"Hurr durr CA has hired better historians than you"

[Prince Regent George]

The title refers to a phrase rather frequently used by a great number of Lord Protectors of CA, during the marketing phase (there was no development one ), when the historical information provided from several esteemed members of our community suggested that a part of CA's decisions about the game had no historical basis. When the debate was about relatively minor aspects of the game they used the "sandals" strawman, but, in what concerned more significant ones (such as the Bronze Age Egyptians), the aforementioned group of TWC just doubted your credibility, by supporting the authority of CA, in spite of supporting your claims with reputable sources.

Unfortunately, CA obviously decided to invest her augmented budget in marketing and Osprey books ignoring the willingness of the British historians to contribute with their advanced knowledge. A perfect example is the use of names, regarding almost all the playable or unplayable factions.Personally, I was hoping that CA would have done a more professional research than the one regarding Rome I, where a CA employee had serious difficulties in comprehending Tacitus or Herodotus (the Germans were named as Italicus or Flavus, Roman names given to german traitors, or the or the Parthian name Sosimenes, which was the name of a Greek collaborator, during the Persian/Median Wars). I am aware that I am a neglectable minority, but I really find names as a really immersive feature, able to create an authentic atmosphere of the Antiquity.

So, imagine the shock, when I discovered that Macedonians were named as Cosmas (a christian with greek origin name actually) and Parthian spies or Iranian kings were called Tiglath-Pileser, a name used from the Assyrian kings about half a milenium ago. Apparently, CA just browsed the Wikipedia. looking for a list of the ancient Eastern kings, no matter their nationaly or their age. That's what I call devotion to history! Personally, having played the game about 15 hours, I didn't find it as tragic as many imply (I would give it a 4/10 with a potential to arise at 5/10, which means it's not the worst Total War title), but I sincerely consider the problem described above as a really immersion-breaking element of the game, knowing that I am probably just nitpicking.

Do you agree or am I just an obsessive history fanboy?

[Castel]

The names don't bother me much but the cartoonish map sure does.

I don't know, i'm sure many people enjoy that design just fine and good for them but i love geography too much to not look at that without my stomach feeling pains.

[Hrobatos]

Historical accuracy in Rome II is just fine. CA repeadetly stated TW isnt meant to be historical simulation. Its way way better than Rome 1. There is alredy couple of mods that will have historical accuracy as main goal, for those who want to go extreme on that. For casual player Rome 2 is just fine on matter of historical accuracy.

[The_Dude]

Historical accuracy in Rome II is just fine. CA repeadetly stated TW isnt meant to be historical simulation. Its way way better than Rome 1. There is alredy couple of mods that will have historical accuracy as main goal, for those who want to go extreme on that. For casual player Rome 2 is just fine on matter of historical accuracy.

this

[Rittsy]

Imagine if somebody came onto this forum with a doctorate in English and started to write critiques of every, tiny detail of your forum post and call you out on it. Your response might be "Relax it's just a forum post." There's would be "That excuse doesn't cut it. This is the English language, you're just lazy!."

CA never claimed to be historically accurate, instead they used the words historically authentic. That is, to give you a general vibe of the period, not to turn it into a history lecture. There are mods in the works which target the history buffs; if the game is so immersion breaking wait until they are released and try them out.

[absinthia]

CA never claimed to be historically accurate, instead they used the words historically authentic.

they failed, grossly.
parts of this game is not even historically plausible, in my opinion.

[adrastea]

Compare R2TW with RTW in terms of historical accuracy. It is a vast improvement. Frankly, I'm surprised CA even bothered to research the names of all of these factions.

[Swerg]

Imagine if somebody came onto this forum with a doctorate in English and started to write critiques of every, tiny detail of your forum post and call you out on it. Your response might be "Relax it's just a forum post." There's would be "That excuse doesn't cut it. This is the English language, you're just lazy!."

CA never claimed to be historically accurate, instead they used the words historically authentic. That is, to give you a general vibe of the period, not to turn it into a history lecture. There are mods in the works which target the history buffs; if the game is so immersion breaking wait until they are released and try them out.

I don't pay money to see posts on this forum.

Nor do I expect perfect accuracy from CA in every aspect of history, but Rome 2 has some pretty major gaps. Names have already been mentioned, but there are other things, like the Kingdom of Kush not existing, while Axum (a successor from 300 years in the future,) does. Carthage being weak as an anemic puppy, the German Sarmatians up in the Baltic for some mysterious reason, the poor representation of the hoplite and Macedonian phalanxes, and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I booted the game up and looked closely I'd find more.

Rome 2 is not accurate nor authentic. It's a 1960's swords and sandals movie, complete with shirtless, hairy men riding around in chariots.

[Steph]

Total war are games.... not historical simulation by far. That's what modders do... When I look at what CA did in NTW where we have many historical sources, and what we do with mods, the gap is huge...

[CatoTheYounger]

How many of the original apologist post were from angry CA employees? Don't think for a second its impossible.
.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

I do not know what the names should be so I am happy in my ignorance

[Doe3000]

I don't mind if Parthians have Babylonian or Assyrian names like Tigleth-Pileser or Assurbanipal, but I would mind if they were called Jeremy or Robert. I remember in the original Rome the Britons had Welsh names like Geraint mixed in with genuine ancient British names like Cunobelin or Caratacos. This was slightly distracting but forgivable considering the historical link between the ancient Britons and the Welsh(Caratacos = Caradog and so on). I think one of the reasons is the dearth of historical names, especially female, for some of the factions in the game. Then again if the Britons would have had names like Edward, Paul or John it would have been extremely annoying.

[Twido]

Historical accuracy in Rome II is just fine. CA repeadetly stated TW isnt meant to be historical simulation. Its way way better than Rome 1. There is alredy couple of mods that will have historical accuracy as main goal, for those who want to go extreme on that. For casual player Rome 2 is just fine on matter of historical accuracy.

I have never bought this argument. CA can say it is not a military simulation until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that their game simulates military engagements on the battlefield. The question really should be is it an accurate military simulation? CA can then say that it is not trying to be a 100% accurate simulation and that is fine.

If historical accuracy could be measured on a sliding scale then personally I would prefer it to be given a nudge or two over to the more historically accurate end of the scale. When making decisions, CA should constantly be asking what the game gains by moving away from the historical and what it loses. Many recent changes don't seem to gain anything by stepping away from what is accurate.

[Suren-Pahlav]

I'm playing as Parthia and names don't bother me at all. but Parthian horse archers and also other archers are extremely weak, a balance for factions would be good.

[Rittsy]

they failed, grossly.
parts of this game is not even historically plausible, in my opinion.

Okay. I would disagree with you there. I think the failure is on an AI and technical side rather than the atmosphere.

Rome 2 is not accurate nor authentic. It's a 1960's swords and sandals movie, complete with shirtless, hairy men riding around in chariots.

It's an improvement over the other games in the series; and arguably the majority of video games and films currently on the market which attempt to portray this period. Again, I think the main flaws in this game are technical, not atmospheric.

[DramaBelli]

your is not obsession, is passion. Agree with the "old chap" Brigadier, despite the fact Total war games are surely not an historical accurate virtual reehnactment, a guideline in several parts of the game should be followed with some simple principles. Otherwise, as Steph said, this is a good job for modders and I would add, not only people's names are immersive and important but also historical unit names of every fsction in local Language everytime this is possible. Tha fact is that now, confronting to many structural issues this is a not remarkable option (even though a great feature).

[adrastea]

It's an improvement over the other games in the series; and arguably the majority of video games and films currently on the market which attempt to portray this period. Again, I think the main flaws in this game are technical, not atmospheric.

Most movies and TV series would portray Polybian legionaries with Imperial helms and Lorica Segmentata. At least in R2TW they are equipped with Montefortino helms and pectorale plates/Lorica Hamata.

[Duncan III]

CA do not consult any historians, Jack and Will get it off Wikipedia. That's obvious guys.

[zonks40]

The thing that gets me is they want to recreate a game set in the Roman era, on one side they go for as much realism as possible, and that is graphically, they want the soldiers, battlefields and buildings to look as realistic as possible.
Yet on the other end you have the actual historical setting it's self suffering from very little effort at all.

To me, saying "we are not going to make it historically accurate" doesn't make much sense, if you are going to add something to the game, it would be no more effort to do it right as to do it wrong.

[raest]

I don't mind if Parthians have Babylonian or Assyrian names like Tigleth-Pileser or Assurbanipal, but I would mind if they were called Jeremy or Robert. I remember in the original Rome the Britons had Welsh names like Geraint mixed in with genuine ancient British names like Cunobelin or Caratacos. This was slightly distracting but forgivable considering the historical link between the ancient Britons and the Welsh(Caratacos = Caradog and so on). I think one of the reasons is the dearth of historical names, especially female, for some of the factions in the game. Then again if the Britons would have had names like Edward, Paul or John it would have been extremely annoying.

isn't that kinda hypocritical (i'm not quite sure it's the right word, but hopefully you get my point)? you're basically saying it's "a-ok" to use wrong names for faction X because (paraphrasing/interpreting) "they were in the general area centuries before and not many are familiar with the distinctions", but it's not ok to use modern "mainstream" names because... everybody would recognise them as "modern" (or something of the sort)?