Talk:Rome: Total War/Archive 2

The Amazons

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)

Online clans

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)

Sorry, but clans don't belong in this article- it's an encyclopedia article about the game, not a place for advertising clans. You can try making a new article just for your clan, but clan articles tend to get deleted very quickly. Cheers --DarthBinky 17:10, 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)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Calling DarthBinky a vandal is not on.

Anyone is free to create any page they wish - so long as it is compliant with our policies. If it is not, then it will probably be deleted.

Everything that is included in any article must be verifiable by reliable sources and must be neutrally presented.-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Arcade-like"

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)

I think you made the right call. Sometimes things get missed... it happens. In fact, I'd venture to say that the bit about those games should be chopped anyway. Cheers. --DarthBinky 21:09, 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

Brutii and Scipii

Are they actually called that in the game?

Yes, unfortunately... Both of those names are declined incorrectly. - XX55XX 21:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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 LoLed at this bit; "rape of Lucretia by Sextus". I know it's not relevant to anything, but still. 88.104.41.63 (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The addition of mods as external links

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)

I agree with you- I'm all for streamlining. It was indeed very messy before! --DarthBinky 15:34, 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 could give you a list of a dozen mods that could be considered 'highly popular' and a bunch more that have been downloaded thousands of times. Just because you're a fan of the two you added doesn't mean that they should get special treatment. If they survive as wikipedia pages - as the other two have - then by all means add an internal link. Epistolary Richard 12:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Barbarian Invasion Inaccuracies

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)

Huh... you're right, he is in there. I'll fix it. --DarthBinky 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Split expansions sections

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 own all 3 RTW releases so I would be comfortable doing all the stuff for the new pages. The Barbarian Invasion section allready has enough info for a new article so that would require minimal work. The Alexander section will require more work, but I'll be easily able to put that in. Hole in the wall 13:34, 30 December 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)

Ok, I am going to split off the BI section now. The Alexander will need a lot more work so I'll do that after school. Hole in the wall 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Weapon Inaccuracies

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

expansion heruli

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

a few questions

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

Sorry, but this isn't a help forum for the game; this page is meant to be used to discuss how to make the encyclopedia article better. I would suggest going to a game forum, such as those at totalwar.com or totalwar.org, and asking your questions there. Cheers --DarthBinky 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

again, this isn't the place for game discussion. You'll have to take it to one of those other websites I mentioned earlier. Cheers! --DarthBinky 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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 redirection to this page?

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 agree that 'RTW' should have a disambiguation page. WinterSpw 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words in the gameplay critism section?

I can't see any, so I would just like someone to point out where they are so I can correct them. Hole in the wall 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically the whole section. It talks about "... was criticized" or "received critical responses", but provides no sources. WP:WEASEL also covers couching POV in the passive voice, so I used the weasel tag here. --DarthBinky 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It was criticized in game forums. So much so that it caused the creation of two mods. --67.175.242.13 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

historical inaccuracies

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).

To become Emperor

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

domus dulcis domus

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)

The senate is playable?

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)

Marian Reforms - Too Early?

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?

The game doesn't have a set date for the Marian reforms. Depending on what version of the game you are playing, the date of the event is randomly calculated after achieving a certain set of unstated requirements - something along the lines of building an Imperial Palace in an Italian city. The event can occur anytime after 200 B.C. As with many other aspects of the game, the historically inaccurate date of the Marian reform is presumably creative license for the sake of enjoyment. --Scottie_theNerd 11:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

City plumbing

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)

Shields

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)

Screenshot

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)

online

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)

You then can create a game similar to the creation of a custom battle. You must enter a name for your game, and so the game appears in the games room's list, where one can select your created battle. If you don't want to create, you can also select a game which is already made by other players. Mallerd 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Mallerd do you have to pay or is it free? Magnus 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It;s free :) Mallerd 12:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Playable/ Non-Playable Factions

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)

With editing the files. If you don't mod or edit the files, then the game limits what factions are playable. The Rypcord. 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But back to my argument it is possible to play with a non-playable faction so therefore naming a faction as non-playable is wrong as it can be played Magnus 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to the general populace though. Only if you know how to mod/edit the file. A new player won't know that. If you're going to state that all are playable, you must/NEED to make mention of the fact that you must mod/edit the file(s). The Rypcord. 03:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The article already mentions which are the starting factions, which are unlockable, and which are non-playable by default (e.g. look at the 3rd para for the lead and the sentence under Gameplay), which is what appears in the faction by faction description. However for the unlockable ones at least, these should be modified to say "unlockable" vs. "playable" to make the distinction more clear, otherwise something like the Gauls appears to be playable from the start if someone isn't reading carefully and thoroughly. But I agree that just because all faction can be made playable doesn't mean that they should be described as such in (). That second sentence under Gameplay can be edited to say something like "factions are described in parentheses what their playable status is by default. However, it is possible to play default non-playable factions by making an edit to one of the game files". This is a little repetitive of what is already mentioned in the lead, but it might be worth repeating. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When obtaining a new game do people not first check it out on the web, a quick search brings up The Org where you can find how to mod the file in the entrance hall. So even a link to that would enable you to say that all factions are playable, which they are. Magnus 08:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Something like this? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus2 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This still does not change the fact that as pointed out, you have to take this step in order to enable this unless you are not trying to cheat and are playing the game cleanly. I believe that there are still gamers out there like this. As I have pointed out, it is already mentioned that you can make non-playable factions playable by editing a game file, twice in fact in the article. Thus it not accurate to say that they are all playable in their description when by default this is not the case nor was it meant to be without doing anything extra. Yes there are people like you and me who get on Gamefaqs or the like and will discover that this can be done, but there are also people out there who will play it like it is meant to be played and may not make any changes to the file, so this is what they have to work with. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It clearly states that they can be played, yes you do have to mod but they can be played so the table clearly resolves this problem. Magnus 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to change the descriptions to unlockable where applicable so at least this is made clear. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, don't do it. Wikipedia should have a major section about the default game and perhaps a minor mention of the fact that one can alter the game files in order to play the other factions. Don't integrate those two. Mallerd 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If a table, like the one I suggested then there would be a clear distinction between playable/ unlockable and moddable unlockable. Magnus 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, don't integrate the default and moddable elements. It should be mentioned that it can be modded, but it should not be elaborated, it is not some sort of fansite. Mallerd 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that the table which I went out of my way to improve the article with was a waste of my precious time? Is it not clear, crystal my friend, crystal. AND where would you be willing to place the moddable label? Out of ideas? clear, clear distiction, no fuss just hard facts. Please take a look at that table before you are quick to criticise. Magnus 12:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your table, and yes that makes things clear. But I must tell you that this Wikipedia article should be about the default game and must have an encyclopedian content. I believe that the table would (in case of integration) confuse many people who are reading this article, since they do not really understand the modding of the game files. Sure, many "gamers" do understand, but I am trying to tell you that this is not an article for gaming, but for people who are interested in the encyclopedian content that this article now holds. In my point of view your work on your table was not a waste of time, you can use it for something else, an other article perhaps. But not this one. So: only mentioning the default game settings, a minor mention that the game files CAN be modified. Elaborate tables are not appropriate in this article, perhaps another article like I have mentioned. But make sure it does not become a "gaming forum". Otherwise it shall be deleted from Wikipedia. Greetings Mallerd 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If that table is already a part of the TW Wiki, then it's fine where it is and the TW Wiki is already linked to in this article. But Mallerd has basically said what I and Rypcord have been trying to say to you - that this article should focus on the default settings of the game as it was meant to be played, it is not meant to be a GameFAQs FAQ. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I concede defeat. Magnus 09:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Family expansion

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)

Done, check it of course. Mallerd 21:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I made some slight changes. Also, I don't understand the parentheses part that you added here:

• The birth of a son (which ages to 16);

BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:35, 26 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)

Since I do not know how to put the age question in correct English I have not edited that. I do have edited other parts again, please look at my edit in history. Perhaps you can look up stijlfout in Wiktionary or any other Dutch-English dictionary. But my intentions are right. Have a nice day ;) I must go to the dentist :| Mallerd 06:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand you now. I expanded it to reflect that they don't become playable until they turn 16 so that should clarify that. I also readded what I said about an agent being attached to an army, "garrison" doesn't really work in this sense since it refers to a fixed location, e.g. a city, while an army can move around. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it wasn't trying to edit the message out of the sentence, but the error in style. :P I regret that I don't know the English term for it, but I tried to make clear that counter espionage is not limited to "an army that the faction controls". With my contraction of the two elements I tried to make clear that it is not only an army that the faction controls, but also a city (that a faction controls). So, to make this said short, my edit was not intended to alter the contents of the article, only the style in which those contents are brought. Perhaps it is a Dutch thing. Mallerd 16:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How about rewriting "either garrisoned in or attached to city or army that the faction controls" to "either in a city or attached to an army that the faction controls" to make it clear. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's fine :) Mallerd 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander

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)

You can buy that in stores, at least in The Netherlands you can. Mallerd 21:34, 5 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

Clans

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)

Don't go from here. Just look in the game, not here. Mallerd 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What? In the game, like are they concealed in a faction guide? 62.254.173.101 09:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, in the multiplayer game room where you can select battles you also have a chatbox. Perhaps you can request a clan, or play a lot with clan members. But I doubt that there are any clan members recruiting on Wikipedia. Mallerd 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ALL PLAYABLE

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)

Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of information. Kaeso Dio (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'RTW' and 'rtw' redirect to this page?????

RTW should have a disambiguation page and not redirect to this article. WinterSpw 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It does. Kaeso Dio 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't... WinterSpw 21:09, 31 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 made one ages ago. Kaeso Dio (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merges of Houses of Julii, Scipii, Brutii

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)

I suggest complete deletion of the seperate House of Julii, House of Scipii and House of Brutii articles. Enough information is given in the main article [Rome: Total War]. The seperate articles are just double when you have this article already. Mallerd (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Any merging would probably just end up with a bunch of gamecruft. The the basic RTW article has more than enough info on the roman factions. There isn't really any need for for merging, nor is there a need for separate articles. SirBob42 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to PROD if you think that's the best course of action. Pagrashtak 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mallerd (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued rewording of description of Hannibal as brilliant

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)

These edits seem to be largely originating from Fairport, New York, with one from Rochester (a work address?) so it seems to be the same person but they keep switching IPs. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No it is not as frequent as Hannibal's, but still it is annoying. Mallerd (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not longer? The FYROM guy is back Mallerd (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The New York IP seems to have moved on since then, but will monitor. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain is a Carthaginian faction not a Barbarian one

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)

It's not about the units, it's about the government buildings. Thrace has an imperial palace etc, Greek-style. Spain has a barbarian Warlord's Hall etc. So they're barbarian. I think Egypt should recieve it's own category, because that is what game says Egypt is. We shouldn't divide them according history. Mallerd (talk) 11:06, 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)

What about saying that Spain has barbarian structures yet their units are more similar to Carthage's than the other barbarian factions? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:39, 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

Image:Greekroman.JPG

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)

Okay, I will upload another screenshot soon then, have a good day Mallerd (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Patch

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)

Tedious speaker

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)

Mods

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)

Agree. Mallerd (talk) 17:51, 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 as Eastern faction?

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

You have a problem here that is that Carthaginians, or Phoenicians, were all over the place. Perhaps the Carthaginians on Sicily were somewhat more Greek than those in Iberia. Mallerd (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but a faction can't have more than one culture. Spartan198 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

True, but the examples that the anonymous contributor gave like "mud houses and family portraits" indicate a desert-like and African culture. Mud houses work in a desert environment, Greek houses don't. I believe that what the anonymous contributor had read is meant more in the sense of literature. The same as Arabs were influenced by Aristotle etc. In RTW the only way this can be shown is through the ancillaries and perhaps traits. Perhaps the anonymous can provide us with a source. Mallerd (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Just saying

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

Battle speeches

Why are the battle speeches gone? Mallerd (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mercenaries

"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

Point out

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)

Yes...but the game implies that the families could do as they pleased and did not act without permission of the Senate. The reality was, like you said, different: the Senate decided what was best. Mallerd (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

CONSTANT BUGS!

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)

Not unless you can provide a reliable source that indicates this is a major problem. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't blame the game here, rather your PC!--Michael X the White (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I've read several reviews of this game and they stated: "remember the "shutdown bug" [can't remember exactly what the name was] from Medieval Total War? It's baaaaaaaaaaaaack!" That last part I do remember. Mallerd (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Historical Inaccuracies section

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)

If the points are debatable, then debate them. If there are not sufficient citations, then find some. Unless there is some "no historical inaccuracies section" policy that I'm not aware of then there is no justification for deleting this section for what amounts to a I don't like it argument argument. SirBob42 (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the section is entirely original research. I am going to go ahead and remove it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:02, 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)

It would probably be helpful then to migrate the corresponding refs over as well. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have searched for references and put them in. However, there are articles that don't properly list their references. I don't have an exact reference for those. I have put hidden text in the inaccuracies sections. You must click the sourcetext to see those. Bye Mallerd (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies

• 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.

• The primary reason for the three-faction system is to simulate the civil war that ultimately resulted in the end of the Roman Republic. Furthermore, while the Julii may in some ways be said to be Imperialists because Julius Caesar became the first dictator perpetuus, the precursor to the modern understanding of Roman Emperor, Brutus was thoroughly Republican and is in fact famous for having killed Julius Caesar after he was granted absolute power through the office of dictator perpetuus by the Senate.; and theoretically speaking, the family of Brutus would not have imperial ambitions anyway.

• In addition, although perhaps more trivially, the names are declined incorrectly. While the plural of Julius is indeed Julii, the plural of Brutus is Bruti, not Brutii. Likewise, the plural of Scipio is Scipiones, instead of Scipii. See Latin declension .

• As for the Hellenic factions in diplomacy, if they accept an unreasonable offer, they are reported to say "it may shame a Helot". In fact the only faction that have a connection with these Helots are the Greek Cities, because the Spartans enslaved Messenia and its inhabitants, the Helots. So other Hellenic factions such as Macedon, Thrace, the Seleucid Empire should not speak of Helots, but perhaps of other minorities in their own respective realms.

• One of the key events of the game for the Roman factions is the Marian Reforms, instigated by Gaius Marius. Although the events and details of the reforms are not themselves inaccurate, the reforms do not usually occur in 107 B.C., as in history, but instead often occur over 100 years earlier, as the date of the reforms is not hard-coded in the game, but is instead dependent upon other factors. Note that if the reforms occurred at 107 B.C. in game, it would leave a relatively small amount of game-time to actually take advantage of the new troops, before the game ends in 14 A.D. In reality, the reforms changed the structuring of the Roman army, and the land qualifications required to sign up. Within the game, the reforms unlock the more elite troops of the Roman factions, for example the Legionary Cohorts and Urban Cohorts. The post-reform troops are also portrayed as wearing much more armor than troops of the era actually wore.

• Some of the units are ahistorical as well. The arcani, portrayed as in the game as heavily armoured pseudo-ninjas, are probably based on a group of agents provocateurs and spies known as areani in Roman Britain hundreds of years after the game takes place. Also, units of the Roman army such as the Urban Cohort and Praetorian Cohort are much more widely used for combat in the game than they ever were in the Roman Republic or Empire.

• The Romans are not the only factions with ahistorical units. Druids, like those used in-game by the Barbarians, were in fact excused from military service in Celtic culture, being vital to the operation of organized village life. A totally invented unit is the British Head Hurlers, who hurl decapitated heads coated in quicklime. Severed heads were a valuable trophy in Celtic culture, and would never have been used as ammunition. The phalanx formation which the Germans employ in the game is also ahistorical, since Roman authors are emphatic that the only military formation employed by the Germani was the wedge, and the idea of pikes as Germanic weapons is contradicted by archeology as well as Tacitus (Germania Ch.6). The huge armored war elephants with howdahs, although perhaps the most spectacular unit in the game, were never used by Carthage; historic sources and depictions on coins all document small (perhaps 2.5 m/8.35 ft at the shoulder) North African Elephants with only a mahout. Also, the Bull Warriors of Spain did not exist.

• The Egyptian military and culture is heavily influenced by the ancient Egypt of the New Kingdom rather than that of the Ptolemaic Egypt. Culture would have been of a Greek style with soldiers being identical to those of the other Diadochi and Macedonia .

• Some units, such as wardogs and flaming pigs, were used very often, but not to the extent with which they can be used within the game. Also, Berserkers were not around during the time setting of the game. Berserkers were only used by the Vikings during the Viking Age, although they may represent some of the more ferocious Germanic tribes.

• Furthermore the Macedonian "Royal Pikemen" are depicted wearing a shield with a lambda upon it. In fact the Spartans wore the lambda on their shield as it stands for the region Laconia where they came from. The Macedonian faction emblem also has a lambda upon it.

• As for character names, some Roman characters (including captains) are named Augustus. In fact this title as a cognomen was first held by Octavius and the following emperors, but it did not actually represent any sort of constitutional office until the 3rd century under Diocletian. Besides, the title surely wasn't held by any lesser men such as regular family members and military officers.

• Some settlements on the steppes are named after the tribe that lived there, for example Tribus Getae, are wrongly entitled with "Tribus". This word is the etymon of the word tribunus, which has the meaning of a tribune, and was a title shared by 2–3 elected magistracies and other governmental and/or (para)military offices of the Roman Republic and Empire. They represented certain groups of the Republic, such as the people (tribunus plebis) and the military (tribunes militium). If the Romans wanted to label a settlement according to the tribe living there, they would do so by using genus. The same for settlements labeled with locus, meaning place in Latin.

• Since they were easy prey for close combat units, the velites did not form their own line; maniples of hastati and principes had a certain number of velites assigned to them, and they came under the command of the centurions of these units with roughly 80 velites per maniple respectively. The triarii, however, did not have them since they fought right at the back away from the front line. In this sense, despite not being part of the main formation, they were regular soldiers. Furthermore, the triarii fought in a phalanx formation, which is in contrast to the game.

• Many barbarian factions were not unified in history, but were actually many tribes, which often fought each other. Furthermore, the Scythians were not the dominant group at the beginning of the game, 270 BC. In fact, the dominant group was the Sarmatians.

• Numidia was divided at the time of Rome: Total War. The power was in two major tribes.

• The faction "The Greek Cities" presumably refers to an alliance of the city-states Sparta, Athens, and Rhodes at the time. Therefore, this faction should have control of Athens at the start of the game, and should not control Syracuse or Pergamum.

References

I added a {{Reflist}} so that the references can be viewed. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, there ARE hidden texts. Mallerd (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this section is that it is original research. The references supplied do not mention Rome: Total War. It is a clear violation of WP:SYN. In order to have a section like this, we would require a reliable source to be speciffically pointing out these errors within Total War. What we have here is a variety of sources on antiquity being examined and compared with a game, coming to a novel conclusion that there are many historical accuracies, clearly a sythesis of sources. --Leivick (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not against the historical inaccuracies section.But, if there is a problem with the references,perhaps we should make clear at the beginning (or somewhere) in the article that the game is ahistorical, and only has some historical similarities.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:39, 2 October 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)

I don't see any reason to think common sense dictates that a historical innaccuarcies section is needed. The game never claims to be 100% historically accurate in fact as I recall there were some disclaimers in the literature associated with it that discuss artistic lincense. As I see it most of the section in question really just comes across as nit picking using orginal synthesis. If a noted historian or even game reviewer had published a similar list of issues I would have no problem mentioning it, but as I see it there are serious reliability issues with anonymous wikipedia editors comparing some historical texts with this game. The article mentions Europa Barbarorum and its attempt at creating a more historical version of the game and I think that is all that is really needed. --Leivick (talk) 22:13, 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)

Mallerd I am not sure what you are annoyed about, but I will try to clarify what I have said. I don't know if many people believe the game is historically accurate, whatever the case may be, we need quality sources to say these kinds of things. Currently the historical innaccuracies section is a huge part of the article, a gross violation of WP:UNDUE as not a single reliable source has been provided that claims this is a major issue with the game. The reliablility issues that I mentioned before stem from the fact that the current innaccuracies section is the work of non-expert or at the very least anonymous editors, we don't have a source saying that Rome: Total War is inaccurate, we have non-expert playing a video game and comparing it to some historical literature. This process is not very reliable and not at all authoritative, this is part of the reason for the synthesis section for of the original research policy. You are right, the inaccuracies section is hardly the only problem with this article, but that is hardly a reason to keep it. The "Factions" section also is full of original research and game guide material. It would probably be best to cut this down to a simple list of available factions. If you want to see where I am trying to take this article, take a look at some featured video game article and see what types of content they have. --Leivick (talk) 19:29, 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)

PS: I am not really annoyed, more despondent. I followed this article for a long time and now someone dislikes what we have created here.

I have gone ahead and removed the bulk of the section per your statement, I understand what it is like to put work into something only to have it removed, but unfortunately that is the nature of a collaborative project. It seems that you may have an issue with the undue weight you might want to try discussing it on the WP:OR talk page, policy is always adjustable here. --Leivick (talk) 23:42, 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)

Unit of 80 hastati

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)

I believe the game has an option to change unit sizes in its Options menu, but please refrain from using this page as a general Rome: Total War forum. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)