Quote Originally Posted by voigtkampf
Now, when I look at many posts made over the last year, I cannot help myself thinking that it seems rather fashionable to bash Rome: Total War at every possible instance, never mind how “thin” the reasons for that bashing are. It seems to be simply “in”; if you want to be “up to date”, “dandy” and, this one is particularly laughable to me, want to leave an impression of a subtle, intellectual gaming gourmet, then bash Rome.
Wise words, lord Voigtkampf. I myself have been wondering for some time why people seemed so hostile to RTW. Every snipped of information CA released was researched with the outmost precision for 'historical incorrectness', and woe to CA if something was found to be wrong. For example, I have heard people complaining about the shield of the Cataphract cavalry. That's just typical because MTW's kataphraktoi were hardly 'historical correct': they don't have shields, they don't have bows, they don't have maces and it can be argued that they weren't really important any more after the battle of Manizkert.

I don't know what caused this hostility. I guess everyone expected a lot more of RTW than of MTW and thus created an impossibly high standard for CA to comply with. Off course CA couldn't reach this state of perfection (due to limited time or money, or whatever reason), and in reaction to this people started taking every detail apart to prove that the game was 'wrong'. While in fact it is no more 'wrong' than MTW.

Yes, there are issues which CA should take seriously. Game speed is one, historical accuracy (see my sig) is two. And I don't mean that every detail has to be correct, I just want the factions (Egyptians/barbarians) to resemble there real-life counterparts.

Oaty, the Silmarillion is a book of Tolkien, about the history of Middle Earth before the War of the Ring. It is not like 'The Lord of the Rings'; I have heard it being compared to the Old Testament, but it is a very good read if you like epic histories.