Mods for other Total War games comparable to EB for historical detail

[discens]

Greetings to all forum users.

1) I am a quasi-novice in the Total War world, and since I appreciated the Europa Barbarorum mod very much, I would like to have some advice about mods for other Total War games which can be compared to EB for historical detail and accuracy (I am particularly interested in Medieval 2).

2) Then, I would like to know your opinion about which Total War games are the most historically accurate (or the least inaccurate ) in their original versions, without mods.

3) An unrelated question: do the difficulty settings in EB (and in other Total War games) only affect the AI of enemies, or do they change other values in the game as well (I suppose that they change the probability in battles you choose to autoresolve, and what about the probability of combat in played battles?)

Thank you for your attention and for any replies, and I hope that I haven't strayed off topic with this thread (I posted it here because I thought it was the best place to hear from EB connoisseurs, who can make the above-mentioned comparisons).

[Captain Jazzy]

In regards to 3) Making the camp difficulty higher means that the AI is generaly more agressive and has extra money while you have to pay more for your units and all the other nations will be more hostile towards you. Battle difficulty varies: In RTW Easy gives you slight bonuses, Medium is no bonuses, Hard give the AI some bonuses and Very Hard makes the AI's units very hard to rout and boosts their stats loads to the point where levys will beat elites in a 1v1 battle. Howerver in Med II the battle difficulty does not give the Ai bonuses just makes it "smarter". (It is recommended you play EB on medium battle and Very hard camp but personally I find that the AI is stupidly aggressive and has far to much money on VH so i play on Hard).
In terms of other good mods Broken Cresent for Med II is focused on the east in the medII time span and its pretty good and quite accurate (although im no expert).
Hope this helped.

[stratigos vasilios]

2) The only other mod I've ever played is called DLV. It's set in the Medievel era, with a host of new factions in comparison to Mtw2. It also has some fancy script features and I would recommend it as it will prob have a similar 'heavyness' on your PC as EBII would, as it runs alot of scripts.

Although my knowledge of the Medievel era is very much at an amateur level, I think it is a historically accurate mod?

[siegfriedfr]

Greetings to all forum users.

1) I am a quasi-novice in the Total War world, and since I appreciated the Europa Barbarorum mod very much, I would like to have some advice about mods for other Total War games which can be compared to EB for historical detail and accuracy (I am particularly interested in Medieval 2).

In the entire Total War universe, no other mod approach the educational value of EB. Even in the gameplay department, it's still one of the top Total war mods.
Regarding Medieval 2, the 2 major mods, in my opinion, would be stainless steel, and Third Age Total war. DLV was mentioned in the thread, but it introduce annoying moneysinks on your armies and generals and makes the whole thing more tedious than fun. It doesn't expand the scope of the game, it just narrows it.

2) Then, I would like to know your opinion about which Total War games are the most historically accurate (or the least inaccurate ) in their original versions, without mods.

Are you looking for accuracy in units or overall gameplay? Do you care about the quality of the gameplay? Because lets be honest, TW games are on a descending spiral when it comes to gameplay since Rome. Medieval 1 was pretty good, but its technically outdated and not avaliable in stores.

3) An unrelated question: do the difficulty settings in EB (and in other Total War games) only affect the AI of enemies, or do they change other values in the game as well (I suppose that they change the probability in battles you choose to autoresolve, and what about the probability of combat in played battles?)

Campaign difficulty increase AI agressivness and give them 5k per turn on hard and 10K on very hard. Battle difficulty give them +4 and +7 to atk/def respectively.

[Randal]

My favourite Medieval II mod would be Broken Crescent. It is not nearly as accurate or as deep as EB, but the middle eastern setting is fresh and the armies look absolutely gorgeous and gameplay is pleasantly challenging and interesting. In particular the game forces you to pay more attention to diplomacy. It does have some issues with stat balance, with sword-infantry being underpowered and heavy cavalry rather too strong. I do love what they've done with upkeep: for one unit of cataphract-level heavy cavalry you can afford a half stack of levies.
The next version of BC, which will probably be some time coming still, promises to be much more historically accurate where factions and starting positions are concerned. I'm looking forward to it.

Third Age Total War is a wonderful mod with very high production values and the most atmosphere of any Total War game I've played since Shogun. However, I've always found its gameplay somewhat lacking. Unit rosters seem rather repetitive and basic, with most factions having similar sword, pike or halberd, archer and javelin units at similar levels and most units seeming rather generic. Trolls and Mumakil seem over-powered, and otherwise combat over-emphasises archery. Still, I highly recommend playing it for at least a while. The new Arnor faction in the latest version is particularly gorgeous.

Edit: Third Age has a sub-mod that rebalances combat, though not yet for the latest version. However, this I feel does not entirely succeed because it assigns stats based on unit appearance and makes heavily armoured units virtually invulnerable. Particularly cavalry, which is good in all Medieval II mods, becomes a battle-winning force with this sub-mod, where two or three bodyguard cavalry units can crush a stack of lighter infantry.

Fourth Age Total War, a mod for Rome, probably provides a higher degree of realism. I rather like it too though the campaign is shorter and simpler and it doesn't look nearly as good. There's a mod set in the Third Age for Rome: Total War as well, but as it requires Alexander I can't play it.

I've never played Stainless Steel or Deus Lo Vult much because all the scripts killed my PC.

[Cute Wolf]

as far as historical details is concerned, well... historical research is an easy thing if you JUST SKIM the common knowledge and maybe some historical accounts that was widely available... BUT... to gather the deep histtorical research, even when the level is still less than EB's, is a RIDICULOUSLY EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH... knowledge in native languages, willingness to extract informations based on textual evidences (that was written is asususahbangetikitulisandiancukdiancukdiancuk.... language, that you only barely understood), willingness to spent your free time (and some money), to visit museums, archeological sites, and historical places mentioned, not to mention you must be able to understand and comprehend the era's society and overall anthrophology as well as sociology of the people concerned.... blah blah blah blah.....

yeah, serious historical research is a hard project, and that was a big sacrifice in that....

[HorusLupercal]

i have a similar question, anyone know of a mod for either rome or m2tw in which you play in biblical times, with babylonians, hitites, hewbrews, philistines, real egyptians etc? A historically accurate one at that, i'm not religious but i find the time period fascinating i would hate to find a mod that has some bible thumping element to it.

[anubis88]

Assyria Total War come's close to what your looking for

[athanaric]

My favourite Medieval II mod would be Broken Crescent. It is not nearly as accurate or as deep as EB, but the middle eastern setting is fresh and the armies look absolutely gorgeous and gameplay is pleasantly challenging and interesting. In particular the game forces you to pay more attention to diplomacy. It does have some issues with stat balance, with sword-infantry being underpowered and heavy cavalry rather too strong. I do love what they've done with upkeep: for one unit of cataphract-level heavy cavalry you can afford a half stack of levies.
The next version of BC, which will probably be some time coming still, promises to be much more historically accurate where factions and starting positions are concerned. I'm looking forward to it.

Third Age Total War is a wonderful mod with very high production values and the most atmosphere of any Total War game I've played since Shogun. However, I've always found its gameplay somewhat lacking. Unit rosters seem rather repetitive and basic, with most factions having similar sword, pike or halberd, archer and javelin units at similar levels and most units seeming rather generic. Trolls and Mumakil seem over-powered, and otherwise combat over-emphasises archery. Still, I highly recommend playing it for at least a while. The new Arnor faction in the latest version is particularly gorgeous.

Edit: Third Age has a sub-mod that rebalances combat, though not yet for the latest version. However, this I feel does not entirely succeed because it assigns stats based on unit appearance and makes heavily armoured units virtually invulnerable. Particularly cavalry, which is good in all Medieval II mods, becomes a battle-winning force with this sub-mod, where two or three bodyguard cavalry units can crush a stack of lighter infantry.

Fourth Age Total War, a mod for Rome, probably provides a higher degree of realism. I rather like it too though the campaign is shorter and simpler and it doesn't look nearly as good. There's a mod set in the Third Age for Rome: Total War as well, but as it requires Alexander I can't play it.

I've never played Stainless Steel or Deus Lo Vult much because all the scripts killed my PC.

^ This.

BC is good and reasonably accurate, but very bugged. It has a good atmosphere, great soundtrack, and several exotic factions (like Makuria or Rajputs). I hope the bug problems will disappear in the third version.

TATW is in constant re-development, which means some factions (e.g. Arnor) are better fleshed out than others. Also great if you really want to play some fantasy factions (I need that every now and then). Aside from minor annoyances and inaccuracies such as Scottish Dwarves, crossbow madness, Super-Uruks etc., it's reasonably close to the lore. More so than the New Line movies, anyway (from which it took many designs).

FATW will have a new and bigger release somewhere in the future, though still for RTW. This mod is better if you're a Tolkien purist, though it has a different setting (after the War of the Ring).

There are also a couple of Viking mods, in particular (i.e. a finished one) Viking Invasion II, a somewhat more accurate re-make of Viking Invasion (which was an official expansion for Medieval Total War) for RTW.

EB II, BC 3.0, and All Under Heaven should be instant awesome when they come out.

[Cute Wolf]

i have a similar question, anyone know of a mod for either rome or m2tw in which you play in biblical times, with babylonians, hitites, hewbrews, philistines, real egyptians etc? A historically accurate one at that, i'm not religious but i find the time period fascinating i would hate to find a mod that has some bible thumping element to it.

BTW, Assyria Total War is not out yet...

[Randal]

I never noticed any bugs in Broken Crescent. On my install it was a lot more stable than Europa Barbarorum. In other words, your mileage may vary.

[Rahwana]

I never noticed any bugs in Broken Crescent. On my install it was a lot more stable than Europa Barbarorum. In other words, your mileage may vary.

seconded, BC is the most stable mod on M2TW... but I think that was because they kept the script system minimal

[siegfriedfr]

I never noticed any bugs in Broken Crescent. On my install it was a lot more stable than Europa Barbarorum. In other words, your mileage may vary.

Funny... BC keeps crashing on my comp so i never played it much, whereas i never had any problem with EB.

[Moros]

All Under Heaven for kingdoms (it has not been released yet), seem very promising. Perhaps not as historical as EBII, it does seem that will have a lot depth to it. Graphics and all seem nice too. It's one of those few quality mods I'm following.

[vartan]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=492

Dominion of the Sword for the medieval era. I frankly had no interest in that era and only started to get interested when I joined the project. Check it out, now as well as later whenever it may be released.

[Morte66]

Any suggestions for RTW/MTW mods starting around 476AD? Perhaps more that strict accuracy, I'm interested in EB-like deep gameplay -- distinct factional and regional recruiting, fatigue, complex traits, slowed kill rates, 4tpy etc.

[Cute Wolf]

Any suggestions for RTW/MTW mods starting around 476AD? Perhaps more that strict accuracy, I'm interested in EB-like deep gameplay -- distinct factional and regional recruiting, fatigue, complex traits, slowed kill rates, 4tpy etc.

Invasio Barbarorum : Ruina Romae

[Julianus]

Any suggestions for RTW/MTW mods starting around 476AD? Perhaps more that strict accuracy, I'm interested in EB-like deep gameplay -- distinct factional and regional recruiting, fatigue, complex traits, slowed kill rates, 4tpy etc.

In fact, the kill rate in EB is still a little high to me. For example, I read in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare and Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World that in a typical hoplite vs hoplite battle, the victor would only lose approximately 5~10% men, dead and wounded. I never tested this kind of battle in EB, but I believe the casualties will be much much higher. But then again, EB is still a game.

[Cute Wolf]

In fact, the kill rate in EB is still a little high to me. For example, I read in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare and Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World that in a typical hoplite vs hoplite battle, the victor would only lose approximately 5~10% men, dead and wounded. I never tested this kind of battle in EB, but I believe the casualties will be much much higher. But then again, EB is still a game.

feel free to tweak and cut the lethality in half... but don't forget that would made siege battle in those damn central plaza goes forever

[Julianus]

feel free to tweak and cut the lethality in half... but don't forget that would made siege battle in those damn central plaza goes forever

Yeah...those magical plaza is one thing I really hate in TW series...
If it's hardcoded, is there no way around it? For example, can we make the central plazas very very small? I won't mind even if you make it as small as a pixel.

[Cute Wolf]

Yeah...those magical plaza is one thing I really hate in TW series...
If it's hardcoded, is there no way around it? For example, can we make the central plazas very very small? I won't mind even if you make it as small as a pixel.

if someone could either uplift them, or made a city model with inacessible town square.... I'm sure many mods will queue to use that in their mod and bow toward him and praise his mighty deeds...

[Ludens]

In fact, the kill rate in EB is still a little high to me. For example, I read in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare and Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World that in a typical hoplite vs hoplite battle, the victor would only lose approximately 5~10% men, dead and wounded. I never tested this kind of battle in EB, but I believe the casualties will be much much higher. But then again, EB is still a game.

Yes, they are higher, but this is not just a factor of lethality. It's due to morale as well, and there is no way to balance the morale system. Futhermore, those numbers are for Pelloponesian-War hoplite battles and such: these featured very little in the way of cavalry, so could not mount an effective pursuit. When the routers were trapped by city walls or natural obstacles, they were usually slaughtered.

[Randal]

Casualty ratings for the victor were low in all pre-gunpowder battles. 5% is also found in reports of Roman warfare, even in battles that the Romans lost, so it seems to be a fairly accurate figure-of-thumb rather than propaganda.

Early Greek hoplite warfare had lower casualty ratings for the losing side, for the reasons Ludens mentions. But from the top of my head they still suffered around 30% casualties on average. In Hellenistic or Roman battles with substantial cavalry detachments pursuing the vanquished casualties on the losing side are much higher. I believe I've read 50% average.

Historians like Philip Sabin and Adrian Goldsworthy are arguing that actual ancient battles only saw hand-to-hand battles in short burst, interspersed with long periods of skirmishing and missile-throwing. The hand-to-hand combat was the decisive part, but it did not take up most of the time that battles could last. (They could last hours and hours) Often, less disciplined forces would only charge if they were first persuaded the enemy would not stand to face them, and if the enemy did anyway they might not press home their attack. These historians have made comparisons to stand-offs between modern police and rioters. Charges made, missiles thrown, etc. It's also consistent with reports of early modern bayonet charges and their effect and duration. A model of ancient battles like this also works with the ancient sources, most of which refer to repeated charges and attacks, enemy forces being pushed back considerable distances before breaking, javelins being exchanged even hours into the fighting, etc.

Whilst drastically different from the picture presented by movies or games like Total War, I find such a picture much more believable and consistent with the facts. In total-war style battles (without poor AI allowing easy victories) nations would be depopulated as battles would see crippling casualties on all sides. I also find it hard to believe that men could willingly enter such meat-grinding mêlées without becoming psychological wrecks.

Edit: So the weapons would still be pretty lethal. They just wouldn't see much use. Missile lethality must have been much, much lower than in EB, but this is the part that can't be modded.

[WinsingtonIII]

In terms of mods, there's not much currently that reaches the level of EB, but hopefully that will change in the future.

As Vartan said, Dominion of the Sword is shaping up to be the EB of the Medieval Era, although it will probably take just as long (if not longer) as EB2 to complete Which I prefer to take as a sign of how thorough it will be.


Currently (re: until DOTS comes out) I use Chivalry II: The Sicilian Vespers as my main medieval grand campaign mod. It's not as thorough historically, but it makes more of an effort to be than most mods do. Personally, I enjoy it more than Deus Lo Vult, but overall it's a good mod too.

I've found that smaller scale mods may put more emphasis on accuracy, depth, and detail, which makes sense considering they are focusing on a smaller setting. In this regard, Wrath of the Norsemen is shaping up to be a fairly accurate Dark Age Scandinavian mod, and Das Heilige Romisch Reich currently gives a quite in depth experience of the Holy Roman Empire, with all the major electors as playable factions. It also has the best feudal fief/title system I've yet seen. It's currently not as good outside of Germany/Italy, but in future releases they are making the map smaller (no more Russia, Middle East, or Iberia) so it can also focus heavily on France as well, splitting that Kingdom into the lesser Duchies/Counties as playable factions.

Kingdoms of the Isles (more focused on Scotland) and Princes, Kings, and Heroes (more focused on England), are both looking as though they will be quite in depth experiences of the Medieval British Isles as well, although each with their own flavour, as KOTI has the major Scottish clans as playable factions and PKH has every major Barony, Duchy, etc. of England as a playable faction and a few Scottish houses as well.

So, my major advice is to check out the mods with a more focused setting/approach, as they generally will be better able to provide a more historical, in-depth experience. Unfortunately, most of the mods I have suggested here are still in development or only have rather unfinished betas released as of yet.

Regarding your question on the most historically accurate vanilla versions of the games, I'd probably say the original Medieval Total War was the most accurate, but that's only from playing a little of it. Least accurate is Rome Total War, by a long shot. To be honest, Empire Total War is probably more accurate than RTW and M2TW (even if its gameplay is not as good).