris Johnson VC 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
In the criticisms section, somebody wrote that critics compare it to "arcade-like" RTS games like Rise of Nations and Age of Empires. Honestly, how can there be anything arcade-like about those games? Has this person even been in an arcade? This sounds like a generic POV insult rather than a factual statement. I've removed it until somebody wants to justify this statement to me.-- 71.112.234.168 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, compared to some it is a lot more arcade..y... For example, Hearts of Iron 2, or virtually any game made by Paradox Entertainment(Or was it Interactive?). I think in terms of arcade-style it goes just about like Rise of Nations > Rome: TW > Any game made by Paradox, but it is indeed nowhere near any game in an actual arcade...But can you call Rise of Nations arcade-like? Have you seen any RTS or TBS in an arcade ever? I don't know how to work this wikipedia site so I don't know how to make a new topic...so I'll just add what I gotta say here, perhaps the cheats should be listed on this article too? I've never used them as it's generally not my style....but it seems like the kind of information someone would be looking for on a wikipedia site. I found what I was looking for though(Where the nomads historically traveled to and how to unify Rome). Actually...how does the unification of rome work? Do you just randomly exit the alliance and declare war or is there some sort of event that happens? Because I could just be content going about conquering the others for a looong time, I don't need anymore enemies really....sorry for the long windedness and any wikipedia-noob mistakes I may have made -Brandon
Are they actually called that in the game?
However, there is no inaccuracy in assuming that the Bruti might well have ruled Rome given the chance. They were an ancient and powerful family, and while Brutus goes down in history as a defender of the Republic, it may well have been lipservice. We see Brutus as noble largely because Shakespeare characterizes him as such.
I think a lot of the problem stems from confusing two different Romans by the name of Brutus. One incited a revolution against the Monarchy of Rome after the rape of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquinius. The other, centuries later, was involved in the assassination of Julius Caesar. Same name, two different people, centuries apart. In the defence of the people being confused by this, I should add that both the famous men by the name of Brutus were Republicans. Understand however that "Brutus" was not a family name, and was instead the traditional Roman third name, a nickname based on a physical or character trait (in this case, "Dullard"). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.157.173.248 (
talk)
14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that recently 81.155.84.141 has started adding external links to mods. I'm pretty sure that there used to be external mod links listed and they were removed. Irrespective of the history, this has high potential of going down the same route as the whole clans issue (i.e. why is that mod listed and not another one). I think we should follow the example of Half_Life#Mods, where the mod community is even more significant than the Total War one, and only list internal wikipedia links to mods which have articles here. If a page for a specific mod can survive (as with Rome_Total_Realism and Europa_Barbarorum) then fine. Otherwise this is just going to get messy. I've deleted the external mod links for now. I don't think anyone can doubt my pro-mod credentials, but I don't see external links working at this time. Epistolary Richard 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. But I listed the most popular mods. Which is how they where chosen. I don't see a problem with that. Rome Total Realism EB have pages. And if you'll quit the moaning I'll go ahead and make one the best MP mod around, Napoleonic: Total War 2.
I've cleaned up the unofficial site links. The ORG had half a dozen and TWC was nowhere to be found, I've now given links to the mainpage of the three main fansites (ORG, TWC, heavengames). Professor420 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
In Barbarian Invasion I understand that Valentinian's heir is Leontius in the game, but as far as Gratian is concerned, im pretty confident that he is included as GRATIANUS FLAVIUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Mastermind 1125 ( talk • contribs)
Put up a split section tag. The expansion descriptions are certainly large enough, especially for Barbarian Invasion, to have their own articles. Every The Sims expansion has its own article and Barbarian Invasion alone has more information than most of them. I don't own Rome: Total War, so I wouldn't be comfortable working on content. -- theSpectator talk 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they should have their own pages as well. Rabakam 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Rabakam
Yeah it should get its own, the section is big enough
PaddyPyro
15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Under Historical accuracy in Barbarian Invasion is says "Some weapons modeled in the game do not reflect historical outfits. Notably, many Roman units still utilize the pilum, even though the Romans ceased carrying them about a century earlier." This is not true, anyone who plays the game can clearly see that the javelins used by the Romans are far from the earlier pilum. The weapon is ment to be the veruta, a smaller simpler javelin used by late Roman troops, similar to the Frankish angon. I'm removing the sentance about the pilum. -- TheKingOfTheSquirrels 16:53, 25 November 2006
how come the expansion does not have the heruli?
What's heruli? If it's a kingdom or people, my guess would obviously be that the developers decided not to put them in. Spartan198 ( talk) 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Recently I have purchases RTW and I was wondering what the difference was between CD-Rom and DVD-Rom? Also whilst looking around on ign.com I saw that to activate cheats you need to press the tilde key (~) I wasn't interested at first but when fighting my inner conscience and failing dismally I tried it but it didn't work. I am now very curious as to why not can anyone help?
81.105.121.67
22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Thedec
ok cheers Thedec 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Thedec
On the article it says "If the player attempts to go to the Senate screen, which normally tellsRoman factions about these four things, the game crashes" (whilst playing as SPQR) why is this? Thedec 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Thedec
Should there be more information - at least a line or two - about how a player can unlock the non-Roman playable factions? Darkmind1970 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
RTW is also a well known term for "Around the World" as used by independent travelers. Shouldn't RTW allow a visitor to select the content that they're looking for, rather than redirect directly to Rome: Total War ? Thanks. Mlepisto 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any, so I would just like someone to point out where they are so I can correct them. Hol e in the wall 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are there historical inaccuracies under both criticism and game play it seems very repetitive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.96.192 ( talk) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
If you want to be Emperor you should not attack the Senate before you have the whole Northern world. Maybe own more rich provinces like those owned originally by Macedonia or the Greek Cities. It would be a better idea to have an income of at least 10 thousand denarii as a minimum, and bear in mind that if you are one of the Roman factions this will seriously drop when you lose your trades rights with the other families.
That's nice and all, but this isn't a game faq. 98.208.81.38 ( talk) 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
there is a town called domus dulcis domus meaning home sweet home, see on the Dutch/Nederlands page for details. Mallerd 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea that the senate was playable. In fact, it says in the game manuel that they are non-playable. Any ideas? PBGuardsman 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) They are in fact playable if you edit the game files. you can play as the senate as long as you don't click the roman 'senate tab'. otherwise the game crashes Mallerd 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say that it is not recommended but I have only found minor bugs, I can cope with them. What Mallerd says is true about the Senate tab and also that there is no Senate offices but apart from these the bugs are minor. These are expected as the Senate is a "Superfaction" and you are pitted in a brutal war with the Italian Allies however nice you are
GOD 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
MAJOR EDIT I don'thave a clue what I was talking about, The Senate are riddled with bugs- the pila of SPQR units doesn't work as it should.. GOD 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Magnus 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Marian Reforms in RTW occur way too early, around 210 B.C. in reality Marius introduced them in 107 B.C., Marius wasn't even born when the reforms occur in RTW. Although undoubtedly they mean you are able to squash all other factions with Urban Cohorts and the like, does anyone know why they are so early in RTW?
In my game the reforms occured around 240 B.C., in about half the time it took in the 240 B.C. example. I'm going to change the article to make it more accurate. Crispus 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Marian Reforms occur when one of the cities in Italy (with the exception of Rome itself) reaches 'huge' level. I know this game in and out. SpartanGlory1983 ( talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983
Doesn't plumbing mean there have to be certain pipes underground or not? The game depicts it as a improvement of the aquaducts by making them bigger like the pont du gard. Besides that the water didn't flow on top of the aquaducts but inside them. 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In some Roman cities and towns, the aquaducts flowed right into underground pipes and tunnels. I think, though that this "building" is to be a general improvement on the health system of a city. 208.0.118.1 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Roman shields were made of triplex wood, the suggests their shields are made of metal, only the Town Watch appears to have wooden shields. Mallerd 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Are screenshots like the elephant charge allowed on the English wikipedia? I know that the Dutch have different rules for the use of images, but does that include the screenshots? Mallerd 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
hi just wondering if anybody knew if this game was playable online and if so how? thanks Almarquis 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can. What version do you have, I have 1.5 and I had the option to install Gamespy when I installed RTW. If you haven't already installed it, install it, and as I haven't played it online I would not know where to go from here but what you can do is check it out and if you are not getting anywhere post your question on a designated site for RTW for example TWCentre or The Org Magnus 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Naming a faction to be either playable or non playable is irrelevant imo as all factions are possible to be played. Magnus 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Something like this? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus2 ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This hasn't been mentioned - would it be worth mentioning the methods by which you can add to your family, e.g. bribery, candidate for adoption, marriage and the birth of sons, adoption of a commander who has proved himself in battle. BrokenSphere Msg me 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section for this. By the way I have been trying find out that info but this is not a fansite I was wondering is there any where else the info is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.124.51 ( talk) 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
What methods? The game sends you a message whether you want to accept an "adoptive son", or even a "man of the hour". The rest is automatically added to your family. Mallerd 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The methods of adding to your family, what I mentioned. It would be worth mentioning that this is how your family expands and continues and that people can die of old age, assassination, or in battle, as no one lives forever in the game. The adoptive son and marriage proposals for daughters is random, but you have to say yes or no every time you have these options given, so you have a choice, it is not automatic. However the bribery and man of the hour are things that you can influence yourself by bribing enemy generals that you think have potential and sending your forces into action against rebel groups with the intent to make the captain the man of the hour and thus adopt him, I have done the latter several times to greatly expand one of my faction's families with success. BrokenSphere Msg me 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Since family is such a critical aspect of gameplay the role your family members play deserves mention and could include other aspects not mentioned above, like you start out with a set of family members that you can add to by the means mentioned above, when males reach 16 they become generals, people can get married and have families, they can pick up good and bad traits and ancillaries, what are the consequences when all your male family members are killed, etc. BrokenSphere Msg me 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I do think it would be good idea for a family section considering its important role in the game 86.42.127.179 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Me too, I see you have more knowledge about the methods than myself. So, don't be afraid to add a section concerning those methods. Mallerd 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I added a section outlining what I mentioned above for families and another one for agents without going into too much detail, I think. Supplements/corrections to both are welcome. BrokenSphere Msg me 18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is because when a son is born it isn't a "part" of the family in the sense that you can send the newborn into battle etc. Perhaps a better description would be, birth of son (when aged to 16) or something like that. Mallerd 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So can you but the Alexander expansion pack in stores? Or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzumaki Dude ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No I believe not, only download or delivery. >> http://www.totalwar.com/ >> Expansions Mallerd 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The Alexander expansion can be bought in stores with the Eras boxed set. SpartanGlory1983 ( talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983
What about Barbarian Invasion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzumaki Dude ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Barbarian Invasion, too. It's available alone, packaged with RTW Gold, and in the Eras package. Spartan198 ( talk) 18:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Anyone know where I can go to either join or make a clan? I was hoping for a link on this article but I could not find one, where should I go from here? Magnus 10:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 10:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey friends i found a way to make all factions playable. In both Alexander BI and Rome. If you want to find how send a message to my talk page and also write signature so I can easily find and answer you. Tiberius Stormrider 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? ;) Mallerd 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
ooo wow thats some modding you have got going there Tiberius!!!
Kaeso Dio (
talk)
12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
RTW should have a disambiguation page and not redirect to this article. WinterSpw 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I also see that 'rtw' redirects here as well.... We need to make a disambiguation page for 'Rtw' because this is just ridiculous redirecting. WinterSpw 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
RTW is now a dab page which rtw redirects to, so neither term no longer goes here first. The other terms, release to web and round the world ticket precede the game so having RTW redirect here didn't make sense. BrokenSphere Msg me 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this, with not merging in a lot of the OR and game guide type content from those pages. That could be migrated to the RTW section of the TWC Wiki for more background and info. These are but 3 factions in the game. It could be possible to similarly write up articles on all the other factions, but on Wikipedia at least what would be the point of that without refs and secondary sources? -- BrokenSphere Msg me 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Various IPs keep changing the mention of Hannibal in the lead to mention that he is brilliant. While he is considered one of the finest commanders in military history, I have kept reverting such changes to the more neutral description currently in place because the label of brilliant in this article is POV. I fail to see why these same anons are keeping the mention of Julius Caesar as just that, because Caesar too is regarded as one of the finest commanders in history and is certainly one of the most well known Romans if not the most well known. Consistent edits by IPs of this type could qualify this article for semi-protection, but I doubt it would be indefinite. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I hate that edit from Republic of Macedonia to FYROM as well, because as you can see FYROM is a redirect to ROM. A semi-protect would be great. Mallerd ( talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That particular edit isn't coming up as much as the Hannibal one. I think it may be the same person or people with a dynamic IP because the edit is always exactly the same. I'm not sure how to trace this down though to nail it to a specific individual. BrokenSphere Msg me 02:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
With majority of the units in the Spanish arsenal direct copies of Carthage, it makes more sense to group them with the Carthaginian factions in a similar way the Thracian's are called a Hellenistic faction. please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.11.74 ( talk) 09:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Than can you call it a Cartho-Barbarian faction in it's bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.42.109 ( talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, in the files it says egypt is its own culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.55.117 ( talk) 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be better to say that the units were copied from Spain by the Carthaginians,rather than the other way around. SpartanGlory1983 ( talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983
Hi, can we use this image somewhere in the article? I thought it would be nice in a section, which is not in the article at the moment, how the campaign map works with different terrains and their influence on the battlemap. Including the sightings of nearby cities, fleets, forts etc. Mallerd ( talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be better I think if you could get a more central view of both armies that also enables the viewer to tell that the archers are on the hill. That seems intuitive to us but is likely not as obvious to people unfamiliar with the game. BrokenSphere Msg me 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Latin words are, in general, wholly or partially Anglicized in pronunciation; velites (Classical Latin /weːliteːs/) is pronounced /vɛlɪtes/ instead of the expected /vɛlɪtiz/ (compare the ending sounds of the English word indices). Similarly, the C in principes is pronounced as a hard [k] as in Classical Latin instead of the [s] expected for English. See Latin declension and Latin pronunciation.
I don't know if it was fixed in a patch (which means this can be deleted), but in 1.5 I know for sure that they pronounce velites and principes correctly. Mallerd ( talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I fought with a family member who is a tedious speaker the other day, before he gives his battle speech he has this long story. Does anyone know this? So we can put it at family traits on the battlefield? Mallerd ( talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The current article now has 2 mods that have received a significant degree of coverage in their own articles. Other mentions that didn't were removed and should probably be kept out. Any thoughts? BrokenSphere Msg me 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
EB and RTR aren't the only major mods. I think XGM, Roma Surrectum, and SPQR deserve mention. Spartan198 ( talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Carthage, in the game, is heavily portrayed as being influenced by Eastern culture i.e. mud houses and family portraits. From what I have read, Carthage was heavily influenced by Greek culture with the exception of religion, as they still worshiped Phoenician gods. Should this be added into the inaccuracy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.214.157 ( talk) 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Carthage was originally a Phoenician trading settlement,AFAIK. So,technically,they would still be eastern. Spartan198 ( talk) 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
That may be true, but a faction can't have more than one culture. Spartan198 ( talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Speaking of inaccuracy, I find it stupid that a square on the campaign map is shown as a small distance on the battle map. If I am fighting in Istria, I can see Patavium on the other side of the sea. Thinking of that a turn lasts 6 months and an army can walk 10-12 steps on highways that means about 24 weeks / 2 = 12 weeks. So I can see something that is on a marching distance of 12 weeks? Anyone agree with this? Mallerd ( talk) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The roles the player takes are not even "roughly" equivalent to those of Julius Caesar etc, as the single-player campaign begins in 270 BC, about two centuries before Caesar's generation was born. Just saying. -Pedro Grim, 12-4-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.45.7 ( talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
280 BC, not 270. 98.208.81.38 ( talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Why are the battle speeches gone? Mallerd ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Settlements assaulted by mercenaries also receive less cash than usual, as the mercenaries always take a disproportionate share of the plunder."
I removed the above line because it applies only to the Barbarian Invasion expansion, not RTW itself. Spartan198 ( talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
The three-faction Roman system in the game is entirely ahistorical. In fact, the Roman Republic was ruled exclusively by the Senate, which had substantially more power than is reflected in the game, and the various assemblies. Individual families might rule small provinces, but expansions to the empire would have been assigned to new governors, not left to the generals who conquered them. Generals, too, were selected by the Senate and assemblies, and the roles of governorship and generalship were not as conflated as they are in the game. There were cases where influential politicians such as Julius Caesar could quite possibly serve as both generals and governors, but they would only occur during the later Republic.
Actually the families did hold alot of proviences, there were seven major aristoracs/families. These did expand the empire on their own more than the senate which basically just sat in Rome deciding what was right for the republic to do next. Ceasar, Pompi and all the rebels from 44bc all tried to something about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by METALFREAK04 ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
My RTW will not even start half the time and when it does it freezes or shuts off the computer Ive only had it for like two years but its falling apart. Should we include some thing like "over time this game is prone to breaking down" in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.218.179 ( talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Historical inaccuracies section on this article should be removed. I do not remember such sections in articles for comparable games, despite their historical inaccuracies, and, additionally, many of the claims of the section here are debatable. This section is unnecessary, lacks proper citations, and has many things that are not historical inaccuracies at all (such as the section regarding the declension of the names). I am deleting this section until someone can justify its existence. 72.192.189.232 ( talk) 09:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Original research can't provide facts? 98.208.81.38 ( talk) 13:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Spartan198
Many inaccuracies are from the wikipedia articles that discuss the subjects. It's best to place them back for the simple reason that they are not original research. Mallerd ( talk) 13:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
I added a {{ Reflist}} so that the references can be viewed. It Is Me Here ( talk) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I see how you are thinking, but what about WP:COMMON? The game does portray itself as a historical game, for instance: "Vast armies are led by brilliant generals such as Hannibal, leader of the Carthaginians and Julius Caesar. Rome's greatest general and leader." Furthermore, the ingame descriptions of units and buildings are not (most of the time) fiction, but historical. It is no wonder that we started pointing out the inaccuracies of this game, and not Call of Duty 4, which scenario is modern, but not reality. Mallerd ( talk) 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said (implied), I support the historical inaccuracies section and I see your point. A solution could be: use some external sources, make some comparisons between historical sources and the game. We could possibly use Europa Barbarorum as a source. Furthermore, in both Rome and Barbarian Invasion Expansion, in most units, if not all of them, there is a large text. The first part describes in-game situation. The second-part usually begins with "Historically..." and describes the historical situation.For exemple in Legionary Cavalry, the second section explains it is a made-up unit, as cavalry was only auxilliary.We could probably use something like this.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk about nit picking...anyway, now you mention in-game (or along-with-game if you will) sources yourself, stating the game never said to be historically accurate. That may be true, but what ifmany people believe it is? For 'some' reason the historical inaccuracy section was created with these games only. That is what I mean with common sense, if they go here, look at this section they think "ohhh..it is not accurate?" Please elaborate on "but as I see it there are serious reliability issues with anonymous wikipedia editors comparing some historical texts with this game". I myself have added some sections, being (on this talk page) sections 4, 10, 11, 12, 13. There are some sections that I have found no reference to whatsoever, whether due to improper referencing in the articles about the subjects or just being badly written. I hope you are going about in those poorly referenced articles as well, in case that is all synthesized as well (sorry can't help to be annoyed). Mallerd ( talk) 19:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We do have a source stating RTW is inaccurate, but I knew already at the very first edit I made to this article that it was never the intention to create an accurate game. How people see it is different of course. Anyway, I find the WP:UNDUE section very disturbing. They apparantly have a solution to "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." by "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I find it disturbing that, the solution to something not being neutral is to treat something appropriate and to its significance. Well, if there is something more vulnerable to preference than those terms, tell me. If you feel comfortable by deleting this entire paragraph, do so, but do mention that there are historical inaccuracies, because Activision does not mention historically based armies but historical armies etc.
--The conquered mourns, the conqueror is undone.
Mallerd ( talk) 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had created "agents" and "family" as well, with Brokensphere. Those are fine, I hope? Well, if there is 1 thing that I've learned about Wikipedia policy here is that it cannot be changed, at least not by me. Language is on my part a huge barrier when I'm trying to discuss something. I can speak English, but not at the level I can speak Dutch of course. For some reason, comments about a policy get deleted very often. Good day to you
Mallerd (
talk)
07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added the citations required to show that while Rome: Total War claims to be an historically accurate game, in reality, it offers something very far removed from the known historical facts. Owenj544 ( talk) 17:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in your screenshot you have a unit of 80 hastati, how is that possible? Isn't the maxium 20? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.137.83 ( talk) 19:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)