My Rome: Total War 2 review

[obyknven]

Ya See skippy, That hannibal bust? Probably wasn't made by his contemporaries. The style is wrong for most roman busts. To much detail.

1. Romans don't make statues, this work for Greek slaves in their society.

2. Romans hate this man so much and in majority of cases destroy Hannibal statues. This bust more similar to war trophy than to own "Roman" piece of art.

3. Own Carthaginian and Iberian (Barcid's domain) statues have similar style with too much details.

\

4. Image of head from Barcid's coin is similar to this bust.

 

 

5. Facts ( Historical sources ) more important than modern interpretations. If you don't trust to this historical sources - you known nothing about Hannibal appearance and any your image of Hannibal is wrong.

 

 

The Triarii weren't really the elites, they were just the oldest.

They are most experienced Roman warriors with best weapons, but they are not elite, no-no! You are funny man.

 

 

Anyway existence of  numerous mods for almost all Total war games (except Shogun 1 probably), which try fix historical inaccuracy of vanilla games is best proof about how low-qualified Total wars developers. Even non-professionals do this work better ( Roma Surrectum, Europa Barbarorum, MTW XL mod etc ). 

[obyknven]

Althougt such historical errors are common for European and Nort American developers.

just few examples.

Wrong name of game, Greeks and East Slavs make facepalm.

 

Ancient Greeks with axes wearing pants.  Educated people make facepalm again. 

 

Ancient greek ship. just no comments.

 

Timequest

Cairo 44BC   And Cleopatra from Hollywood movie again.

 

Probably such things happen due low quality of modern Western education system.  At least majority of Western gamers consume such products and even dont  understand why educated people don't want play in this nonsense.
 

 

 

 

[Calax]

Ancient Greeks with axes wearing pants.  Educated people make facepalm again.

What pants? I see a lot of greaves and shields but no actual pants.  And yeah, the axes are a-historical, but then so are the swords if we're talking Classical Greece (where the spear was THE example of military might, not the sword or bow).

 

Probably such things happen due low quality of modern Western education system.  At least majority of Western gamers consume such products and even dont  understand why educated people don't want play in this nonsense.

 

Actually it's more that they're aiming for a wider more general audience. Educationally they don't exactly cover methods of warfare in highschool courses, and so the idea that the Spear is the dominant form of warfare for most of the Greek period and early Rome (before they were adjusted to the Cohort system with Hastatii etc) is ignored in favor of the social and cultural history built out of those empires and the overall effect they'd have on the world. 

 

It's the same reason they don't talk about Russia in any way in history courses before the Cold War era, because Russia didn't have a significant effect on the western world barring one instance (1812, where the prevailing wisdom is that the Brits won at Waterloo rather than the Russian front causing to many logistical issues). Unless you want to suggest that the Russian Tsars and Boyars had a wider ranging effect when they were culturally and scientifically behind the rest of Europe by at least 20 years (in the best of conditions under Peter the Great).

 

And the point I made before, Historical accuracy and realism go out the window in favor of good, entertaining gameplay. This isn't limited to the Total War devs, or even western devs about other societies. After all, Capcom has a game series about their own history where a Sengoku period general is a cyborg. And I'm sure Russian devs would turn Catherine the Great from a ruthless Prussian ruler who (probably) had her husband murdered so she could take the throne, and had a constant stream of male lovers that she openly favored (and even placed on the throne of other nations), into a strong Russian woman who was only fighting for the common man (when many of her reforms favored the upper classes) and only took the throne grudgingly after others had killed her husband. 

[obyknven]

It's the same reason they don't talk about Russia in any way in history courses before the Cold War era, because Russia didn't have a significant effect on the western world

Man, Western education standards even worse than i imagine.  I dont want write too much,  just few examples of influence:

 

Finnish–Novgorodian wars causing Swedish conquest of Finland, as result entire nation lost own self-determination (and own national state) and has been germanizied.

Russian principalities destroy Golden Horde and Great Silk way move to south because this - this influence to international trade causing apogee of Ottoman Empire.

Numerous Russian-Polish wars destroy Polish–Lithuanian East European hegemon and causing grown of German states (Austro-Hungarian Empire and Prussia).

Numerous Russian-Swedish wars stop Sweden hegemony in North Europe and turn Sweden into minor nation.

Russsian-French wars of XVIII-XIX centuries make Russian Empire hegemon of Europe until Crimean war, butthurt of Europeans you can read here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/russia/

Secondly — and this point is not now being sufficiently insisted upon — because by its ceaseless meddling in the affairs of the West, it cripples and disturbs our normal development, and this with the object of conquering geographical positions, which will assure to Russia the mastery over Europe, and thus crush every chance of progress under the iron heel of the Tsar.

Russian-Ottoman war's of XVIII-XIX centuries causing independence of Balcan states and fall of Ottoman Empire.

Russian-British Great game - Cold war of XIX century for world hegemony, no comments.

All history of XX century just mirrored events in Russia - Bolshevik Revolution, grown of European reaction - rise of Nazism,  WW2, Warsaw Pact, fall of colonial empiries, Cold war, Marshall plan. Even dissolving of USSR causing numerous wars in Middle East, and East Europe, rejection of welfare state concept by First world and many other thing.  And i even don't mentioning about cultural or scieniftic Russian influence to humanity.

 

After all this rude hisoric  errors in videogames don't looks unexpected and unusual.  Developers just known only own national history (in better case), meanwhile consumers have same level of education and don't worry about historical accuracy.

[LadyCrimson]

They're games, not university courses. There's a reason terms like "influenced by," "inspired by" etc. exist.

 

I also feel fairly certain that the odds are probably high that pretty much all cultures/countries like to fudge historical accuracy (or use omission) at times.  We all like to make ourselves look good/better when it comes time to write the history books. Harping on a game not being ultra-realistic or having a slant towards some particular viewpoint is like harping on a fictional, blockbuster entertainment movie that does the same thing.

 

P.S. I do get that sometimes blatant stereotypes in entertainment get old/annoying now and then, but some artistic license isn't always a bad thing.

[Calax]

 

It's the same reason they don't talk about Russia in any way in history courses before the Cold War era, because Russia didn't have a significant effect on the western world

Man, Western education standards even worse than i imagine.  I dont want write too much,  just few examples of influence:

 

Finnish–Novgorodian wars causing Swedish conquest of Finland, as result entire nation lost own self-determination (and own national state) and has been germanizied.

Russian principalities destroy Golden Horde and Great Silk way move to south because this - this influence to international trade causing apogee of Ottoman Empire.

Numerous Russian-Polish wars destroy Polish–Lithuanian East European hegemon and causing grown of German states (Austro-Hungarian Empire and Prussia).

Numerous Russian-Swedish wars stop Sweden hegemony in North Europe and turn Sweden into minor nation.

Russsian-French wars of XVIII-XIX centuries make Russian Empire hegemon of Europe until Crimean war, butthurt of Europeans you can read here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/russia/

Secondly — and this point is not now being sufficiently insisted upon — because by its ceaseless meddling in the affairs of the West, it cripples and disturbs our normal development, and this with the object of conquering geographical positions, which will assure to Russia the mastery over Europe, and thus crush every chance of progress under the iron heel of the Tsar.

Russian-Ottoman war's of XVIII-XIX centuries causing independence of Balcan states and fall of Ottoman Empire.

Russian-British Great game - Cold war of XIX century for world hegemony, no comments.

All history of XX century just mirrored events in Russia - Bolshevik Revolution, grown of European reaction - rise of Nazism,  WW2, Warsaw Pact, fall of colonial empiries, Cold war, Marshall plan. Even dissolving of USSR causing numerous wars in Middle East, and East Europe, rejection of welfare state concept by First world and many other thing.  And i even don't mentioning about cultural or scieniftic Russian influence to humanity.

 

After all this rude hisoric  errors in videogames don't looks unexpected and unusual.  Developers just known only own national history (in better case), meanwhile consumers have same level of education and don't worry about historical accuracy.

 

And? That was all about establishing the regional power to the east, At the same time as that was going on, the western powers (which were technologically more advanced and significantly more influential on the world at large) were quibbling amongst themselves. Peter only brought Russia to being the regional power at the end of the 1600's, by which point most of the rest of Europe were running off colonizing the entire rest of the world (For better or worse).

 

Unless you're going to try to suggest that Russia had more influence over world events and other nations than being a consideration on the edge of their minds as they debated their next imperial target for colonization...

 

Basically, Russia is equivalent to Carthage, while the rest of the Europe was Alexander the Great's Macedon.

[obyknven]

Too much Evrocetrism.  Actually this is wondering me,  teaching such retarded historical concepts looks ridiculous for modern world.

 

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reorient-andre-gunder-frank/1101609417?ean=9780520921313

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/colonizers-model-of-the-world-jm-blaut/1111241572?ean=9781462505609

 

About historic accuracy in games. For example two non-historical games that look more historical than "historical" games.

 

1. Dragon's Crown from Vanillaware. Yes, this is humorous fantsay game don't pretend be historical, but Vanillaware artist traditionally use Renaissance art for inspiratrion, as result this game have accurate late medieval apperance.

Anther Vanillaware game - Muramasa also looks historical accurate by same reason.

 

2. Banner Saga from Stoic game. Again fantasy setting, but developer's  used Vendelic (non-Viking) art for inspiration and game looks also authentic.

http://youtu.be/JDFfFHYUbO0

 

 

 

 

[Calax]

Too much Evrocetrism.  Actually this is wondering me,  teaching such retarded historical concepts looks ridiculous for modern world.

I'm not saying that Europe was the only important thing going on, just that it is significantly more important to the world than what happened in Russia at the same time. And part of it is just generic ethno-centerism, with most of the world having been colonized by western Europe, they learn and understand that part of the world much more than they do any other part because they trace their cultural roots back to that Imperial power. But Russia didn't colonize, and was so far behind culturally and scientifically they couldn't afford to. Thus their cultural and political impact is minimal on the world at large. China is different because there were points where they were the most advanced civilization on the planet. But because they clung to the Emperor for so long they slowed progress and fell behind under the Qing dynasty. Same thing happened with Japan as the Tokugawa took power, they stopped social mobility and cultural development for almost 200 years, and got completely passed by. 

 

Do I want historical accuracy in games? Eh, not really. If every game was totally historically accurate, most of the armies you were fighting with would have 25% casualties automatically inflicted due to disease. And you'd spend months after each combat recuperating and praying that your body didn't become infected. And you'd have to deal with other things like your UI always giving you the best case scenario unless you dug into the nuts and bolts because of obstructive and/or corrupt bureaucracies, or having to ensure that your ruler had a constant stream of women to provide a heir to your throne.

[Walsingham]

I want Calax's game.

[obyknven]

But Russia didn't colonize, and was so far behind culturally and scientifically they couldn't afford to. Thus their cultural and political impact is minimal on the world at large.

 

 

[Calax]

Truth sucks don't it?

[Hurlshort]

Bias is a terrible trait for a historian, and there aren't any posters more biased than oby.

[obyknven]

Truth sucks don't it?

proof or GTFO

[Calax]

You mean other than the fact that they didn't become a local power until after Peter showed up? Or that they were still using serfs until the 1850's? Or that the royalty deliberately held back scientifica and cultural progress so that they didn't have to deal with a highly educated underclass that'd rise up and attempt to depose them?

 

And they didn't form the empires of Spain, France, or England. They weren't even a military power to threaten the rest of the world until the later half of the 20th century. Hell they were primarily agrarian until Stalin forced the entire population to adjust for more industrial work.

 

As to Rome 2: It's getting better but there needs to be something to make the mid/late game more fun.

[obyknven]

You mean other than the fact that they didn't become a local power until after Peter showed up? Or that they were still using serfs until the 1850's? Or that the royalty deliberately held back scientifica and cultural progress so that they didn't have to deal with a highly educated underclass that'd rise up and attempt to depose them?

 

And they didn't form the empires of Spain, France, or England. They weren't even a military power to threaten the rest of the world until the later half of the 20th century. Hell they were primarily agrarian until Stalin forced the entire population to adjust for more industrial work.

 

As to Rome 2: It's getting better but there needs to be something to make the mid/late game more fun.

It's your proofs?

 

You mean other than the fact that British empire didn't become a local power even in Europe? Or that US were still using slaves until the 1860's? Or that the British royalty deliberately held back scientifica and cultural progress so that they didn't have to deal with a highly educated underclass that'd rise up and attempt to depose them (In British empire even elemental education is not free unti Free Education Act established only in 1891)?

 

And they didn't form the continental empires as Persians, Romans, Russians or Chinese. They weren't even a military power to threaten the continental Europe and own rebelled colonies.

 

Can i say now that British Empire and US: "far  behind culturally and scientifically they couldn't afford to. Thus their cultural and political impact is minimal on the world at large"?

 

As to Rome 2: All strategy games become  boring in mid/end. This is because extensive gameplay (moar territories and armies to controll, gamer must perform moar similar operations). This can be solved by adding new gameplay elements in the end and by indirect controll + good AI (but as we known CA cant develop good AI and just watching how stupid AI perform turns instead of gamer is boring too).

[Calax]

No, because the science and culture within Britain and the US were significantly ahead of that found in Russia. In Britain they were making books and discussing them as a pastime, while the extent of printing and reading in Russia was government controlled pamphlets. Russia couldn't even get the industry up to make shirts that wouldn't fall apart in the rain, until three years after they got into a war with Napoleon.

 

At the same time Britian's empire made it into a continental power that was mastering the seas in the 17th century. Russia had almost no navy, while proxy wars were fought between the English and continental powers in their colonies. And these would spill over into Europe itself. Russia would just have their generals brutally put down any serf that became unruly.

 

I would have to start digging through old notes for specifics, but in general the Russians were about 30 years behind advances in science and tech, and as much as you may sit there and attempt to giggle up your sleeve at slaves, ultimately it took America 200 years to get rid of the institution, while Russia stuck it out from the 11th century until a grand total of 10 years before... For the first groups. Basically it'd be like the northern states abolishing slavery in 2212 and it takes until 2312 for it to be fully abolished.

 

As much as you may enjoy declaring that Russia is the worlds greatest country evar, they didn't effect the worlds path nearly as much as you may think. After all, it's not like Russian is one of the dominant languages spoken in the world, or the main second language in most developing countries. It's not even able to export it's own culture to the rest of the world.

[obyknven]

No, because the science and culture within Britain and the US were significantly ahead of that found in Russia. In Britain they were making books and discussing them as a pastime, while the extent of printing and reading in Russia was government controlled pamphlets.

Lol, guy never hear about Russain Literature.
 

Russia couldn't even get the industry up to make shirts that wouldn't fall apart in the rain, until three years after they got into a war with Napoleon.

Just imagine naked Russian armies fougth against French Grande Armée (Rains quite often in Russia). Obvious nonsense.
 

At the same time Britian's empire made it into a continental power that was mastering the seas in the 17th century. Russia had almost no navy, while proxy wars were fought between the English and continental powers in their colonies. And these would spill over into Europe itself. Russia would just have their generals brutally put down any serf that became unruly.

I would have to start digging through old notes for specifics, but in general the Russians were about 30 years behind advances in science and tech, and as much as you may sit there and attempt to giggle up your sleeve at slaves, ultimately it took America 200 years to get rid of the institution, while Russia stuck it out from the 11th century until a grand total of 10 years before... For the first groups. Basically it'd be like the northern states abolishing slavery in 2212 and it takes until 2312 for it to be fully abolished.

Even don't understand what you trying to say. Probably something about "British Empire is Stronk!".

Just few major European conflicts as examples:
Thirty Years' War - Tiny English army try figth against France but easily has been defeated. Menawhile in continental Europe titanic forces fougth one agains another, entire lands are deserted, danse makabre etc. Results: France become European hegemon, Spain become minor nation, Sweden rule Baltic region, Holy Roman Empire fallen.

Seven Years' War - Again titanic forces fougth in continental Europe. France is European hegemon with strong army, Austria quite strong also, but Russian army even strongest. Prussia have not so strong army but king Frederick II is good commander. He mostly won battles agains French and Austrian troop's, only Russian troops constantly won battles against him. Treacherous Austria constantly try use these victories for yourself until Russian Empire not send own allies GTFO and not signed peace treaty with Prussia. After this Frederick defeat antiprussian coalition, France lost hegemony, Austria lost some territories, Prussia and Russia become more friendly to each other. Tiny English army figth against lov-quality colonal troops in distand non-inhabitted lands. Now they even dont try fougth on main war teatre in Europe.
casulaties from war: Austria - 400 000, Prussia - 262 500, France - 168 000, England - 20 000.
It's just for understanding how minor role play England in this war.

Napoleonic war's:
War of the Fourth Coalition (10 000 British troops participiate) - no comment's
Peninsular War (~ 25 000 British troops participiate - France use only 1/4 of Invading Army against British and Spanish troops, 3/4 of them fougth against guirella) - no comment's.
War of the Fifth Coalition (340,000 Austrians, 40,000 Britits against 275,000 French) - again tiny British army can do nothing.
War of the Sixth Coalition (175 000 Russians, 170 000 Prussians, 110 000 Austrians, 28 000 Swedes, 13 000 Germans and 500 Britts against 420 000 French Army ) - Britain so strong again!
Hundred Days ( 25 000 Britts, 258 000 Prussians and North Germans, 168 000 Russians, 254 000 Austrians and Southern Germans against 200 000 French Army ) - yet again Britts play minor role.

WW1 and WW2 same story. Just a wery arrogant minor nation with megalomania.

 

After all, it's not like Russian is one of the dominant languages spoken in the world, or the main second language in most developing countries. It's not even able to export it's own culture to the rest of the world.

English language become dominant in Europe only after WW2 (Marshall Plan, NATO and Cold War). Before this in XVII-XIX centuries French language dominant in Europe, in other lands different languages play this role. I ex-Soviet zone of influence (or in land's with significant Russians presense) most dominant language is Russian.
 

[Calax]

Lol, guy never hear about Russain Literature.

What... War and Peace (which is an incredibly bias account against several major russian military commanders because they snubbed Tolstoy).

 

Just imagine naked Russian armies fougth against French Grande Armée (Rains quite often in Russia). Obvious nonsense.

Technically not in the rain, but "the so-called 'recruit uniforms quickly disintegrated when worn by soldiers on campaign." These were uniforms that were constructed to last a Russian infantry man one full year until the industry could actually support them. Due to the inability of the Russian industries to keep up with the war gearing in 1810-1811 ("Russia against Napoleon" Leiven page 106, Penguin Books 2009). Similar issues happened with musketry.

Even don't understand what you trying to say. Probably something about "British Empire is Stronk!".

What's being said is that Culturally and Technologically Russia was 30 years behind the entire rest of Europe. And England managed to dominate culturally because it's empire spanned each of the continents and thus the language and other trappings of english society were spread to those points as well. The American domination of Nato etc only added to the level of dominence found for English (and American) culture.

 

The British navy were the strongest things on the planet. To the point that Napoleon could only stop British Trade by forcing Continental European monarchs to refuse to do business with British traders (Including Alexander II of Russia)

 

And why are you bringing up the Seven Years War and saying that it was Awesome for the fact that Russia and Prussia were snuggle buddies? That decision cost Peter III his life, and placed Catherine on the throne because of how unpopular it was with the Russian population.

English language become dominant in Europe only after WW2 (Marshall Plan, NATO and Cold War). Before this in XVII-XIX centuries French language dominant in Europe, in other lands different languages play this role. I ex-Soviet zone of influence (or in land's with significant Russians presense) most dominant language is Russian.

English is the second most spoken language because the Brits created an empire that spanned every single continent, while the Russians stuck to their contiguous Ice ball. Hong Kong, Austrailia, America, India, Pakistan, and South Africa, all spoke primarily English because of British Imperialism. But the dominance of the USA industrially and economically basically converted many 3rd world nations into English countries (Nigeria, for example, has the primary language of English, even though most of the tribes speak their own tongue). Russia's influence was limited to the Baltic States and the 'stans.

 

And for the record, I have no idea wtf you're saying about the 7 years war because you're illegible grammar.

[Gorth]

You mean other than the fact that they didn't become a local power until after Peter showed up? Or that they were still using serfs until the 1850's? Or that the royalty deliberately held back scientifica and cultural progress so that they didn't have to deal with a highly educated underclass that'd rise up and attempt to depose them?

 

And they didn't form the empires of Spain, France, or England. They weren't even a military power to threaten the rest of the world until the later half of the 20th century. Hell they were primarily agrarian until Stalin forced the entire population to adjust for more industrial work.

 

As to Rome 2: It's getting better but there needs to be something to make the mid/late game more fun.

Not sure what the difference is between serf and slaves attending the cotton fields in Virginia to be honest.

 

I would consider conquering most of Asia, all the way to China and down to India a testament to good military skills. The Tartars and Mongols were no slouch in a fight. Until the start of 1900 (where the US started to catch up) Britain was pretty much the only thoroughly industrialised country in the world, having a head start over the rest (most of Europe being agrarian too, although the Germans did a good try catching up after WWI).

 

Russias size was both its blessing and its curse. It provided resources and manpower but made pre-industrialisation infrastructure a logistical nightmare. Only by being utterly ruthless can/could you build an infrastructure on such a vast scale necessary to integrate the provinces. The colonial powers wrote the book, Russia read it and implemented it domestically. Size also means slower exchange of ideas for such simple reasons that they have to travel longer. Western Europes capitals being within a few days horse ride of each other provided an advantage, not because it was actively discouraged in Russia, it was simply just not practical.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

While I doubt I will pick this up until it goes on sale, it does look worthwhile if it can be patched into a stable form.

 

Also, it seems Oby would make a terrible history professor.

[Augusta Corvina]

 

Too much Evrocetrism.  Actually this is wondering me,  teaching such retarded historical concepts looks ridiculous for modern world.

I'm not saying that Europe was the only important thing going on, just that it is significantly more important to the world than what happened in Russia at the same time. And part of it is just generic ethno-centerism, with most of the world having been colonized by western Europe, they learn and understand that part of the world much more than they do any other part because they trace their cultural roots back to that Imperial power. But Russia didn't colonize, and was so far behind culturally and scientifically they couldn't afford to. Thus their cultural and political impact is minimal on the world at large. China is different because there were points where they were the most advanced civilization on the planet. But because they clung to the Emperor for so long they slowed progress and fell behind under the Qing dynasty. Same thing happened with Japan as the Tokugawa took power, they stopped social mobility and cultural development for almost 200 years, and got completely passed by. 

 

Do I want historical accuracy in games? Eh, not really. If every game was totally historically accurate, most of the armies you were fighting with would have 25% casualties automatically inflicted due to disease. And you'd spend months after each combat recuperating and praying that your body didn't become infected. And you'd have to deal with other things like your UI always giving you the best case scenario unless you dug into the nuts and bolts because of obstructive and/or corrupt bureaucracies, or having to ensure that your ruler had a constant stream of women to provide a heir to your throne.

 

I think the most historically accurate games you'll find is Crusader Kings 2, The Europa Universalis series, Victoria 2 and Hearts of Iron series. Thankfully none of them add automatic 25% casualties(YMMV on attrition....).

[JFSOCC]

As to Rome 2: It's getting better but there needs to be something to make the mid/late game more fun.

I think it is because you're the only one who can sustainably grow an empire, the AI doesn't deal well with public order issues and thus constantly has rebellions taking place. So far I've seen only one faction grow a little beyond its original borders (the treverii, which have the benefit that all their neighbours share their culture)

So while you become larger, you don't get challenged by larger empires, and eventually they become pushovers. Especially since you can pick your wars.

[pmp10]

Not sure what the difference is between serf and slaves attending the cotton fields in Virginia to be honest.

You could own the latter but only the land of the former.

In legal terms that means you could do much more with a slave.

Edited October 1, 2013 by pmp10

[obyknven]

 

Oh, Britain!
 

Technically not in the rain, but "the so-called 'recruit uniforms quickly disintegrated when worn by soldiers on campaign." These were uniforms that were constructed to last a Russian infantry man one full year until the industry could actually support them. Due to the inability of the Russian industries to keep up with the war gearing in 1810-1811 ("Russia against Napoleon" Leiven page 106, Penguin Books 2009). Similar issues happened with musketry.

Do you never hear about corruption in European Armies? Osprey even publish book about this:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Military-Misdemeanours_9781846031489
For example in times of Crimean war Britts have wery poor uniform

The greatcoat gave them some warmth but they were of poor quality compared with the thick material of the Russian coats. In fact the British soldiers were advised to use their bayonets on the Russians' faces as they would not be able to penetrate the coat material.

Oh, poor retarded British Empire, their industry cant produce coats and bayonets. Even their migthy fleet have very ****ty canons in end  of XIX century.
Or example from modern times - f-22 "Raptor", their  stealth covering  fall apart in the rains, US so backwarded!

 

What's being said is that Culturally and Technologically Russia was 30 years behind the entire rest of Europe. And England managed to dominate culturally because it's empire spanned each of the continents and thus the language and other trappings of english society were spread to those points as well

Lol, Britain constantly dominated Culturally and Technologically by France, Netherlands and Germany.  Entire world now used French International System of Units, only "progressive" UK and US continue use obsolete measurement systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems

[Calax]

 

What's being said is that Culturally and Technologically Russia was 30 years behind the entire rest of Europe. And England managed to dominate culturally because it's empire spanned each of the continents and thus the language and other trappings of english society were spread to those points as well

Lol, Britain constantly dominated Culturally and Technologically by France, Netherlands and Germany.  Entire world now used French International System of Units, only "progressive" UK and US continue use obsolete measurement systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems

 

"Rest of Europe" includes France, the Dutch and Germany idiot. Or are you deliberately not reading the fact that I mention "Rest of Europe" in all my posts as being the ones who were culturally and technologically ahead of Russia? With Britains Empire being an example of that and how other European cultures that dominated the entire rest of the world without the Russian culture getting outside it's own borders (effectively).

 

Gorth: I don't consider the Mongols to be Russian per-se, because they were a nomadic tribe closer to China than Moscow. They may have originated from the same direction as the Moscovite Boyars, but they were a distinct ethnic group compared to the Russians.

 

JFS: It's getting better as they adjust via patches. The issue is that they often give smaller states (Numidia is a good example) an income bonus to make up for the fact that they're in a bad start (which is why cathage dies pretty quick) in my current game as pontus (I abandoned carthage because I just got gutted totally by a magical civil war), Suebei made a confederation and held from the Urals to the Rhine. Egypt is holding almost the entirety of Egypt, and Athens is making an attempt to conquor all of greece, but attacked my pet state so they're gonna be wiped out soon.

 

Thinking about it, I feel like they need to include some triggers in the game for certain things. So that the Selucides will eventually break up their satrapies. Or that the Gallic, Germanic and Britannic tribes confederate properly instead of all the infighting. And they need to give more warning for the Civil war. Telling you that people are disappearing and that there are rumblings so that you're not caught off guard entirely when 9 armies pop up and your food province. Would mean that in the late game you'd have your enemies consolidating while also preventing the ambush of a civil war while your armies are on the other side of the world.