Talk:Rome: Total War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

unlocking factions

under factions in the original game it states there are way tio unloc all the factions. SHould it say how to do this?

That seems pretty inapropriate for Wikipedia, thats more hints/cheats website territory. --80.176.81.65 12:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

game guide, or encyclopedia?

most of this article reads more like a game play guide than an encyclopedia. does an encyclopedia really need to include strategy info, playable vs. non-playable factions, and so on? i'd suggested deleting a lot of the factions section as unneeded on wikipedia. instead, include external links to game guides and strategy hints. Slamorte 12:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


yes

Incorrect information

Removed the following text:

Furthermore, the various members of each faction tend to develop skills and traits more in line with the stated goals and ideals of that faction: Julii tend to have skills relating to crowd control and in dealing with people, reducing unrest and increasing overall popularity with the governed, Brutii tend to develop war-oriented skills, increasing their command ability, as well as being rather traditional, making them popular with the Senate. Finally, Scipii tend to develop traits and skills dealing with economics and finances, making Scipii players generally the wealthiest. This can largely be seen as a matter of degree, though, as Scipii who fight in many battles will develop more combat based skills, Julii who rule despotically will not be saved by their populism, and Brutii who never see combat will likely become better tax collectors than some Scipii.

This is not true. The information for RTW character trait gain is contained within the file export_descr_character_traits.txt, which I have worked with extensively for various modifications. The file does not distinguish between the three Roman factions. The only possible factor that could affect this, therefore, would be the unique temples the factions get. But the traits don't match up. The Julii have Jupiter (which gives law-bestowing traits), Ceres (which gives farming traits) and Bacchus (which gives all sorts of awful traits, like alcohol- and adultery-related ones). The Brutii have Mercury (which helps trade), Mars (which makes generals prone to anger, bloodlust, and being energetic). Finally, the Scipii have Saturn (which gives law-bestowing traits), Vulcan (which gives engineering and mining traits), and Neptune (which gives no traits).

Basically, the facts don't bear this assertion out. —Simetrical (talk) 22:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I see on the text:

Spain (non-playable) begins on the Iberian peninsula, and represents the Iberian tribes who fought against the Gauls and Carthaginians, and later resisted Rome. They get solid infantry units, including units which throw javelins prior to a charge, and others which are similar to Carthaginian units; but they have relatively few cavalry or ranged units

Even saying the word Spain before 1469, the year Catholic Monarchs married uniting Castille and Aragon kingdoms is an awful mistake. Such entity didn't exist. This a terrible error on the game and I think it should be mencioned in the criticism.

China

why isn't china in the expansion? it was the other superpower at the time, and could've wooped all the barbarians with its advanced tech + mass army

China's interactions with the west at this time period wasn't much more than some trade and diplomats, and sometimes the barbarian tribes they displaced would head west. Though RTW isn't focused on historical accuracy there's really not enough interaction to justify adding them. Plus, it would draw focus from the "Barbarian Invasion" aspect. Though if Creative Assembly removes or relaxes the hard-coded limits on the number of territories and the number of factions there could concievably be mods involving china. RentACop 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There are, in particular Zhanguo: Total War. They just don't cover Europe as well. In any case, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the page, not the topic. —Simetrical (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

By then (the time period of the Barbarian Invasion expansion) China was no longer a superpower. China too was overran by barbarians - the so-called "Sixteen Kingdoms" and "North and South Dynasties" era.

Pronunciation

Removed the following paragraph:

In addition, the game ignores basic rules of Latin pronunciation, of which the most notable features are that all sounds are hard, the v should be pronounced as if it were a u or a w, and the j should be pronounced as if it were an i or y. Thus, Julius Caesar should have been pronounced Yoo-lee-us Kai-sar and the Gallic leader Vercengetorix would have been Wer-ken-get-or-rex. However, these can hardly be faulted to the game designers, as they are contemporary English concepts and understandings of pronunciation.

In its place, I added this:

Latin words are, in general, wholly or partially Anglicized; velites (Latin [welɪtes]) is pronounced vɛlɪtes instead of the expected vɛlɪtiz (compare the ending sounds of testes). Likewise, the C in principes is pronounced as a hard [k] as in Latin instead of the [s] expected for English. See Latin declension and Latin pronunciation.

Basically, the tone of the paragraph I removed had a very noticeably prescriptivist tone, which Wikipedia should not have (it's POV to say that there's a "correct" pronunciation for a word). It's also distinctly condescending toward the designers. My rewrite, on the other hand, notes the partial Anglicization of words, which is an interesting point the original paragraph leaves out, and its tone doesn't either state or imply that any pronunciation is "better" than another.

I don't care if you revert my revert while we work out a compromise, by the way, provided we are working out a compromise. I don't intend to get into a revert war if I don't have to. —Simetrical (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken whatsover. I'm a WikiNewbie.. :) -Ttan 3:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well there are two types of Latin, classical(where v is pronounced like w and c is pronounced like k) and vulgar(where v is pronounced like v and c is pronounced like ch), and RTW uses vulgar Latin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.29.64 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Well, no, it doesn't use much of anything consistently—for instance, Principes pronounce their name with a hard C. I'll note that the pronunciation is only "incorrect" by the standards of the game's time period. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sieges

"The gameplay is similar to that of its predecessors, Shogun: Total War and Medieval: Total War, although there are some additions like sieges and greatly improved city fights."

There were already sieges in Medieval (I never played Shogun, so I don't know about that one), although you besieged forts/castles and not towns/cities as in Rome. On the other hand the city fights are not just improved but are new; there were none of those in Medieval. Everyking 06:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely you of all people don't have to be told to be bold? I never played MTW or STW myself, so I wouldn't know. —Simetrical (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I diddled with it. If anyone thinks it could be worded better or was in fact not worth adding at all feel free to diddle with it yo-self. RentACop 22:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mods in external links?

Formerly we had a huge list of mod forums in the external links. A Link to the Past dropped those, saying they were insignificant, but leaving the mod websites. I agree that there were too many forums listed before, but honestly, the TWC forum for SPQR is far more significant than the Troy Total War site. No offense to TTW, but they haven't released a version yet and just aren't terribly noteworthy.

In an effort to keep the number of links to a reasonable level, how about only including 1) the official sites and/or forums of mods that have 2) released a public version? That would keep it down to maybe five or ten. —Simetrical (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Discussion of Strategy

As an avid player of Rome: Total War, I don't think it would be wise to mention strategy in this particular article, as the article tends to do. For example, for Carthage the article reads that the most agreed strategy is to abandon sicily and the most likely result of losing Spain to defend carthage herself. However, many players would disagree immensely with this point. I for example, have almost never given up Sicily, and far from it, the main and wisest strategy I (and many others I know) use is to immediately declare war on the Brutii immediately and take Messana. You must do so on your very first turn, with the faction leader Hanno--Hanno is old (60 or so) and he will always die in his first two turns or so unless you decalre war (for some reason the prospect of war lets the old man live a few turns longer). After that, I build up my army (taking almost all my armies aside from Town Militia, in ever single city) make peace with the Greeks at Syracuse, and attack for the city of Rome itself as soon as possible. This takes the Romans by surprise, but may cost you some. However, in a few turns (and buying mercenaries and armies from your looting of Roman cities), you end up destroying all the roman factions in less than 20 turns or so( I once managed 12 at great cost, and the eventual loss of many other cities to damn Rebels, Numidians and Gauls).

The purpose of that whole scenario I gave is that I ALWAYS do this. I have actually almost never failed ("almost" pointing to thimes when I don't stop playing for 6 hours straight) even in the highest settings (although I almost always will lose spain and if the Greeks attack I lose Sicily at the higer settings--either of which I'll lose anyways). But this strategy, probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article, because everyone has their own strategies. As such, I don't think it's in the spirit of Wikipedia to be giving certain opinions of strategy, especially since they might be harmful to the player reading it, such as the ones already included in the article. Or is it better to create a "strategy category" for the article, and thus we can mention the main and most agreed upon strategies in the game in that category (and others can expand it). I think that idea might be best: to create a "most used strategies" category.

I just want to hear everyone elses opinion on that, before trying to redo an entire article and create an entire category: especially the opinion of some of the wikipedia "veterans". ^_^--Persianlor

I agree that specific strategies are outside the scope of this article, except for very broad statements (like "Numidia is generally considered among the most difficult factions to play as"). No need to include them anywhere, else, either, IMO, they just aren't notable. —Simetrical (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone deleted the Barbarian factions section...

I see that the descriptions for the Gauls, Britons, Germans, Dacians, and the Scythians are gone. Anyone willing to redo them? Some vandal must have deleted them. - XX55XX

No need to redo them, I'll just pull them from the edit history. It was 86.142.198.20 (talk • contribs) who did it. He removed a lot of stuff—you may want to check that out to see what else you think is appropriate to restore (I'm not sure the unit lists are particularly important, for instance). Here is the difference between the last pre-86.142.198.20 edit and the revision current as of my writing this, after my reversion.

Also, by the way, you can sign your name and the date automatically with four tildes: ~~~~. —Simetrical (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy of barbarian invasion

exactly how accurat was barbarian invasion? We should mention it in the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.226.183.47 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

We could have a bigger accuracy section altogether, if someone wants to write it. Basically BI was pop-culture-level accuracy, like the original game, if you were wondering. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the "critism" section.

That section does indeed sound legit, but is the author of that part willing to offer some evidence? I don't think it should be there, but if the author wants it there, he or she should back it up with some evidence that Iranian players do scrutinize it. Plus, this game was never meant to be realistic anyways, so unless if the "critism" is happening amongst with the majority of Iranian gaming circles, one must back that up with evidence. If the author does not offer any evidence, I will delete it, as although it sounds legit, it doesn't sound noteworthy. - XX55XX 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he offers no sources to his claims. I NPOV-marked the section. --DMichel 16:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned it up, it was in very poor English so I assume the chap was Iranian himself. Maybe it was a personal gripe.

We have very little idea what the music of the period was like, as such it would stand to reason that the creators of the game had to come up with something that would reflect the expectations of their audience.--69.107.102.38 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cultural criticism part of this article is purely POV and has no proper citations. In light of the other comments in this discussion it simply does not belong here. --69.107.121.110 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Engine Limitations and Criticism

In my opinion the Engine limitations would fit well under the Criticism section seeing as the engine-section is about how players were disappointed with the engine compared to what the developers' has promised. In my opinion we should merge them after we've seen if the claims currently under criticism are accurate.--DMichel 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen plenty of evidence of that, if you wish, you can re-write that - XX55XX 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I just merged both sections. But what about the (possible NPOV-violated) section about the stereotypical depiction of the Arabic factions?--DMichel 13:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Modification is now a seperate section of its own, and I've retitled the NPOV content as "Cultural Stereotypes". - XX55XX 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to Clan sites

Do you really think that these links fit in an encyclopedia? I'm quite sure there are alot more clans than those listed. In my opinion remove the whole section. --DMichel 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of the clan websites there that are listed are pretty big, but the "Arcani" clan seems rather insignificant. Although RTW multiplayer has pretty much degraded over the months and many clans have switched over to Medieval. - XX55XX 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Rome Total War members on multiplayer have gone way up recently. As far as the Arcani clan goes, I know them, they are not an insignificant clan at all, they have about 50 members, which is pretty good for online play. as far as the "oldest total war" clan goes, I have never seen them on, and I am in GS lobbies 24/7. - NBroadsword 1:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of RTW activity online. Im in Arcani, we are active and are currently destroying the sith clan mercilessly as well as participating in the cwb tournament for the first time in clan history. Yes we have about 50 guys, no we are not insignificant, as i previously stated we are destroying one of the oldest and largest rival clans in the TW community. And yes alot of the old clans and the ones listed on the total war site are totally dead... Go to Total-Arcani.tk find out what we are about. - }|{Arcani}|{_Bar_Kochba|AS cheers.

I am also in Arcani, and we happen to be one of, if not the biggest clans on Rome Total War. (both in terms of skill and members). As Bar said we currently have over 50 members and the only other clan that has approximately the same amount as us would be Clan of Ruin (COR). I would say we are the 3rd oldest clan on Rome Total War behid COR and soon to be dead Sith clan. I have never in my 18 months of playing Rome Total War seen Clan Kenchikuka and doubt I ever will, I visited the link to their website which hasn't been used in 2 years. ~Kronos 15:39, 25 May 2006

I agree with DMichel. I think the criteria for a clan being listed (if clans should be listed at all- which I don't believe they need to be) should be clearly stated and as impartial as possible- otherwise, you're going to get the situation we are seeing now, where any old person who happens to be in a clan lists their clan. I mean, what makes a clan worthy of being mentioned? X number of members? A few members coming here and stating that we should take their word for it, that their clan is worthy of note? (no offense meant to the two Arcani members who posted; I'm sure you take great pride in your clan)
Looking at the edit history, you see people adding their clans, like one was just added with a grand total of 8 members ("Leo Honorius"). "Cobra Republican Guard" claims about 10 members, "Round Table Knights" claims 14 members (if I'm reading their site right), and "Destroyers" claims 20 active members. Most of the rest require you to join the clan to view their site, which obviously can be used artificially inflate membership numbers (I tried to view several, but not all).
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Rome Total War, not a place to advertise one's clan site. I'm seriously considering simply removing the clans listing altogether, and if someone can give a good reason for them to stay, then, by all means, let's hear it. In fact, I think that's what I will do... it'll be in the edit history if someone feels that it absolutely must stay. That's my $.02. --DarthBinky 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys need to learn something a little more about the community and then come back and discuss this (of course, I'm not talking to the guys from Arcani here). You're talking like biggest clans are the best. That is complete rubbish. But back onto actual topic, yes, they should be listed. It shows a side of the multiplayer community, hell your listing mod websites. All I'm saying is, its not hurting anyone them being there, RTW MP can use all the help it can get and if a few links on this page helps then why not...Oh and DarthBinky, ever been in the RTW lobby?

It's irrelevant, but no, I haven't been to the lobby, and I doubt I ever will. The whole lobby situation already takes up a large, poorly written space in this article (by "poorly written", I mean that it's full of loaded language). You haven't explained why little groups of people (and yes, in the grand scheme of things, even fifty people is a little group) who play the game are worth mentioning in an article about the game- especially considering there was never (and still isn't) an explanation of what exactly these "clans" are or how they operate. There was simply a list of "clans" that inexplicably appeared at the bottom of the page.
Honestly, it would be difficult for me to care any less about which clans are biggest or best- I just don't see why any of them need to be mentioned. This isn't meant to be a place to give RTW MP "all the help it can get". Simply by listing certain clans you are violating NPOV, because you are not mentioning other clans; this is clearly favoritism (why did you pick those clans as opposed to all these other clans?). I did mention earlier that if we are to list clans here, then there ought to be some clearly defined and fair criteria for deciding who gets in and who doesn't; having members of the clan come here and tell us "trust us, we should be mentioned" is neither fair nor clearly defined (and I see you are the Leo Honorius guy, which probly explains why you seem upset- like the Arcani guys, I meant no offense to you either).
As for the Mods, if it were my choice, I wouldn't list them either, because, again, it's favoritism; however, the modding factor was a major selling point of the game. "clans" are not- in fact, the article even states that MP was never a major selling point, and the MP system that comes with the game was not well done. It seems that MP was almost an afterthought.
I probably could be convinced of mentioning the really major mods in the article (like RTR, which has seen hundreds of thousands of downloads throughout its various incarnations), but then most of the rest, I probably wouldn't bother. I mean, of them, EB seems to have been in development the longest (they started before the release of the game), yet they are still working on a beta (which I've tried and found to be very buggy). Do four incomplete Lord of the Rings mods really need to mentioned here?
If someone really wants to find a mod, they can easily find them- google has always worked just fine for me, as has searching other sites like TW.org. ;) --DarthBinky 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Up To 10,000 Warriors

This would count as 'original research' but I've had 12,000 soldiers in a RTW battle, and i didn't have all player slots filled or all the unit slots used. I believe the largest units are Peasants or Warbands, so if all the slots were used and filled with warbands (Or whichever the highest is) the total would be much higher than 10,000, maybe 20,000! Notably, even my high end system couldn't run 12,000 men, but the engine does support this. Thoughts? —This unsigned comment was added by 58.166.31.80 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

In theory, you could have eight players with twenty 243-man units each, which would give you a maximum of 38,880 soldiers in one battle. However, pretty much anyone's computer would give you about ten seconds per frame under that kind of load. In practice, 10,000 is a conservative estimate of a large but still potentially manageable battle. If you'd like to clarify, feel free. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll clarify this. 'The main innovation is a brand new high-quality 3D graphics engine that allows reproduction of large scale battles realistically: Rome Total War's engine is capable of supporting 38,880 warriors in a single battle, however, the strain of a battle that large is signifigantly more than the average or even high-end user's computer is capable of handling smoothly. In most one-on-one single player campain battles, the maximum units is usually around 4,000.'

Feel free to improve this, as I think it's open to a lot of improvement, and the figure of 4,000 is just a ballpark of the average 2,000 person armies I personally see most of in RTW's campain. If anyone has better figures, or more detail, that's great. I just wanted this corrected. {Vainglory}

Okay, I know I said revision was welcome, but someone just replaced figures with the vague statement 'ability to render thousands of men at once on a single battlefield' - okay, so can just about every game since '95. I'm readding the figures, but not reverting. Please discuss before making changes.

patch

just a small typo i guess but the page says that 1.2 is the "latest" while 1.5/1,6 is :p

Alexander the Great expansion

Apparently there's a new mini-expansion that's due out sometime this year, as reported in a gaming magazine. Anyone have any further details? Is it enough to add to the page?

Yeah, there will be one, although release dates are not know yet. It's not really that big, it's just another campaign and perhaps a host of historical battles. I don't see any sources for it other than a magazine. - XX55XX 19:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if you're asking for the release date, GameSpot said its going to be sometime in June 2006. The historical battles will most likely be the battles of Chaeronea, Granicus River, Issus, Siege of Tyre, Gaugamela and Hydaspes River. As for the campaign, well all I can say its probably going to be like the Alexander campaign in Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots. And you don't need to worry about the question Is it enough to add to the page? for someone already added that. InGenX 02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor annoyances

"The player can take roles equivalent to those of generals such as Hannibal Barca, the brilliant Carthaginian general during the Second Punic War, the Gallic warlord Vercingetorix, and Julius Caesar."

It's not really much of a problem, but I really do think that if you're going to elaborate on why Hannibal was famous, you should do the same with Vercingetorix and most noticably Caesar. Of course, those two should be common knowledge by now, but then again so should Hannibal. I suggest removing "the brilliant Carthaginian general during the Second Punic War".

Next up: "The three-faction Roman system in the game is entirely historical."

Fixed it so that it's ahistorical instead.

Encyclopedia vs. Game Guide

I agree with the person (Slamorte) who earlier stated that this article is more like a game guide than an encyclopedia entry; also, when editing, a warning comes up about the article's large size. I have decided to be bold and have done major editing to the Factions section in an attempt to correct these. My changes include:

  • Overhaul the faction descriptions to make them very brief. This includes taking out the unnecessary lists of every unit available to each faction- especially considering many cannot be wikified. Notable units are still mentioned and wikified (Legions, Cataphracts, Companions, etc). I also removed the discussions of how X faction dies quickly because they fight Y and Z, or how X faction is a 'throwaway faction' (whatever that means). That sort of info belongs in a game guide. Essentially, I cut them down to very brief descriptions including a basic profile of how they fight (ie "X faction has good infantry but no cavalry"), and where they are on the map.
  • Removed unnecessary material discussing fan opinions/strategies for various factions (notably the discussion about how some people prefer barbarians because they're harder, strategies for Carthage involving giving up Sardinia and so on). Again, this is game guide info.
  • Someone keeps stating that only Julii get Arcani, which is completely false; I changed it a while ago and someone put back. I am currently playing a game as the Brutii and I too can make Arcani. The requirement to make them seems to just be of the Roman factions and build a large temple to a certain god (for the Brutii it is Mars, for the Julii I believe it's Jupiter).
  • Earlier today I did an edit to the opening section so that it mentions basic info for the BI and Alexander expansions; the release/announcement dates may be wrong (I just did quick googlings to get the ones I listed). Previously, the article did not even mention the two expansions at all except to list their factions, which I thought was kind of strange (especially considering I had not heard of the Alex one and assumed it was someone promoting their own mod!).

At this point, I've been working on it for several hours and I am still not happy with some of th wording, so I welcome help with it. :) --DarthBinky 02:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like the new edit as well. Makes the article a little shorter and easier to edit. - XX55XX 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

New Links for the official sites

Apparently the current links for the official sites is not funtional. This is because on May 10, 2006 Total War.com changed its appearance. Because of this, I suggest that someone should change the current links for RTW and its expansion to the new Total War site. However in the new Total War site, info on BI, such as its description, is no longer there. InGenX 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

clans

i am qwite anoyed at the fact that well know clans such as the arcani and jedi order are not mentioned in the RTW page, and every time they are added in a clan/multiplayer section they are deleted by vandals such as darth blinky, who is probaly a member of a clan called the sith who are jelous of the arcani and other clans. please couldd DARTH BLINKY STOP ABUSEING HIS POWER OF ADMIN AND STOP VANDALISING WIKAPEDIA AND TREATING IT LIKE HIS OWN PERSONAL SITE. if any one eles feels the same way please say so.

as a human beings we do not deserve to be shouted down by a bully we live ina democracy and even if only 2 people object we have as much right to say our veiws as you i will put a list of Majour clans in the multiplayer section that will not be bisaed but simply state the facts that the 4 largets clans are: ][Destroyers][ ][Sith][ ][Arcani][ ][JediOrder][ i do not expect this to be deleted as it is a compromise and not in violation of wikipedia rules. i again stress that I have not taken part in vandalism and that it is some one else.

As shown by your vandalism just right here (I just put back all the previous comments that you removed), you are the vandal, not me. I am not an admin. Nor am I a member of ANY "clan"- I don't care about your clan politics, which do not belong in the encyclopedia article about Rome Total War. Nor is there an L in my username.
If you had bothered to read anything, first off, you guys keep putting mention of the clans in the wrong place. The section in question is about "multiplayer issues", which falls under the "Criticism" section. That means that the section is about PROBLEMS with multiplayer, and criticisms of it. It's completely not the section where discussion of clans belongs.
Second, I remove mention of the clans because mentioning some clans but not others is biased, and Wikipedia is not meant to be biased. Why should Wikipedia mention your Jedi clan and the Sith and Arcani ones, but not all the other clans out there (and contrary to what you might think, there are others- many of them were mentioned here before)? If you know of a fair and unbiased way to choose which clans are worthy of mention, by all means, lets hear it. It's been a few weeks since I stated here that I would be removing mention of specific clans, and nobody (but one person, a member of clan; and now you guys) has complained, and others have supported my editing procedure.
lastly, I did some checking, and I could find no other major game that mentions clans. Halo, Halo2, Quake, Quake3, and Unreal- I checked all of those, and none mention clans. Why shoudl RTW, a game that focuses less on MP than those games, be different?
So keep vandalising pages, editing other peoples' comments, blanking pages and fooling with redirects. It's not helping your cause.
Cheers --DarthBinky 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Being an editor who has not looked at this article before and having now looked at the edits you have made (to the anon user), it is my opinion that DarthBinky is correct in his removal of your edits. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Please do not add websites in the middle of text as it is unprofessional and does not follow the Wikipedia manual of style. Further, as DarthBinky says, to include mention of one or two 'clans' would be introducing an element of POV. This is unacceptable on wikipedia as we have to remain NPOV at all times. If you would like to discuss it further, do so here and refrain from revert wars on the article itself. If the reverting continues, the page is liable to be semi-protected or your IP address range blocked in order to prevent disruption. -Localzuk (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your comment but if you look in the section of terms wiki pedia clearly states that decisions such as wiping a page should be discussed with people that have put time an effort in to create them and i do not like it when my work is simply deleted which is against wiki pedias rules which clearly state a page should never be simply deleted because you dont agree with it.

You're still missing the point. It's not that we "dont agree with it". It's that it's biased, and unverifiable.
You keep claiming that those four clans are "the biggest" and thus should be mentioned. How are they "biggest"? Can you provide verifiable proof that they are "the biggest"? That's the problem. I'm sure there are lots of other clans who would disagree that those four clans are the biggest or the best or whatever. So why should those clans be mentioned? If you can prove it, then please, do so! I'll be the first to get in line and make sure they're mentioned if you could prove it.
Second, I mentioned it a couple times now, but those other games which ARE known for multiplayer (Halo, Halo 2, and Quake 3) do NOT mention clans at all. That is the precedent; the article about Rome should follow this.
And as already stated, clans should not be mentioned until that issue is resolved. --DarthBinky 17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

by biggest i do not simply mean they are best by refering to biggest i am refering to the words primary meaning wich in this case is that i mean those clans have the most members i know this though the fact you can go on their websites which have the amount of members posted and stating a fact is not biased it has been proven that they are the biggest so it is not fiction or an opinion it is fact.

"Primary"? Please define that.
We can't go to the website because, as one of your clanmates said, you don't give the URL to anyone unless they join. So that's out. I read the blog your clanmates started the other day (because they kept linking it in the Jedi redirect), and it only appeared that there were three people in the clan, maybe four.
ONe of the clans that was here before claimed to have over 50 active members. So should they be mentioned too? What number of members is enough to be "primary"?
Please, prove these statements you keep making. What makes them "primary"? --DarthBinky 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

yet again you have used the word second mening in primary i ment 1st the first meaning og big or lots, which was the context of the word and one of my clan mates must be mestaken because any one can acess the web site so why not take a look [1] as as for the clan that claimed it had 50 members why don't they add them selves too the list and change the word four to five biggest because i think that is the idea of being able to edit the text so as more information comes to lite more can be added.

This comes from Dictionary.com:

pri·mar·y adj.

  1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.
  2. Being or standing first in a list, series, or sequence.
  3. Occurring first in time or sequence; earliest.
  4. Being or existing as the first or earliest of a kind; primitive.
So which definition do you mean? I don't see anything about "big" or "lots" in there. And when you've answered that, what makes your four clans fit that definition?
Yes, that's the blog that you started a couple days ago. I have already read that, and from wha tI can tell, you have about 4 members.
and you have yet to address my comments about Halo/Halo2/Quake3. Why should Rome break precedent? --DarthBinky 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

please do not change the subject and for your information i am english so we have different dictionarys. also i thought you did not want to get into clan polotics have you read the reason on the section on the rebellion. if you want i can also go into a discussion with you on that. Also you clearly do not play RTW other wise you would value the clan system more highly so why do you feel the RTW page is yours. also in reply to an earlier comment many online games have clans including battle field 2 which encourages the creation of clans which i will point out the jedi order also has a clan on. yet again an act of vandalism deleting my writing.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Oxford English Dictionary, which is definitely British, gives the same definitions (not worded exactly the same, of course- if you really want, I can copy/paste them). So what makes your clans "primary"? What makes a clan with four members a "primary" clan?
You're right, I don't care about your clan politics, and I never actually brought them up. You did, just now. Please stay on subject.
The personal attack is unnecessary. Of course I play Rome. I also play Rome Total Realism, Terrae Expugnandae, and I have tried other mods like Chivalry:TW and Europa Barbarorum. That will be all I will say about your personal attacks.
You have yet to address my comments about the other games. --DarthBinky 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

i would like to point out they bring out different versions for both america and briton and that recently they have brought out a new one also this includes many english slang words that amricaians do not use and have different meanings this is one of the reasons they have different ones because the americain word 'fany' is qwite rude here rather than the americaian meaning ans the word 'chav' probaly has no meaning where you are.

Fine, show us what your definition is; get out your "British" version which is so different and type it in. Then prove why your clan fits that defintion.
and I still await your response about the other games. --DarthBinky 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

i must yet again point out that you are differing from from the point and the way you have used the word british could be interprated as near racest which if im not mistaken is illegal in this country and in yours, so please refrain from it because there are over 6 million people that could be affended, also yet again i state i will not be bullied into doing what you say because this is not your site it is wiki pedias and also apart from you and 1 other person all the e-mails and replys i have had on the subject have supported me so i propose to you let me have one small section on clans and i will refrain from bothering you again and wont make any more edits to the RTW page.

Personal attacks and "everyone's supporting me" comments are not helpful, and prove nothing. Please respond to the questions I have asked. If you can actually prove what you're saying, then the information belongs in Wikipedia, and I'll be more than happy to add them.
But your vandalism (which your talk page and edit history both confirm, despite what you say) doesnt' speak well for your credibility. --DarthBinky 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

excuse me but i do not class raceism as a personal attack on you. you a moment ago discriminated against an entire nation of over 6 million people so please do not try to place your self on a pedistall i will not be bullied into what some one else wants me to do. in reply we have clans on over 6 games please excuse the site it needs to be up dated. and as i have al ready mention the game battle field 2 encourages clans and they are mentioned on leader boards of battle field 2 clans. also why should i go a get a dictionairy and qwote it to you, you are not my master and i am most certainly not your servant i am not breaking any wikipedia rules so i will continue to add the clan section and i will contiue to do so until you acept others opinions and also you views on the games faults are compleatly biased by you because i dont belive many of the things on there so acording to your rules you should remove them. i have spent to much time on this so good bye.

I am sorry to have to butt in again but as I stated before, please do not add POV based information to articles on Wikipedia. There are rules against including blogs on articles (see WP:EL). Also, as DarthBinky has said the information you are adding is unverifiable - if you are to use words such as biggest, major, statements such as majourity of the mulitiplayer community believe they are a good thing you must provide a reliable citation for it. Reliable is as defined by WP:RS.
Further to this, do not add comments such as if you believe this is biased please say so in the clans section of the discussion page and do not delete until at least 10 more people think it is biased than people who don't. to an article as article space is not meant for this. Wikipedia articles are reserved for fact not opinion or comments.
Finally, if multiple people are removing your edits, please accept this and discuss it - do not keep adding the same thing over and over. I have warned both the warring editors in this dispute about the 3 revert rule. If either party revert again I will report them in order to prevent disruption.-Localzuk (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. It seems that a lot has changed with this article since I have last came here. I do agree with DarthBinky that clan links should be strongly discouraged, as it borderlines advertisement. Considering how petty and tiny the RTW multiplayer community is compared with even the modding community and the single-player community, the removmal of all links that direct to clan websites is ideal to prevent POV. Also, to the vandal we have here, since most of the editors here agree with this setiment, it is final until another group of editors agree that clan links can be posted (which is very unlikely, as there are many here that prowl the articles that relate to video games and will remove such links. Good day to you all. - XX55XX 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
To beat a dead horse- I've been doing some looking at other games to see what their stance on clans are. None that I have looked at, notably those I mentioned earlier, but including the Quake series, the Halo series, the Unreal series, Starcraft (I have been invited to several clans for that), Descent, Mechwarrior 2.... none of them mention specific clans- even the actual article about clans doesn't mention any specific clans!
As I said, I know for a fact that those games have clans. It seems to me that it's good policy to maintain that precedent and not mention any at all. I've seen what happens when you mention some clans, and then enemy clans start making snide comments at each other, and next thing you know, they're having an edit war of their own and it only makes the article suffer.
Also, I'd just like to apologize in general if I acted out of line earlier; I received a warning about it and that was a good wake-up call. I let my emotions get the best of me, got frustrated, and I shouldn't have. Cheers everyone (even to you, Mr. Anonymous), and let's keep any future arguments here rather than in the article. --DarthBinky 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansions

hi i think the expansions of RTW such as BI and alexander should have their own pages as the RTW page is getting crowded and it would make more sense to have their own pages as tecneckly they are different games.--Hunter91 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it makes little sense. They are generally contain the same content as of the original, and they can be easily covered in a few sections. A single section is enough to discuss the new gameplay mechanics for the expansions. - XX55XX 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

yes but if you see the page is getting very big and in alexander the new factions have not even been properly explained yet.--Hunter91 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The article has been reduced in size significantly in past months and it has been very large at one point. Many other articles are even larger, like the article concerning the Voynich Manuscript. We can't split that article up. Most sections are too small to have a page of their own. So no. If other editors think that new pages for the expansions should be added, and they give very good reasons, they may do that. - XX55XX 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual questions?

I have a few snippets I must question:

  1. Still, RTW can simultaneously render more three-dimensional soldiers than any other game as of July 2006 - According to who? We need a reference to this.
  2. There have been fan-made modifications which attempt to fix the AI; however, these have met with only limited success because the AI engine in Rome: Total War is largely unalterable by the fan base. Again, this is unreferenced and as such is a POV comment.
  3. many within the established Total War fanbase took issue with some of the blatant historical inaccuracies in Rome: Total War. - this and many other things in the 'Historical accuracy' section are unsourced and need references. Such things as 'many' should be avoided.

Actually, looking at the article again it hasn't got a single reference!!! This needs to be fixed else anything such as those comments made above are not acceptable according to wikipedia policy.

Finally, the list of links is growing. Remember, Wikipedia is not a random collection of links. Do we really need them all here?-Localzuk (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do note that the list of links is growing. I believe that it's time to take out the mod sites. Mod sites are not needed for this game article. The second quote does have some notability though and has been discussed in Total War fansites. - XX55XX 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. When I did my big edit back in May, I believe I mainly stayed away from the whole criticisms and mod sections, as they need serious work (and I had already done a lot by that point)- it was also me who added a bunch of 'citation needed' tags to the multiplayer criticism section. I'd work on it now, but I'm currently in the middle of some things for the Warhammer 40,000 wikiproject.

I also mentioned earlier in the clan fiasco that I thought that the link list was getting a bit long and could use some trimming- I think the mod sites might have to go, especially considering most are linked (and many are hosted) at websites like totalwar.org. Cheers --DarthBinky 04:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RTW lost features

While I was looking around my Rome: Total War folder and I saw that there what appeared to be features that was supposed to be in the game but for some reason were removed. Here are some of them:

There are probably a lot more lost features in the game folder. But I was wondering how can you enable these lost features, if they can still be enabled that is? InGenX 10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Try asking around the forums of the fansites listed in the external links. I know from experience that the Org (the first one listed) is pretty good about that stuff. Cheers --DarthBinky 15:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Links

Hi, I have just been through the list of external links with a fine tooth comb and removed a selection. All the removals are under the guidelines. I have also removed the Mod External Links list for the following reasons:

  1. It is not pertinent to the article to link to them
  2. They are generally fan sites
  3. Several of them are just forums
  4. One was down completely
  5. Information on Mod's in the article should be covered within the text and if a reference is needed, one provided.

Remember, Wikipedia isn't a random collection of links, lists or information.-Localzuk (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not GameFAQs.

This article is longer than the one for our Solar System, and nearly as long as the one for Hitler. This is not a depository for every bit of information ever known about the game, nor an overview of Roman politics, nor a strategy page. Also this talk page is not a page for discussing things such as game mechanics or features that aren't relevant to the talk page, or an encyclopedia itself. I'm going to strip this article down to its necessities later on. Please don't bloat it again. Whitecap 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, some people will be looking for those things you have deleted. I suggest you or someone should create separate articles for some of the content that is "unnecessary" because someone will probably put back the things you've deleted anyway and then you'll delete that and that guy who placed that content that you deleted will place it back; in short an edit war might start. And oh yeah, about your statement on the talk page: this isn't the only talk page which contains "unnecessary" things like game mechanics or other "crap"; there are hundreds of talk pages like this. Just look at the Civ IV talk page and you'll see what I mean.InGenX 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse ME, but the fact that people are looking for things in an encyclopedia that are of non-encyclopaedic value is not a reason for us to keep them. System requirements? Multiplayer strategies? Nitpicking criticisms about the AI? Wikipedia is NOT the place for that sort of talk. Wikipedia is a place to portray the significant points of a topic, not a community to keep up with the latest news on the game, a review of the game, or a how-to. Especially bad was the mods section - completely unnecessary. If you'll notice, which it seems like you didn't, the majority (if not the entire section) of the game mechanics section is still there. It shouldn't be - but it is for now. An edit war will only start if *you* literally don't know what should be put into a Wikipedia article or not - I suggest you read the guidelines and policies. The things that were, so far, deleted, don't need separate articles. The sections on the expansion packs DO need separate articles. Replace anything that I have so far deleted and I'll get the page to be protected. Majority rule on a Wiki page does not allow those users to overrule article guidelines. For what YOU, and those other people, are looking for that was removed, go to GameFAQs, GameSpot, IGN, TotalWar.org. You seem to be mistaking this article, and this very talk page, for their forums. As well, the fact that other talk pages are filled with much of the same garbage as here doesn't mean we should let it pass. In fact, that's a major point of the wiki structure. I think you should rethink why you're even a member of Wikipedia at all. Whitecap 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
(From an uninterested observer). A quick reminder to everyone that no personal attacks and civility are both policies on Wikipedia. Cheers --Pak21 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Whitecap, the criticisms about the AI are very important. Okay, we can forgo the system requirements and multiplayer critiques, but the AI criticisms are important because this game, by and large, was noted by every single player for having poor AI. It has been mentioned in dozens of reviews and that is why the Creative Assmebly has strongly emphasized the overhauled AI in this series next game. I believe that the criticisms about the AI is just as important as the historical inaccuracy critiques because both have been discussed on a large scale. - XX55XX 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
All right guys please stop arguing here. All of the contributors of this article are trying to make it good, or so they think. If you ask me, the descriptions of the factions are one of those parts in the article that is making this article a bit big and, in my opinion, should be moved to an article of its own. I agree with the idea that the x-packs should be transfered to their own articles. Cheers 203.215.118.165 08:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fansite Listings

I have removed all of the fansites as we are going to have problems with users adding more and more of them. According to guidelines we should only add one fansite listing and only if it adds anything. I think that on the balance of things, adding a link to the directory only should do just fine. -Localzuk (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay?

There doesn't seem to be much about the unique features of RTW in gameplay, i.e. realistic battles, tactics like flanking. It seems more like a list to me and doesn't hold much encyclopedic info. Anyone wanna add a section about it? Thanks.Aran|heru|nar 14:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, gameplay (such as tactics and strategy and so forth) is outside the realm of an encyclopedia- that's for a game review or FAQ site; the problem with those sorts of things is that they aren't universally held. For example, the article used to be much longer and included statements like that Carthage should give up Sicily and Sardinia to survive; although that's a popular strategy, it's not the only one- for example, I never do it, and I know of others who also don't do it. There is a section near the beginning that gives a brief, very general rundown of how the game works (including some of the things you've mentioned), that's all that's really necessary.
Also, you've cuaght the page in the middle of hefty rewrite. Cheers- --DarthBinky 15:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed so. RTW is nothing more than a table top Risk game slightly expanded with more features and such, as well as an intergrated tactical side with battles. - XX55XX 16:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The new multiplayer criticism article is poorly written.

Seems that someone rewrote the multiplayer article. It needs to be edited. Sounds too opinionated. I'm too lazy at the moment to edit it, might do so later. - XX55XX 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any reason to keep it- it was either completely POV or unsourced, likely without any source available. So I removed it completely. If the author wants to try again, it would be best to try to use more neutral language and provide references for the claims made. Cheers --DarthBinky 23:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)