Sponsored By: BuddyMapper.com

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) :: Under Construction

Technical Issues

This section of the FAQ is dedicated solely to common technical issues that arise with Rome: Total Realism. For justification for game changes and some historical arguments please scroll down below to the Justification for Game Changes (previously known as the "Realism Papers") section.

1. At the New Game screen all the options are grayed out besides Prologue and when I try to run the Prologue my game crashes!

This is one of the most common problems experienced with Rome: Total Realism and is also the easiest to fix. Whats happening is, the game is detecting that it is your first time running the game and thus defaults to Prologue mode. In order to unlock the other game options and 'trick' your game into working follow these simple steps:

  • Browse to C:\Program Files\Activision\Rome - Total War or your Rome: Total War installation directory.
  • Open preferences.txt - it should automatically open with NotePad but if it does not right click on it and select "open with" and then once prompted, select NotePad from the list of avalible applications.
  • Scroll down to line 58 where it reads FIRST_TIME_PLAY:TRUE and change it to FIRST_TIME_PLAY:FALSE . Save the file.
  • Play Rome: Total Realism. Remember to select "Provincial Campaign."

>> Back to Top

Does any version other then 5.2 work with a Rome: Total War 1.2 installation?

No. We offer no support for patching old versions of our mod (5.1 and prior) over a Rome: Total War 1.2 installation. Although some elements of the modification may still work, you may run into a indefinite ammount of crashes, unconfirmed bugs and balancing issues. Namely, the combat in 5.1 was tailored for a game which still had the primary attack bug and will be extremely unpredictable and unbalanced.

>> Back to Top

3. When trying to download Rome: Total Realism the download becomes corrupt (it stops at x% or gives me file errors when I try to extract)!

This is a common problem reported on the forums, although the team ourselves have never run into it. We reccomend using a free download resume program such as Getright in conjunction with Internet Explorer or simply using a WC3 standards browser which has download resume supported such as Firefox or Opera.

>> Back to Top

4. My game crashes to my desktop when I try to play a Provincial Campaign!

Also a very common bug. Please make sure you have succesfully installed Rome: Total Realism before continuing. If your Rome: Total War was not properly patched before installing Rome: Total Realism you will also get this problem. If your still experiencing this problem, this bug often occurs due to your map.rwm file not being properly removed. Since 5.0 our installers have automatically removed the file but its possible that deletion of the file was blocked by anti-virus software or security settings. Do not fear, we can manually remove the file using these simple directions:

  • Browse to C:\Program Files\Activision\Rome - Total War\Data\world\maps\campaign\rome_total_realism
  • Select the map.rwm file (may also be called simply "map") and right click on it, select delete, confirm delete.
  • Run Rome: Total Realism. Please note that it will take substantially longer to load your first campaign after deleting the map.rwm file, as this file is reconstructed.

>> Back to Top

5. Can I uninstall Rome: Total Realism? I want to play the vanilla campaign!

The only way to play the "vanilla" (Rome: Total War Standard) campaign is to backup your /data directory( C:\Program Files\Activision\Rome - Total War\Data) BEFORE installation and swap it with the data directory you have Rome: Total Realism installed on when you want to play. Likewise, if you would like to uninstall Rome: Total War you MUST have a clean data 'folder' backed up to replace the modified one with, otherwise there is no way to uninstall Rome: Total Realism. Rome: Total Realism overwrites many files in the /data directory upon installation, this is why you cannot uninstall it as you would a regular PC game. Please backup files to save yourself a headache!

>> Back to Top

6. Can I use a old saved game with a new version of Rome: Total Realism?

The simplest answer is no. Although you can theortically play saved games of versions in which we did not modify the campaign map, if there is even the slightest map change, you will result in crashes and unpredictable behavior.

>> Back to Top

7. Can I play the Imperial Campaign or Prologue?

No. Rome: Total Realism's campaign has disabled both the Imperial Campaign and Prologue. To play Rome: Total Realism please select "Provincial Campaign" from the game menu- the other modes simply are no longer supported. We may look into re-enabling them in the future, but as of now, no reason to.

There is a relatively easy way to retain access to the Imperial Campaign and still install RTR.

1. Prior to installing RTR , make a copy of the Data folder in your RTW directory. Just copy and paste the entire folder so you end up with "Copy of Data".
2. Install RTR.

Now when you run RTW you will be able to play RTR as a Provincial Campaign but will not have access to the Imperial Campaign. When you want to switch...

3. In you RTW directory rename "Data" to "RTR Data".
4. Rename "Copy of Data" to "Data".

Now when you run RTW you will be able to play the Imperial Campaign but will not have access to RTR.

5. Switch back and forth as needed by renaming the Data folders.

>> Back to Top

Justification for Game Changes (previously known as the "Realism Papers")

This section addresses numerous elements of the mod's design which supposedly detract from historical realism. These elements are defended by research, historical documentation and logic to clarify the historical authenticity of Rome: Total Realism. The content present here may change at any time. None of the information compiled here may be valid and is not meant to be considered canon. If there is a glaring historical inaccuracy here or you have more evidence to support what is being said, please contact us. Since these arguments were also written on the fly, some spelling errors may be observed.

1. Why there are "immortal" elephants in southern Italy during the beginning of the game?

Actually, there were "immortal" elephants led by the graecian armies in southern italia- they were the primary reason Pyrhus managed to defeat the Romans at Heraclea. The romans also thought them to be immortal (or at least unstoppable) and although having heard about elephants from the hellenic campaigns in the east- this was the first time they encountered them. Only at Asculum did the Romans have the first bits of success at repelling elephants (using ox-drawn chariots with blades attached to them and flaming pots) and they did not MASTER elephant counter-combat until zama.

The African war elephants (Which Greece/Carthage and Egypt would be using) for example were smaller then their indo-asian equivalents, had a square shaped skull, and were unable to support a firing tower upon their backs, only a rider and perhaps an archer or two were supported. The ancients rarely used the BUSH elephant which was tempramental, and instead used the smaller forest elephant type. Only 6-8 feet in height, these are the elephants which made up the mainstray of Hannibal's forces and were found at the base of the Atlas mountains. The interpretation of Hannibal with giant elephants was flawed- he is not noted as having asian war elephants amongst his forces, although he probably had a few (at least one, which was his personal mount before he crossed over into the alps).

The asian elephants on the other hand (Which the greece/parthians/seleucids/pontus/scythians etc would be using) were larger and had a conical shaped skull, they could be fully armored (and often were) in scale, banded, leather or padded armor. They supported firing towers and a rider. They were massive, some as tall as 15 or 16 feet and could shatter lines apart. They were distinctive from their African brothers in size, usage, apperance and combat readiness.

>> Back to Top

2. 5.0 and the neo-Rome: Total Realism Team is the bane of all historical reasoning!

Some believe that we are attempting to make the game less historically accurate for the sake of gameplay. This simply cannot be farther then the truth. Every single change we make, how remote, is argued over by the entire team to verify its historical realism. I am the most hated man in the team because of it. You will often hear me saying "Nope, that isn't going to work, its not historically accurate" or "The Seleucids didn't control Taxila in 280 BC," often to the dismay of my code monkeys who have to actually deal with making the changes. We sparing no expense here, everything we do is to further realism. I cant express this enough. It is very disheartening when I see someone claim the opposite.

There is also a small group of people who claim that we are not going in the direction that GJ (Gaius Julius) would have wanted. The bottom line is: There was many historical inaccuracies in Rome: Total Realism 4.0 that needed to be addressed. We are attempting to redefine our presence by having much more involvement with the community (especially on the forums) and directly communicating with many of you. We also have cleaned up and consolidated our resources and now actually work as a team instead of one man. We read every post on the forum- although we don't have the time to answer everyone. We believe that Rome: Total Realism is actually an extension of the community and you are all part of the project in one form or another. We want as much involvement with you as possible. We consider all critiques and suggestions before throwing them out or including them.

>> Back to Top

3. Expansion to the 'East'

The east map expansion we have included in 5.0 is crucial because the traditional map in stock Rome: Total War is very much cut short. The Seleucid Empire, which is featured in the game, for example, stretched to the Persian province of Arachosia in 280 BC and in the earlier era laid claim to the Indus river area. The Seleucid Empire also stretched north east to Bactria, the fringes of Hellenic influence, with the Indo-Scythians surrounding it. The Indo-Scythians and Saka Scythian regions are not featured in stock RTW due to the map being prematurely limited however the Scythians as a playable "nation" are. The Parthians were Indo-Persian people stemming from the regions at the mouth of the Caspian Sea (Persian "Parthava"), in Rome: Total War they control a cropped Saka Scythian area (Tribus Sakae) and the Seleucid (Persian) Media area. Historically, Parthia as a nation did not exist until the early 250s BC (and was a Seleucid dominion prior) in which it claimed soverignity to the crumbling Seleucid Empire (which by this time had lost Bactria, Arachosia, Gedrosia (and the other eastern Persian provinces beyond the Caspian)) but when it DID initially form, it was a small region between modern southern Turkimenistan and central Iran at the mouth of the Caspian. It never controlled any Saka Scythian areas such as "Tribus Sakae" (especially not in 270 BC in which the nation of Parthia did not even exist).

The "Eastern" lands were very much not only geographical locations in which the nations present in stock R:TW controlled but they were also areas of military and political importance. If we limit ourselves to the Vanilla RTW map, we are denying huge parts of history like they didn't even exist. Are we to think that all the nations in R:TW forgot about the Persian provinces in the east? Although the Hellenic world had little contact with China (as far as military campaigns goes, for Buddhism and other cultural impacts were felt even before Alexander's day), it not only warred in the eastern Persian provinces but also claimed them! By limiting ourselves to modern Western Iran (As is in stock R:TW) map, we are suggesting that those areas did not exist and the nations present in Rome: Total War never interacted with them. This is not the case and cannot be argued otherwise. CA picked a arbitrary line of longitude and said "hey, this will work best for our work quotas."

>> Back to Top

4. On Unified Rome

You cant get more unrealistic than vanilla RTW! The three families (which didn't exist in the context the game places upon them in that they were broad ethnic groups which controlled regions) basically administer indepedent nations, much like the satraps of the hellenic empire. If this were to happen historically, Rome, much like the hellenic east, would have been constantly at war and corruption would run rampant. The bottom line is this: The Roman republic never even remotely resembled vanilla RTW, not even a semblance of resemblance.

Historically the senate controlled everything, indepedent family members could at most become consul or pro-consul of a province, but they never controlled large tracts of land. The senate elected men by popular vote to govern certain areas of the empire- there was never a monarchial transcendence as observed in RTW. The Romans broke free of such nonsense- from King Tarquin and to suggest that a consul's son would lay claim to a massive geographical tract(as a heir) is ABSURDITY at its BEST. This notion suggests that the Romans had indepdent kings (satraps) for a loosely bound confederation of empires much like, if not identical, to the hellenic east. This simply is not historically relevant.

Unified Rome does several things:

  • Historically accurate Roman presence in Italia (the romans did not control the entire region when the game starts and were still a fledgling contendor to carthage in the mediterranean, the gauls in europa and macedon in the east).
  • Graecian presence in italia (which for some reason magically did not appear in RTW) including Pyrrhus. The conflcit between Pyrrhus and the Romans plays out so well- the romans are nearly obliterated but manage to capture Magna Graeca eventually, exactly as it was in history. The slim triumph over Pyrrhus really established them as a world presence- which solidified in the battle of Pydna against Macedon some years later.
  • Carthage at its height- a massive maritime presence that dominated the mediterranean trade. The carthagians are however reluctant/unable to capture Italia just yet.
  • A expanded Gaul threat and presence in northern italia, the Gauls have a serious possibility of whiping out Rome after or before they face pyrrhus (keep in mind Brennus did sack rome during this period).
  • A bigger emphasis on politics (especially in using diplomats to bribe armies away from roman cities) and mercenaries in the beginning of the game and divide and conquer in the late game- exactly as it was historically.
  • A disembodied senate, no longer is it a nation but simply a political presence.
  • A more realistic tactical presence, the romans can no longer attack 5 foes at once and expect to survive. Since the romans are also unified, they will send reinforcements across the empire to reinforce distant lands and recapture lost cities. They fight more logically. The strains of maintaing a vast empire is more apparent as reliable family members are seldom avalible, funds decrease (as more territory is gained) and garrisons are pulled more and moreso to distant lands.
  • Playing the romans in the beginning is fairly dangerous- but as the empire grows it will begin to consolidate power and distant fringe barbarian tribes will become the main threat (Exactly like it was historically).
  • More realistic civil war, a quick violent takeover instead of a trans-continental world war.

There is no historical evidence to support that any family ever controlled any region beyond a province. By the time Gaius Julius was consolidating power in Gaul there was a TRIUMVIRATE- a little different then a republic, and thats a late game thing. The romans did not operate politically as families, they operated as individuals. You will never see all of gaul's provincial consuls being related by family. The idea of family dynasty is a helleno-persian thing- it has NO historical relevance to rtw.

It is historically feasible (not accurate, since its impossible to make it historically accurate) to have unified rome however. Each "Family member"(which in unified rome are not always family members, but really members of the senate) who control a province act as provincial magistrates. You, the player (or your "Faction leader"), act as a consul- the republican head of military. The consul was much like the president is today, leader of the armed forces.

In an ideal world- there would be hundreds of families and individuals who would run for senate positions. Historically provincial pro-consuls didn't have a large standing army, they had to LEVY troops. In the roman world up to the imperial timeframe, all troops had to be levied directly from the senate. There are games out there which seek to emulate this sort of historical realism but it turns into a game of politics- not a game of warfare. Simply put, there is no way around unified rome, this is a REALISM MOD and having 3 dynastic families is simply absurd... there is no historical relevance.

The civil war was not trans-continental, there never was fronts or whatever- it was a couple of bloody battles, there never was consolidation of the other factions lands because factions never existed. It was 3 men and their personal armies fighting over control of Rome. In the game the three families (which didn't exist) have to be conquered all the way into scythia, ever single province, HOW ABSURD. This is a realism mod.

This is very basic roman history stuff, read the history on our site.

It does not say "Then gaius julius went on a massive military campaign to conquer every province the scipii (who did not exist) held to every corner of the known world" or "Gaius finally made it to the fringes of india, the brutii's last stronghold of resistance" These factions did not exist- simply as that, the roman republic did not break apart into 3 kingdoms or nations when the civil war happened- it was very much unified. It was men with their personal armies that decided the civil war- Gaius took his war hardened veterans from gaul who had more alliegance to him then the distant senate and marched on rome, simple as that. He never conquered all of the roman lands, that is ABSURDITY at its BEST. Not even historically feasible.

As an additional note- many of the other factions in RTW should be divided if Rome is to be. Carthage also had a senate and operated politically basically identically to the Romans. Carthagian statesmen had to levy troops, had to propose military actions to the senate an then act on them. Hannibal never controlled a empire- he was a elected general (later he would claim/be granted control as a imperator but there was still provinical magistrates). It was simply impossible then for one man to control everything, so each province had a magistrate/governor who had sub-governors and captains.

All of the barbarian tribes would be broken up- there never was a britonic unified empire up until the United Kingdom. The gauls controlled a brief empire for about a decade but were eventually obliterated by Rome (And this was later, near the times of the Roman empire). The germans never held large unified empires until the late roman empires when the Goths, Germans and Saxons started really solidifying into nations (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks etc). The sarmatians never had a king and were a nomadic people, divided into local tribes and chiefdoms. The Thracians and Dacians are the same.

The Numidians should be divided into eastern and western numidia- these two regions were HIGHLY unique, including culture, seperate kings and people.

The Parthians were nomadic horsepeople (just like the sarmatians) that from time to time were bullied into following a king, at several points in history actually consolidating kingdoms.d

As you can see, creative assembly created historically feasible factions, since its impossible to make a truly historically accurate game (Without it turning into a politics fest)- they created rome into three factions because they wanted them uber enough to expand to arabia by the end of the game. SImple as that.

When Rome was on the brink of destruction, Hannibal could have very well changed the course of history as we know it. Catholicism never would have formed, the Vatican would not exist, and thus the reformation would never happen, the renaissance would never happen (our modern world would never happen)- I think the Punic Wars are the most pivotal wars *ever* fought and should be depicted correctly.

When Hannibal crossed down from the alps, do you really think the romans were out invading far off lands as if Hannibal was just a little nuisance? No, they were attempting with 11 legions (their entire army was attempting to kick him out of italy besides Scipio Publicanus with about 40,000 troops attacking Carthago Novo and other Punic cities in Iberia), to push Hannibal out of the italian pennisula. Hannibal destroyed four entire proconsual armies and dozens of flights (the traditional ancient term for regiment) before he was recalled to North Africa. Rome could have and should have been destroyed. It is just basically luck and good decisions on the roman dicators part to cut off Hasdrubal before he could meet Hannibal. If Hasdrubal would have met Hannibal, Rome would have been sacked and all the italian allies would have immediatly switched alliegances to Hannibal.

I dont think the "Factions" would be off in Gaul or in the east while their homeland was being destroyed.

>> Back to Top

5. Combat and supposed "gameplay balancing"

Whenever we change unit stats, its not to balance the game, its to make it historically accurate. We often refer to it as "unit balancing" to save our fingers. Rest assured, whenever something changes, it changes for a reason. Time and time again we have heard criticism about how certain units react in combat - although they may be historically inaccurate or simply bugged (as in 5.0 with the primary attack bug), we are trying our best in the builds to come to make them react exactly as they would in real life. We use historical documents and real world hands on experience to formulate the stat changes in a relative manner. Here is just one example of what we have changed:

There is a general consensus in the scholastic world that the typical slinger was superior to the western bowman in the ancient world. The eastern armies used reflex or composite bows, which were vastly superior to the western "Basic" Bow (which used a stiff construction, unlike the composite bow which used flexible bone as a midlayer). Basically the western bowmen are the worst ranged unit (and it should be like this, its historically accurate). Then come the slingers and eastern bowmen - which is a tradeoff. The slingers are much more deadly (as far as concussive damage goes) but are worthless in defending cities, they also use wide formations and are clumsily deployed on the field. The eastern bowmen can fire in tightly packed, strategic columns and as infantry, are superior defenders. Then comes the eastern mounted bow units, which obviously have a massive superiority due to mobility and the ability to fire a volley directly in back of them while moving (the "parthian shot"). As a unit, they will produce less damage output, but their mobility and the nature of their fire is a trade off. A parthian horse unit for example could ride directly up to a enemy line (in which any slingers supporting that army would be forced to hold their fire or cause friendly casualties) and at the last second let lose a volley of arrows and retreat without even touching the infantry. A skilled commander could have multiple waves of hit and run tactics to decimate a infantry force of slingers and traditional heavy soldiers before the slingers could have any time to respond. This is exactly what the Parthians did against the romans at carrhae .

The western armies of europe do not have mounted bow cavalry units because the western bow was INFLEXIBLE, you could not ride a horse and draw a shot at the same time. When using a western bow, the extent of a man's strength could not be utilized due to this rigid nature, and range and damage suffered.

The slingers were a vastly inferior unit in RTW - a glaring historical inaccuracy. The eastern bow units were also stastically inferior to the western bow units, this is simply not accurate. In RTR we boosted the abilities of slinger units and eastern bowmen, making the western bow units the inferior ones! In real combat archers were NEVER used to decimate a enemy force (unless your army composition was predicated on deploying of bow units, such as the steppes people), they were also used as a long range screening force, to pepper and weaken the enemy before a charge. It was more often then not that the bow units would lower morale rather then cause heavy casualties - and it does this in RTR.

>> Back to Top

6. Alternative Generals

In Rome: Total Realism we have attempted to adapt the most common bodyguard units for our generals. We do not observe exceptions to the rule. For example just because Gaius Julius often rode into battle with Gallic mercenaries, this does not mean every Roman commander did so. In fact the typical Roman commander would ride to the site of the battle on horse (like many officers of any army) then dismount and join the patrician infantry (triarii) at the rear of a Roman battle formation. Before the Praetorian was a state cohort unit, many households, individuals and families went into battle with pre-Praetorian units. By the time of the Marius reforms the Praetorian was a standard for Roman generals as bodyguards and its likely they situated themselves in the back of the formation just as they did along Rome's nobles before the reforms. They still rode to the site of the battle, as said before, on horse. This does not mean they fought on horse. Their needs to be a distinction made here - how officers/generals got to the site/retreated and how they fought whilst actually at it.

Alexander the Great (and his father) revolutionized Hellenic combat. Not only was phalangite formations being used more and more, as were use of auxiliary and support units, but also heavy cavalry in the form of companions (cleruch in ptolemey's empire). We have signifigant historical evidence to support that the succesors (Diadochi) rode into battle with such units in one form or another. They would often array their slow moving pike phalangites (with support infantry in front and back) and then flank with powerful charges using their heavy cavalry - which was ussualy led by the general himself! This was a tradition established by Alexander. Horse charges are unknown in the roman world and are pretty much uniquely Hellenic. Of course, we are generalizing here- I'm sure a couple of Roman generals partook in cavalry charges or had cavalry bodyguards units- but that does not matter, we are adressing the majority.

The greek city states on the other hand lost again and again to the forces of Macedonia due to their revolutionary battle tactics. The greeks would array a vast multi-lined army of spear wielding hoplite warriors bound to their local lords by allegiance. Each greek officer would personally join battle with his men, including the commander (which was ussualy a king elected himself and not a "general"), in hoplite formation. This was important because the men arrayed before the enemy were not soldiers (A professional infantryman who is paid a salary to fight), they were warriors (nobles/rich who supplied their own equipment and fought for a unofficial sum or no sum at all) and thus needed the support of their commanders in the field. It was common for the commander of a greek army to form "infantry companion" units, hoplite units comprised of the region's nobles who were personal friends and associates of the general in question. Once again, the Greek generals probably came to and fled from the site of battle on horse, but there is no evidence that the majority of city states generals adopted the Macedonian style of cavalry charges/bodyguard units.

I could go on and on but I think you get the point. Make the distinction between how they got to the field and how they actually fought once there.

7. Additional provinces and settlements

This really ties in with why we expanded the map to the east. In stock Rome: Total War there is simply too few provinces, and domination of a region is too simply done. The Italian mainland was not controlled by Rome at the time of the game start as suggested in vanilla RTW - only central italia was in their dominion. They still had to conquer etruria, the remaining latin states, samnium, compania and lucania as well as magna graeca (the southern greek cities of tarentum and croton). Rome was but a small republic, fragile (nearly whiped out by Pyrrhus) but promising. They had already proved themselves by defeating the samnites and gauls, now Pyrrhus was in their crosshairs. Only by 260 BC had most of italia come under Roman control. This level of conquest is impossible in stock RTW because several important regions are excluded.

The level of complexity in vanilla is simply unacceptable. Especially in regards to Europe, which was a quilt of small, tribal regions, each with significant resistance to Roman occupation. This is effectively displayed in the RTR 5.0 map - in which conquering Europe is much more in depth and difficult then it would have been in the typical game. As a rule of thumb, a province should never be more then a few hundred miles. The Roman system of administration relied on small provinces to prevent corruption and seisure of power by a single man.

>> Back to Top

8. Why SPQR units have purple dyed clothing

It was common for SPQR cohort units (You will notice that the "Armies" outside of rome are not actually armies, just the heads of senate positions with cohort bodyguards) to utilize purple banners and dyes. It is a common historical inaccuracy that the rest of the army was died red, in all historical truth they probably wore gray or off-white tunics with brown belts, with perhaps painted shields and bronze or iron helmets. However, the SPQR cohorts were well known for their affinity to the color purple- and many historians speculate their units did use purple dyes.

>> Back to Top

Copyright © 2004 Rome: Total Realism and RomeTotalRealism.com - All Rights Reserved