Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
Personally I don’t understand the usual history-craze I all too often see around the Org (and elsewhere) regarding TW-games, since history barely has any recognizable meaning at all in TW-games – It never had essentially. It’s all fiction basically and I think it is about time that we finally started to treat it as such. The EU and TW-games is Mickey Mouse alright, however it’s damn fine and entertaining Mickey Mouse – and there is nothing wrong with that either (feel free to quote me on that as well).

- Cheers
Pretty much because if I bought Rome Total War, it's because I expected the starting situation to be somewhat similar to what it was really at that time. I expect to field the armies fielded at the time, to be available to do the things that were done at the time (among other things).

If a game decides to allow a Roman to summon Jupiter, hordes of mythical monsters or sneaky battlefield assassins (ie. Arcani), or to turn the Ptolemaic kingdom into ancient age egyptians, then it shouldn't even try to label itself as historical (which RTW devs did).

Yeah, this kind of game allow the players to do things that weren't done in-real-life, or that were done under exeptional circumstances. Obviously, you could hardly expect to sell a mainstream game if it took 10 hours to conquer a settlement among the hundreds available.
On that matter, I think EU system (with peace deal) is much better than the TW series one (settlement captured = settlement conquered). While it doesn't prevent a tiny faction to conquer half of the known world, it still makes things a bit more tedious for non-hardcore players.