Forum Index

[player1]

Hmm...
Maybe you could add link to BUG-FIXER in the list of fixes?

Also, some of the fixes already listed are obsolete with 1.2 patch (like one for admiral stars). Maybe adding some note about that would be good idea.

[therother]

Added Bug-Fixer, moved previous fixes to 1.1.

[SpencerH]

I think that this thread should be better highlighted in the thread list. Despite posting here before I forgot it existed and it contains a bagful of useful links that answer a lot of questions that get repeated over and over.

[therother]

Hmm, you have a point. But there isn't a great deal that can be done other than pinning it. Although perhaps we could have a more striking name - any suggestions?

[player1]

Add IMPORTANT:
Or MUST read thread

[Arrowhead]

Come on read this please PLEASE!

[therother]

I was thinking more like "DO NOT READ THIS THREAD!" - bound to make it the most read on the board.

More seriously, Index updated - added links to the new Guild information threads in the Entrance Hall. Still accepting suggestions for inclusion...

[Craterus]

you could give it a title like COOL people only everyone will visit to see what it is..

[player1]

Personally, I think the main reason why it doesn't get read is that there are too many sticky threads.

Subconciuosly, that means skip bunch of sticky theads.

Noone starts to read forums from the top line.

Or if someone would actually try to read sticky thread, why would he bother with one with boooring name such as Forum Index.


Just put it all in one thread, with links to other previosly sticky threads.
Then call it something like "LINKS TO MOST IMPORTANT GAME INFO".

[therother]

Personally, I think the main reason why it doesn't get read is that there are too many sticky threads.

There are some who don't read it certainly, but there are definitely many who do. It's one of the most viewed threads in the Colosseum (with 4,000+ views/~30 a day), so it's not exactly doing that badly. You have a point about people not reading pinned threads if there are too many, but there are only 6 in the Forum, all with explanatory names. As for the name itself, I'll drop the Colosseum Mods a PM to see if we can change it to something more eye-catching. But there is only so much you can do...

[player1]

Six is not small number you know.
It's more then enough for people to start forgetting about them.

And somehow it seams appropriate, for a "forum Index" to have links to those threads, instead of having them pinned themself.

[Quietus]

Guides

frogbeastegg's Guide to Rome: Total War - the guide to Rome: Total War. If you only read one guide, it should be this one!

Tamur's Diplomacy Guide – everything you could ever want to know about diplomacy.
Sinner's Temple Guide – complete list of all the temples for each faction, and their effects.
Soulflame's Unit Guide v1.2 – Exhaustive list of all the units, and their stats.
Quietus's Quick Strategic Map Guide & Primer – short, punchy guide on the basics of the game.
Quietus's Quick Economics Guide & Primer – short, punchy guide on the basics of the economics system.
Spino's Campaign AI Settings – a quick guide to the personalities of the various factions under AI control.
Spartan's Trait guide - a list of character traits with descriptions. Falconne has produced a useful spreadsheet of traits and their effects. There is also geraldtan's more advanced treatment here.
Strategic Command Center's Unit Guide – web guide for unit stats in RTW.
Clan [Koguryo]'s Unit Guide – Flash Player based unit guide. Complete with RTW music!
rumcajsz's RTW and RTR political maps - useful maps for both the normal game, and the Total Realism mod.
Quietus's A Comprehensive Rome: Total War Guide - a developing guide to all aspect of

therother,

Mind bothering to finish the sentence (since you forgot to finish it)? LOL Also, I disagree if you call it "developing". If you bothered to read it, it is very comprehensive.

thx

edit: Oops. Maybe I'm missing something. therother, can you tell me a more comprehensive guide in the whole of internet? IF there is one.

[therother]

Mind bothering to finish the sentence (since you forgot to finish it)? LOL Also, I disagree if you call it "developing". If you bothered to read it, it is very comprehensive.

I did bother to read it Quietus, in quite some detail if you will remember. I also read:

(The revisions and new portions are yet to be fully completed as planned).

and

KukriMan and I have agreed that the Guide will be moved at a later date while feedbacks and revisions are still coming in.

Which tells me it isn't finished yet, in your own words. Hence developing.

Sentence is removed.

[Quietus]

Hi Quietus. Useful guide. A few quick comments/additions, based on a first glance:

Skipped the battlemap section – in a hurry.

You READ it? Maybe that's why you didn't even articulate what you read.

Also, you didn't answer my question (look up to my edit in the last post).

Also,

All posted/messaged additions for the first 3 posts addressed. I'm still writing the MP section and general update for post number 4. I'm slowing my pace down a bit; I was beginning to feel ill thanks to working too hard.

(3/23/5) Yet you wrote:

frogbeastegg's Guide to Rome: Total War - the guide to Rome: Total War. If you only read one guide, it should be this one!

with bold emphasis on "the". So apparently you haven't read lady frogbeastegg's guide either. Yet you call mine "developing".

So you can articulate a description of a guide you HAVEN'T read (lady frogbeastegg's)
Yet you couldn't articulate a description of a guide you claimed you've read (mine)

Quietus's A Comprehensive Rome: Total War Guide.

And as of this moment after you last edit, the description is blank.

Do you want to explain?

[therother]

You READ it? Maybe that's why you didn't even articulate what you read.

Yes, I read all of it. What I meant, as you well know, is that I was not going to read and comment on that section at the time. It may astound you, but I do have other things to do with my time other than give you corrections for your guide. I had to expend a fair amount of time collating and confirming my comments as it was. I also notice that a substantial part of your revisions/corrections are based on my recommendations.

Also, you didn't answer my question (look up to my edit in the last post).

Calling something developing doesn't mean that it is not the most comprehensive, just that it is not yet in its final form. Something I note that you do not dispute.

with bold emphasis on "the". So apparently you haven't read lady frogbeastegg's guide either. Yet you call mine "developing".

So now, after going round the barn, we get to the point. Your guide is, IMHO, for advanced players. frogbeastegg's is better for beginners and intermediate players. This is why I suggest that players should read frogbeastegg's first.

So you can articulate a description of a guide you HAVEN'T read (lady frogbeastegg's)
Yet you couldn't articulate a description of a guide you claimed you've read (mine)

I have read both guides thoroughly, and have suggested additions to each. The difference between the two is that frogbeastegg's is being revised from a previous form; your guide is still emerging. When the guide was completed, the developing would have been removed. Perhaps the word choice was poor, but developing is not an aspersion. I call my Forum FAQ emerging, despite it being by far the most comprehensive forum guide available. Why? Because it isn't finished, not because I think it is not worthy or useful.

And as of this moment after you last edit, the description is blank.

The description is blank because you objected to my description, despite it being accurate. To be honest, I couldn't think of anything you would find acceptable, given your reaction to my previous description. So I left it with your self-explanatory title for now, whilst I PMed you for a description you would find acceptable.

I am not trying to belittle your efforts. I think perhaps you should cool off a little, and try not to see the worst in everything I type.

Edit: Have now updated the description and structure. Is this more acceptable?

[Quietus]

Yes, I read all of it. What I meant, as you well know, is that I was not going to read and comment on that section at the time. It may astound you, but I do have other things to do with my time other than give you corrections for your guide. I had to expend a fair amount of time collating and confirming my comments as it was. I also notice that a substantial part of your revisions/corrections are based on my recommendations.

I'm pretty sure finishing a sentence won't take you hours.

So now, after going round the barn, we get to the point. Your guide is, IMHO, for advanced players. frogbeastegg's is better for beginners and intermediate players. This is why I suggest that players should read frogbeastegg's first.

Now we get to the barn again. Is it really that difficulty for you tell spell out in your own words "advanced", "beginners" and "Intermediate"?What part of this:

frogbeastegg's Guide to Rome: Total War - the guide to Rome: Total War. If you only read one guide, it should be this one!

is not clear to you?

[quote=I have read both guides thoroughly, and have suggested additions to each. The difference between the two is that frogbeastegg's is being revised from a previous form; your guide is still emerging. When the guide was completed, the developing would have been removed. Perhaps the word choice was poor, but developing is not an aspersion. I call my Forum FAQ emerging, despite it being by far the most comprehensive forum guide available. Why? Because it isn't finished, not because I think it is not worthy or useful.[/quote] Apparently you haven't read mine either.

A Comprehensive Rome: Total War Guide: A guide dealing with the Single Player Campaign of Rome: Total War. Reference: Patched to v1.2, Brutii, VH/VH. This is a major revision of my Quick Strategic Map Guide & Primer to RTW and A Quick Economics Guide & Primer to RTW, along with additions of A Quick Battle Map Guide & Primer to RTW and Introduction sections. (The revisions and new portions are yet to be fully completed as planned).

Mine is not being revised as well? I thought you said you read it?

The description is blank because you objected to my description, despite it being accurate. To be honest, I couldn't think of anything you would find acceptable, given your reaction to my previous description. So I left it with your self-explanatory title for now, whilst I PMed you for a description you would find acceptable.

I am not trying to belittle your efforts. I think perhaps you should cool off a little, and try not to see the worst in everything I type.

The fact the sentence wasn't even finished is not a description.

Quietus's A Comprehensive Rome: Total War Guide - a developing guide to all aspect of

You call that a description?

LOL. The fact that you put it at the very bottom is not any indication.

I'm just glad I've straightened this out. Or else the readers would have been wickedly misled. Last time I checked, my Quick Economics Guide was kept in Ludus Magna for months (It should have been in the Guides section). Whoever moderator was supposed to move it didn't.

[therother]

Whatever. I'm stepping back from the Org (one of the reasons why A.Saturnus is now the staffmod of the LM), so I don't have the time to maintain this. Ergo, this thread is closed.