Rome Total Realism vs EB

[Intranetusa]

thanks for the info. I always play on M battle/VH campaign anyways. :)

[CaesarAugustus]

The effects of difficulty levels aren't moddable, so no. I understand the recommended settings are Normal battle difficulty and Very Hard campaign map difficulty. The campaign should be more challenging than vanilla RTW.

What exactly is the difference between a M campaign and a VH campaign? Are there improved naval invasions or increased Autoresolve casualties? Or does it just give the AI more money?

[Intranetusa]

On VH, the allies went send much larger stacks at you. Also, your allies will often double cross and attack you. Furthermore, getting an alliance with neutral countries is virtually impossible. And ceasefire negotiations are also very hard to get.

[mcantu]

Those who dont feel RTR is deep enough should try the Extended Realism Mod for RTRPE w/ the BI exe...good stuff

[econ21]

I wrote a longish post comparing EB and RTR a while back. It's a perennial subject:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...59&postcount=3

Since then EB has had the 0.8 patch, which avoids the reinforcement CTD bug that killed earlier versions of the mod for me. But I am still waiting for 0.81 before diving back in, hopefully by a PBM.

I have played a lot more RTR Platinum, mainly in the Will of the Senate PBM, which most of the participants really enjoyed. I particularly liked the Metropolis mod that stripped most settlements of their walls, as I found sieging wooden walled minor settlements tedious beyond belief.

I stick by my original opinion that the two mods are very similar in aim and execution. Most reasonable people who like one should appreciate the similar qualities in the other. I'd say currently EB is deeper in the history and more ambitious (e.g. with the traits) but RTR is more polished. I think both are amazing efforts.

[edyzmedieval]

Try them both. As an EB developer, I liked them both, but there's one thing I didn;t like at all at RTR: - historical accuracy.

Not as historic as they claim.
Examples, so you'll see for yourself:

-Thessalian Cavalry Mercenaries recruitable in Gaza o_O
-The Ptolemies have a city in Europe, near Byzantium. Huh? The Ptolemies never set a foot in Europe near Byz.

[blacksnail]

As an EB developer I clearly enjoy EB. However I was a big fan of RTR 6.0 and had a lot of fun with that mod. I really liked the third party customizations that were added in and thought they added a lot to the game. I'm looking forward to checking out RTR 7.0 when it's released.

[blacksnail]

-Thessalian Cavalry Mercenaries recruitable in Gaza o_O

When it comes to issues involving messed up recruitment, EB should really not be the one to throw the first stone.

[paullus]

Not as historic as they claim.
Examples, so you'll see for yourself:

-The Ptolemies have a city in Europe, near Byzantium. Huh? The Ptolemies never set a foot in Europe near Byz.

Edyz, the Ptolemaioi controlled Maroneia and several other S. Thraikian cities, as well as the island Thasos, until around 245 or so, after which only a small foothold was held until near the end of the 3rd century. I think it was too small to be worth adding a province for EB, kinda like the small Ptolemaic possessions in Karia and Lykia (though I'm still a little miffed that Ephesos isn't in the map). The S. Thraikian possessions were the key to recruiting large numbers of Thraikians and Galatians (from Tylis) into the Ptolemaic army.

Now its been ages since I played RTR, and perhaps their province is too big (it would seriously be a little dibit in the southern coastline across from Thasos), but there was a justification for it. Oh, and if the dates I gave above are off, I tried to check them in my Holbl, but I couldn't find him. Cheers all.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Hehe. I just looked at Holbl too when I saw that. He doesn't say much of anything about it. I wish he had been able to write the book at basically twice the page numbers he did - so we could have had lots more detail.

[McHrozni]

On VH, the allies went send much larger stacks at you. Also, your allies will often double cross and attack you. Furthermore, getting an alliance with neutral countries is virtually impossible. And ceasefire negotiations are also very hard to get.

Fairly annoying - the AI is way too keen to betray you on normal, and not really ready to admit the obvious when to comes to ceasefire options.

The only strategy game with a decent diplomatic AI that I know of was Imperialism II. It's too bad no one can learn from that old classic. There the AI actually considered your military strength before deciding on attacking or allying with you.

McHrozni

[-Praetor-]

I wrote a longish post comparing EB and RTR a while back. It's a perennial subject:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...59&postcount=3

I think your review is worth to reproduce:

For what it is worth, my impression so far is that the mods have a very similar underlying philosophy. They aim at making RTW more realistic, both by altering the content (maps, units etc) and the combat system (kill speeds, morale levels, balance of arms etc). In this, I think they both succeed very well. I've played both and greatly admire them for this. The units look great and the combat feels "right", as well as having the more deliberate feel of the combat I enjoyed in STW and MTW.

My impression so far is that EB has more historical research and work so that it deviates rather more from vanilla than RTR. However, RTR is still in progression. For example, RTR 6.2 has done a lot of work on the Romans and Germans, but the Gauls for one could use a little more love and will apparently get that in 7.0.

In terms of the combat system, they use different ways of getting there but I have found RTR 6.0 and EB rather similar in terms of how long heavy infantry melees last and how effective missiles are etc. If anything I'd say cavalry is rather more powerful (and relatively cheaper) in EB than RTR 6.0 but I am happy with either representation.

Both mods also aim to restrict or slow the recruitment of units outside of your factions natural "homelands". Again, they have different ways of doing this but they both work to a similar effect and add to the game's realism, and difficulty level. They also do some other stuff to raise the challenge - e.g. making the economy tighter and giving the player's general's less command stars.

Both mods alter naval combat to make it better. In RTR 6.0, tweaking the stats has made naval combat more bloody and decisive. In EB, fleets are very expensive and so again the combat is more decisive. Different means, similar result. I guess that's a theme of this comparison?

The mods have rather different campaign maps. IIRC, RTR took the area covered by the vanilla map [CORRECTION: apparently, they extended it to the east] and increased the number of provinces. My impression is that EB has a roughly similar number of provinces in the original RTW area but has extended the map south and especially east. Again, different approaches but similar result - a bigger sandpit to play in!

Both mods have unified the Romans and dropped the Senate (reviewer sheds a quick tear at the loss of the fun Senate missions). They have rather different faction line ups - they both represent the "big players" of the period but, if you want to play the ancient Britons, don't play RTR. If you want to play the Numidians, don't play EB. etc

EB have done some very fun things with the trait system and related stuff. Some generals can compete in the Olympics, others get triumphs etc. Some factions don't even have offspring anymore but choose generals through a "man of the hour". RTR seems more like vanilla in these respects, IIRC. On a related point, EB have changed the faction victory conditions whereas RTR still requires "conquer 50 provinces" (making playing the 40 province Seleucids rather a short game).

Finally, EB is a beta whereas RTR is a more finished product that has been patched many times. I can't recall encountering a CTD in RTR (well, I lie - I think it was in 6.0 - I won as Rome and was rewarded with a CTD! anti-climatic at the time but at least, I'd finished my campaign). However, I am getting daily or more crashes with EB (I'm around 243 BC in my Roman game). I can work around them, but it is taking a lot of willpower to keep playing. There are also other aspects of EB that seem frustrating because it is a beta - for example, AI bribery of my towns is making my game not fun (taking a city once is fine, but having to keep retaking it due to some diplomat is not so great).

Bottomline - I think they are both amazing mods. Incredibly ambitious and with ambitions that perfectly suit my tilt. They are both massive endeavours, involving many people and changing RTW in a myriad of ways. They transform RTW from an ultimately unchallenging and occasionally annoyingly ahistorical strategy game into a serious historical wargame that is fun to play. To some extent, they are the Pepsi and Coke of RTW mods - they are really remarkable similar. If forced to identify differences, at the moment, I would say RTR is more polished and playable whereas EB is more ambitious and promising. But I don't wish to offend either team, whose works have given me a lot of pleasure now and will continue to do so in the future.

I think your review is very good, but it misses two things.

First, and it`s something that you`ve already pointed out in your post, is that EB has been greatly (enormously is a more accurate word) improved since 0.74. The stability problems are almost gone, and with the future 0.81 patch, almost all CTD bugs will be gone (at least, all known CTD`s, like Massilioi hoplitae, Darioritum, Rebelling City). Also, not considering that the Massilioi Hoplitae and the Rebelling City one are solved by the comunity, and the Darioritum CTD is easily avoidable.

So, it will be even more stable as it is now. But let`s consider that your review was written before 0.8, so it can`t have all the skin improvements, the unit cards, GUI, Voicemods, Musicmods, building sistem and recritment sistem, and all the innumerable little improvements that 0.8 brought to the mod.

Second, the review doesn`t emphasise the trait sistem of the mod (other than saying that your generals can get olympics and triumphs). That`s too bad, cuz the Trait sistem is one of the chief achivements of the mod, and something on which EB is unsurpassed and unique.

But, as I said, I like your review.

Cheers!!!

[Obelics]

one think that i dont like of RTR, and make me hate to play as romans, is that there are some "italians" troops available in Italia. Now i cant say nothink on greek, gauls etc, i have less "sensibility" on that due to my lack of informations. But i cant read in an Historical mod (foucused on accuracy), Italian cavalry, and italian skirmishers. And they refer often at italic people like "italians". Now being italian, i cant understand why there is not so much sensibility on a simply linguistic matter like this. There are not Italians, there are only "Italics" (substantive). and there are not italian skirmishers etc, but only "Italic skirmishers".

This is not a sort of patriottic think. Is just a linguistical think. Romans are not Italians. They are Italics. Samnites are not Italians, they are Italics. Etrurians are not italians, they are italics (and not in history, but in modern languages). And this difference is not an historical difference, but a difference that exist in a modern language like english, italian, french etc. I cant understand why this is not accurate. When i read "italians" i dont think to ancient italic people (adjective) but to modern italians, and that make me laugh.

So a mod that is accurate (both linguistically and historically) shoud use the correct adjectives / substantives.

I know this can be seen as a minor think by some people, but as i sayd it is just a matter of accuracy.

The difference between Italics / italians is like the difference that exist between gaul / french, Iberian / spanish. And i repeat im not referring on history, but just to the use of the words that do the modern languages.

PS: some people talked about the amount of "mini-mods" that they exists, well, every minimod i checked has the same mistake. And when i presented the problem in the forum, the answer was somethink like this: "we need fonts!". Well, after have debated for a while, i renounced. The only fonts availables is a good modern english dictionary.

[Intranetusa]

Fairly annoying - the AI is way too keen to betray you on normal, and not really ready to admit the obvious when to comes to ceasefire options.

The only strategy game with a decent diplomatic AI that I know of was Imperialism II. It's too bad no one can learn from that old classic. There the AI actually considered your military strength before deciding on attacking or allying with you.

McHrozni

On Very hard campaign mode, your ally will doublecross you 80% of the time if your territory touches theirs...from what I've experienced with Macedonia and Carthage.

So far, I have never ever gotten a ceasefire negotation (one time, I even offered 10,000 denrii + 20 cities as a test, and they were down to 2 cities...and they still rejected a ceasfire)

[Tuuvi]

would've been funny if they accepted...

I have never played RTR, but my impression is that EB is very complex, while RTR is more simple.

[silverster]

I played them both and i like them both

RTR is a more complete product (reliable etc), I played few campaigns with RTR and RTR:PE, got to say RTR is a lot more pleasing to the eye (one word, beautiful), the textures are a lot better than the ones we have with EB, (besides the spears, I have hard time telling the difference between Hastati and Rotarri [sp?] in EB). And RTR (especially PE) is very user friendly, so you know exactly what is going on and which unit is which (eg: when it says spear man on the title, it's a spearman... not a long sword welding german/gaul dude... )

But EB is a more Authentic, complete game (more detailed gameplay), pity i dont understand latin so i am sort of confused all the time (what the heck is this i am supposed to build... LOL). but EB scripting is better, a lot better. Albit a little overkill on the traits (Scroll scroll scroll.... not there yet.....) and Eb is a lot more historic, and armies are a lot more "Legion" like (Love the forts guys!!!) But a Legio banner as a auxilliary for the characters would be nice.

I hightly anyone who hasnt played RTW mods to play recommend RTR: Platinum Edition with Imperator II mod, very nice combo, it positions perfectly between RTR and EB.

[Grand Lord of Poop~]

well, the new 0.8 includes all the english name in parenthesis after the authentic name, if i remember correctly (or I may have just installed a mod that changes it). so i think that issue is solved. plus, isn't it much better. personally, i prefer all native names regardless of how cheesy they sound. it adds a huge amount of immersion into the game. you really feel like you're playing the baktrians instead of just some random nut scrapping together a whole bunch of units (vanilla, anyone?) besides, you should not undermine the massive efforts of all the hardworking skinners making EB. If we compare the skins, i could honestly say that EB is better than RTR, but of course, that is a matter of personal taste.

[Obelics]

and i could add that a comparison in this sense is very strange, even m2tw from far far away is not comparable to EB... we are speaking of very different products. RTR is aimed to adjust RTW, while EB is a totally new game, is not RTW. (and me too prefer the EB skins, even for the acclaimed romans...)

[Birka Viking]

and i could add that a comparison in this sense is very strange, even m2tw from far far away is not comparable to EB... we are speaking of very different products. RTR is aimed to adjust RTW, while EB is a totally new game, is not RTW. (and me too prefer the EB skins, even for the acclaimed romans...)

I can only agree with you!

[Intranetusa]

EVERYTHING IS IN LATIN!!?!!??!???

Waa???? I think I'll try RTR before EB if that's the case.... :(

[Sarcasm]

Breathe.

You'll hear Romans speak Latin when you click on them, and names are in Latin too. However, a translation and description are provided in english.

[Kull]

EVERYTHING IS IN LATIN!!?!!??!???

Waa???? I think I'll try RTR before EB if that's the case.... :(

Thanks for that, best laugh i've had in days! And not at your expense. Just that EB has a number of very fervent, "accuracy-above-all" members, and I was visualizing somebody putting that idea up for vote in an internal poll!

[Intranetusa]

Thanks for that, best laugh i've had in days! And not at your expense. Just that EB has a number of very fervent, "accuracy-above-all" members, and I was visualizing somebody putting that idea up for vote in an internal poll!

:D You're welcome

[Intranetusa]

I hope the campaign AI is better in EB cuz in RTW, even on VH campaign, the AI sucked badly...never assaulting my cities during seiges and the Romans, Carthage, and Greeks conquering only 1-2 cities every 50 years.

[bovi]

You'll definitely have more trouble from the AI in EB, not because it is improved but because it gets a monetary gift each turn to offset its natural inclination to do extremely stupid things. Some AI factions are slow to expand, but those who were successful in history tend to be successfully expanding in most of the games.

[Intranetusa]

very nice. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thanks for that, best laugh i've had in days! And not at your expense. Just that EB has a number of very fervent, "accuracy-above-all" members, and I was visualizing somebody putting that idea up for vote in an internal poll!

Check EBH.

OT: I can't really add to what's been said here other than to say that RTR is probably more "pick up and play" EB adds a lot of depth but it does take some getting used to.

What I can say for definate though is that EB is a labour of love.

[L.C.Cinna]

Hehe. I just looked at Holbl too when I saw that. He doesn't say much of anything about it. I wish he had been able to write the book at basically twice the page numbers he did - so we could have had lots more detail.

I'll check if he said more about it in his lectures if I'll be able to find my notes again lol

[Intranetusa]

eb and RTR both have a united Roman faction, do they still have senates? and senate missions?

[CountArach]

eb and RTR both have a united Roman faction, do they still have senates? and senate missions?

Nope, though I think RTR is planning to still have a Civil War event for RTR 7.0