Looks great, but it keeps crashing when I try to start a campaign. Any ideas what it might be ?

Link doesn't work...

I dont have a thing for a generals bodyguard unit being a phalanx, that really turns me off. And i dont trust the whoole battle setup being revamped, cause i heard that the realism mod makes the cavlary charge less effective. Which is stupid because its not effective enough in the orginal rtw. And i think no PC game ever has effectivly shown the cavalry charge.

Also the link worked for me.

I HATE RTR

There's a lot of bugs currently with this version, which is a disappointment. If you play for awhile, you'll start to notice them. Although I would like to try realistic Rome: Total War, RTR hasn't really appealed much. If it stays the same for their next so-called 6.0 version, then I lost hope for them having realism and gameplay go together without making it less fun.

I recently heard of this group called "Europa Barbarorum" who claimed they worked on their mod long before RTW came out. They also aim for realism with gameplay balance; I hope this group actually can pull it off correctly.

As far as RTR is concerned I have one massive problem with the entire enterprise. The 'longer battles' system, yes this is ok - sounds great. Works great for field battles too. When you're seiging though it's a different ballgame. It all sounds so pleasently balanced on paper, but they've clearly forgotten one vital thing. Units in a plaza never break. A well defended plaza can only be taken with an attack designed to crush the enemy quickly, or your units may soon find themselves running.

My first experience in RTR was having a Barbarian Warlord (Dacian) and a Skirmisher Warband break three units of Falxmen, a unit of Mercenary Bastarnea, my generals companion cav unit, and two units of Illyrian Skirms. No jokes here. I got rid of RTR after that.

Edit - Oh yeah and just as a note. There's nothing particularly 'realistic' about RTR. It's all half-measures. If you're going to take away units like Head Hurlers from the Britons, you should take away Gallic heavy infantry... They didn't have any. Gallic swords used to bend in combat as well, needing to be straightened with the foot - why would their swordsmen be so effective then? German horses were crud - their cavalry was rubbish. Germans had good swords, no axe-fetish.

In smaller Roman armies any cavalry they did have would often draw around the general as a reserve. Giving the general a cohort of Preatorians makes no sense. Slingers are still too weak.

[This message has been edited by dad_savage (edited 01-18-2005 @ 01:01 AM).]

Quote:

Stop acting like you know so much about history. If you would actually read up on the Caesar vs Vercingetorix part of Gallic history you would know that Vercingetorix actually fielded large amounts of heavy infantry- similiar to the ones we see in Rome: Total War.

Quote:

AGAIN, look up your sources. German cavalry were renknowned as some of the best cavalry in the world. Gaius Julius Caesar himself fielded them in battle all the time, and they were decisive in his victories over the Gauls and later over Pompey Magnus and Cato.

Really, to say German Cavalry is rubbish is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

I personally hate RTR. The 'new' legions look like crap. Look at them. They're so dull, I personally liked the 'brightness' in the older ones. No offense to RTR, but I'll stick to the old one.

You typify the arrogance around on digital forums. Attacking me for not posting sources whilst launching into a jeremaid of your own, one that (hypocritically enough) lacks any sources. But to end all arguments. Here is a 'second edition' of my comments, with sources.

On German Cavalry. Pharaphrasing of quotes.

'Rich men existed and provided the cavalry... German cavalry did not go in for flashy foreign bred horses as did the Gauls... Their native breed, described by Romans as being 'Small, ugly, and not especially fast'... They did not use saddles and wore very little armour... Weilding light spears and javelins 'framea' (swords were not universal)... The effectiveness of German cavalry was increased by having an equal number of picked light infantry attatched to it in support'

Lastly, the standout quote: 'Although the cavalry were effective, Roman authors still thought the infantry who made up the vast majority were the most dangerous'

It goes on to say the Germans did not seem to have won any pitched battles against the romans (Teutoberger Wald was an ambush, so don't bring it up.)

Further: On Gallic infantry.

'The best equipped carried a long stout sheild, a bunch of javelins and a long cutting sword. Roman historians tell us that the metal of the sword was of poor quality and needed to be straightened with the foot after a few blows... The biggest problem for a Roman general facing the gauls was a lack of suitable cavalry to oppose the Gallic horsemen and a lack of light infantry to scout out woods and defiles,'

From all this we can clearly see.

1) German cavalry were slow-moving, lightly armed, without armour and needed light-infantry escorts to be effective. We can deduce from Roman opinion; they were the least decisive force in the German army.

2) The vast majority of Gallic infantry wore absolutely no armour and carried light javelins and poor quality swords. Also that the Legiones (Heavy infantry) had no troubles against unsuported Gallic infantry in a pitched fight, despite the relative size difference (Gauls were said to be much bigger) and were only concerned when there was cavalry support present or if they were ambushed.

I shall list my source: Phill Barker's 'the armies and enemies of imperial rome,' sourced;

Journals:
Journal of roman studies
Brittania

Original sources:
Ceaser, the commentaries
Plutarch, lives
Tacticus, The Histories, The Annals, Agricola, Germania
The Vitea Augustae
Julian, Orotations
The military works of Frontinius, Onasander and Vegetius

Modern authors:
G.Webster, H. Russell Robinson, H. Delbruck... I could go on. But copying this out is getting dull. You get the idea.

Since Gaul and Germany were made up of lots of tribes there is no way to say some Germans did not use axes instead of swords.

Gadz13, youthought that cavalry charges are too weak?

Look at dad_savage's posts. Cavalry WERE weak. Because they had no stirrups they had to focus as much as to fight to keep on the horse. Without stirrups it is dangerous to do a lance-charge as you can be knocked off your horse if you are unlucky when you strike your target.
The main use of cavalry was it's speed and (and the ability to move faster through difficult terrain than chariots who almost break if someone looks at them) to outflank the enemy and stop them from being able to manouver.

Your sources, dad, do not talk about the use Caesar himself made of the Germanic cavalry. They were the best in the world, the most savage and the most effective.

Same goes for Gallic Infantry. I suggest you read the Roman Republic series by Colleen Mccolough.

It will give you a proper view of that time instead of the ridiculous one you now have, sorry to say so.

Guardian you seem to be confusing Germanic cavalry with Gothic cavalry. From everything that I have ever read (online mostly, but not forums) and seen in documentaries say that german horses were not good. Where as the Gauls were very good horsemen. Most onformation that has reached me says that the Romans had a healthy respect for Gaulish horsemen, in fact it's the only Gallic military unit that they had any reason to be concerned about. Except numbers probably. As for the germans using axes well that could be something that CA just transfered from the Goths to the Germans. Also when making the Gallic unit line up CA drew from the bredth of the non-britanic celtic peoples. Which stretched from celtideria threw modern France and north Italy to asia minor. You might also find that the heavy Gallic warriors (noble cavalry and chosen swordsmen) were Galatan in origin.

PS I don't whether the Goths were considered a German tribe or not so don't jump on me for that one.

I like it. Although the Dacian generals are far too much like small groups of Jedi Knights for my liking.

They have removed the horses leap - so a frontal charge against pikes is pretty stupid now.

Personally, I do not join the RTR hype. This has several reasons.
I know there are some mistakes made in Rome Total War, but who actually cares? Of course, people do, and make mods and stuff, but me for myself, I don't want to give up gameplay and fun for realism. If you would unify all Roman families into one, it would be slightly more realistic (but still not exactly historically correct), but it goes to the cost of gameplay. If I had to fight all of the world by myself, I think I'd have some serious problems. Now, you only face one culture at the beginning of your Roman campaign. If you say the Gauls or Greek cities weren't united, you almost have to split every province apart. Where's the fun when you only have to fight one province at a time? I mean, it's like you'd replace every barbarian (and some other) factions by rebel states. Really adds to the fun and gameplay, I believe.
For changes like historical units in the game, well, I don't care. Do those units look cooler? Maybe. But I see no reason to import changes. Most of the game's factions are well balanced, so changes could disturb that.
And lastly, I think CA knows there's a lot of historical inaccuracy in their game. But they gave it up to more balanced and fun-orientated gameplay. They might have claimed to be historically accurate, but in fact, they are! There are also lots of units/buildings/factions who *are* historically correct. They made an effort, and come on, it's just a game. Fun is the most important.

Oh, and by the way, who can claim to be historically accurate if they don't even know that the Roman word for javelin is pilum, plural pila, but keep writing "pilii", a completely non-existent form?

Quoted from Draigh:

I see what you're saying Draigh but the reason i prefer to play RTR is because I find it much more fun. I found I was getting a little tired of the strategy element of the campaign game. It's too basic and relatively simple to master and doesn't seem to change much whatever difficulty you play at. RTR adds loads of different elements to the strategy that make it more of a challenge.

Quote:

That's exactly what they've done. The scipii and brutii no longer exist just the romans (who are red!). They've also added a lot of extra provinces to the map in Italy so you have to first conquer it. Once you do this you're in a great position because you have a lot of provinces in italy all pumping out cash. But to complicate things, the Greeks start in the south and the gauls grab a lot of the new northern towns. Also, Carthage has a lot of new towns as well and can quickly become a powerhouse. All this adds to the complexity in picking your strategy and opens up loads of new opportunities that you never had before.

In the new version they've also changed the unit stats quite a lot. They've given everything an extra hitpoint, bumped up a lot of unit stats and made javelins a lot more powerful while flattening out all bows to 16 missile attack. I haven't really played enough yet to say whether I like it or not but it will definitely change the sort of strategies you use in battles.

I really like it. I like the extra realism as well. It makes you feel a bit more like you're really fighting the punic wars and building the roman empire. They've extended the map all the way to pakistan too !

Overall, RTR is more annoying than fun. I'll stick with the original and wait for the official patch for now.

time to settle this german cavalry business once and for all:

German cavalrymen were very skilled, being the pride of all Germanic tribes. Tacitus says, in his Germania the Tencteri were renouned for their superior cavalry (and don't anyone say that Tacitus is making up his facts. He isn't. While he does occasionaly make mistakes, he still had the best literary evidence for Germania.) However, German cavalrymen had a problem. They lacked good horses, their animals being, for the most part, small and ugly, which severely limited their effect in battle.
Now Caesar, on his trips across the Rhine, saw that all the Germans needed was good horses, as the riders were highly capable. So he made a deal with the Ubii- send some of your finest warriors with me, and i'll give each man two of the finest Gallic horses. The Ubii agreed, and once the Germans were mounted upon proper horses, Caesar found his theory correct. The Gauls were absolutely terrified of the Germans. When Vercingetorix attacked Caesar's army on the march after Alesia, Caesar formed up his German cavalry and smashed the Gallic charge. Later, in Alesia, attempts by the cavalry to secure a breakout were easily qwelled when the Germans went to work. The first attempt of the relief army to relieve Alesia failed because of the Germans. And the last attempt, which actually breached a fort, was eradicated by a Germanic charge right upon the rear.

As for cavalry charges not being effective, that is false. Despite the lack of stirrups, charges worked very well. Alexander won Gaugemela by leading his Companion Cavalry right through a gap in the Persian lines, and even smashed his way up to Darius. To maintain an effective charge and not fall of their horse, horsemen would have to balance themselves properly in their saddle (which was specially designed with raised edges to prevent falling out) and squeeze the horse tightly. Heavy Cavalry was always an effective shock element especially against undisciplined troops, disordered troops.

Sassenach

Make sure you remove the map.rwm file .. see the readme

Crackaces

BTW) I love the lively discussion. Myself, I have enjoyed the fact that Gauls and Carthage are now powerhouses. I am in a campaign now -- It is 240BC and I have just now secured the Boot of Italy. (VH/H). The Gam emight last until 40BC this time ...

Is there some kind of accord here that native german cavalry were not a powerhouse? Either way - the point I'm making is that in order to represent 'total realism' you'd have to change a hell of allot more than a few city names and some unit skins. The entire game would likely have to be rebuilt from the ground up. For example; there's a major timeline issue with the Thracians and Dacians - it's not something I claim to be an expert about - but all these things would require huge amounts of research. I'd venture so far as to guess that the research time would outstrip the actual mod-building time if one were aiming for 'total realism'. It's this reason and this reason alone I think the game is at its best when aiming for maximum fun.

Quoted from dad_savage:

Granted, but it is still possible to make the game more realistic than before. There's quite a few glaring inaccuracies in vanilla that I feel actually detract from the gameplay. For example, why are Carthage such complete pussies ? Sure, you can still win fairly easily with them, but that's more to do with the fairly simple strategic element to the game I already mentioned. But in campaign, unless you actually take charge of the Carthaginians they always get annihilated by the romans in pretty short order. Not only is this completely unrealistic it's boring too.

I don't know if you've had a look at RTR 5 yet but they've actually done a lot more just change a few city names. For a start they've added a lot more cities and even extended the map to include all of Persia. They've changed a lot of the unit stats which changes the nature of battles. They've introduced a lot of new unit types and removed a few units altogether. They've also introduced changes to the strategic element of the game which are too numerous for me to be bothered listing but make the game a little bit harder.

As far as I'm concerned, making it a little bit harder has actually improved the gameplay rather than detracting from it. Of course it's not 'total' realism but I still feel it's an improvement.

Yes, I've played 5.0. Actually the battle changes are my main problem. (See my first post) though I do agree with buffing Carthage and extending the map. RTR has good ideas, but, imho - bad implementation. I understand it's not their fault; I know they do the best they can, for no money, and I praise them (along with all modders) I just haven't gotten to the stage of boredom with RTW where I need to turn to mods.

I find that RTR's singleplayer is better than RTW's, but you can't beat RTW's multiplayer experience, simply because Total Realism would be too realistic for the online community and really fun online play.

Might I apologise before I start as the following may well be a very stupid question with an obvious answer but its an answer I can't find so...

How do I remove the RTR?

Its OK but the CTD's are getting me down, the troops look a little bland\dark and it really annoys me when the troops deploy at a nice angle to the settlement you are about to attack so that when you rearrange and start moving them they advance as a nice diamond rather than a plain old square.

Any help would be appreciated

Cheers

did you make a back-up of the orginal data folder ?

if not then your going to have to reinstall I think

if you did then just replace your current data folder with the back-up

OK cheers pal. I guess a reinstall it is as I didn't make a backup