Rome: Total War Remastered

[baud]

I didn't realise that Feral apparently updated the Mac version of Medieval 2 to be 64 bit a couple of years ago.

It supposedly runs big mods with way better performance and stability.

I wish they'd done that for the Windows version as well.

For Mac, they didn't had a choice if they wanted the game to run on the latest version of the OS, right?

 

[Tacgnol]

I didn't realise that Feral apparently updated the Mac version of Medieval 2 to be 64 bit a couple of years ago.

It supposedly runs big mods with way better performance and stability.

I wish they'd done that for the Windows version as well.

For Mac, they didn't had a choice if they wanted the game to run on the latest version of the OS, right?

Yep, Apple dropped support for 32 bit apps a couple of years back.

 

[Shrimp]

I spent some time looking through the rest of the shill footage, and I'm wondering if this is a Scipii thing. Lionheart's Brutii footage didn't contain a single kang, but Simpzy's Scipii campaign also contained a bunch of random sub-saharan africans in both the hastatii and general's bodyguard right from the start of the game. Maybe Lionheart had disabled that feature or something though. I'm sure the truth will come out soon enough.

Supposedly the ethnicity of the individual soldiers within the units will depend on where the unit was recruited or retrained. Units recruited in northern regions will have white soldiers while the soldiers will get increasingly more tanned the further south you go. If half of a unit recruited in a northern region is wiped out and retrained in an African region the soldiers will be mixed. I have no idea if this is exclusive to the Roman factions or if it applies to all the factions in the game, nor do I have any idea how this affects the starting units.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

 

[Melcar]

SJW: Total War

 

[Theodora]

Same goes with the "Brutii" (plural would be Bruti, and here as well the famous Bruti from history were all from gens Junia). Maybe it is intentional, in order to create a-historical factions that sound like Latin but have no root in actual history.

Or at least I hope so.

I don't think so, given the gens 'Julia', 'Junia', and 'Cornelia' are playable in Rome 2, and analogous to the names in the original Rome.

 

[karoliner]

 

[Theodora]

I don't get people taking obvious bait like this seriously. Being outraged by historic fact is about as American as having a completely dead sense for satire and sarcasm, even terribly lowbrow sarcasm.

How do people fall for such banal, blatant troll posts?

 

[baud]

I think (or at least hope) the poster is trolling. Because if he's serious...

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

in (current year) the stupider the message is the more chances it's real.

 

[Rieser]

It was bait, though, as made evident in the thread itself.

 

[Fedora Master]

SJW: Total War

Already exists, in a sense.

 

[Theodora]

in (current year) the stupider the message is the more chances it's real.

You're letting yourself be baited far too easily. Clicking his profile is all it takes for a clear and obvious answer. But it doesn't even take that much effort.

 

[Brancaleone]

Same goes with the "Brutii" (plural would be Bruti, and here as well the famous Bruti from history were all from gens Junia). Maybe it is intentional, in order to create a-historical factions that sound like Latin but have no root in actual history.

Or at least I hope so.

I don't think so, given the gens 'Julia', 'Junia', and 'Cornelia' are playable in Rome 2, and analogous to the names in the original Rome.

That might just mean that in Rome 2 they decided to revert to a properly historical background.

 

[A horse of course]

 

[Storyfag]

Gods, I hate Gauls need my EB fix now. Where did I put that RTW CD?

 

[razvedchiki]

europa barbarorum 2 got updated to 2.35a.
just saying.

 

[oldmanpaco]

europa barbarorum 2 got updated to 2.35a.
just saying.

The sheer amount of Autism it takes to play EB2 is truly staggering.

 

[razvedchiki]

i take it you write about autism from a position of experience.

 

[Raghar]

People definitely did get around, but it's always a question about who these people were and where they went.
Apart from some Nubians fucking around in Egypt, you never had blacks interacting with whites in any major way until the 19th century's scramble for Africa, with some minor exceptions (black slaves in medieval and early modern muslim Arab countries, but they were a small minority; religious conversion efforts by Christian ans Muslim missionaries in African kingdoms in the middle ages), so that's why the whole negro soldiers in the Roman Republic is such an annoying thing.

It's kinda funny, from my calculation Egypt/Nubia interactions actually created a big road block in the east. From what I found, Nubians didn't wanted to migrate to Egypt because they'd be forced to work hard so Pharaoh would have bigger profits, and they are not stupid like Egyptians (white). They even managed to create awesome dog embalming skills, to show a dog mummy and claim it looks better than Pharaoh mummy. So there was quite a few reason against at that time rather technologically advanced Nubia citizens to Egypt. And an Egyptian migrating into Nubia would likely be enslaved and sold somewhere. (I actually never seen any article about Nubians and if they were willing to interbred with someone with different skin color.)
Sahara prevented mass migrations. Then something prevented migrations around west coast. Actually, did they enslaved immigrants and castrated them, or was there different reason? I know that around year 800 - 1000 Kongo area was depopulated by massive epidemic of infectious disease. Population pressure that would otherwise forced them into wars, and move large numbers of migrants into South Africa and europe, which was delayed because of that. But, I don't recall any attempt of mass migration from Africa during Roman era.

With pretty much every major population movement, we have at least a rough idea where they came from (even the Huns who are largely a mystery!)

Actually, I never seen proper materials about central Europe, and some other areas. Either I'm too poor and it's in some academic resources I don't have free access to, or I missed that. But, from what I learned when I wrote algorithms for proper simulation of let say states including epidemic research and population genetics. The only correct and valid resources are properly dated archaeogenetic samples.
Is that dead body with 93+ Avar genes? It's an Avar, not Roman, not czech, not saxon. From what I seen, historians have bad habit of saying, this person used this type of decoration on pots, it was be of this genetic/ethnic/culture. This person used this type of clothing, he must be from this culture.

Thus as a consequence, some of stuff what historians are calling migrations could be simply a propagation of technology, where existing populations learned it themselves.

Also, it has to be kept in mind that most of these people were Caucasian sub-races. Celts and Germans? They're paler and blonder than the Mediterraneans but other than that, they don't look too different from your average Roiman. North Africans? They look like more tanned Romans. Carthaginians are west semitic (Phoenician colony), and look pretty much like people in the Levant... and Syrians even today don't look too different from Europeans.

I actually dislike the idea of calling someone Caucasian. Genetics and population origins of are sharply different between "caucasians".

Really, when it comes to unit models you shouldn't be able to tell much of a difference when it comes to skin tone. Soldiers recruited in Africa should be more tan, yeah, but then when you send a German to Africa and let him serve there for 20 years he's gonna get tanned too.

You might get some noticeable skintone differences when you enter India, but the India that the ancients interacted with is northern India, which has always been the center of the Aryan Indian civilizations, while the dravidian south - where the brown people are - wasn't really in anyone's picture.

Even in the huge multicultural Persian Empire, subject populations were characterized through their hairstyles, clothing, and mannerisms rather than their skin tone or facial structure or anything.

In Roman ethnographic texts, whenever they encounter a people that is not Caucasian, they find their features to be so strange they have to mention them as something strange and foreign, like the descriptions of the Huns (which most Roman authors considered to be barely human).

Well there are differences. People are actually forgetting that heart is straining itself far less by pumping blood in short sturdy 167 tall 80 kg weighting person than with 190 tall 120 kg weighting person. The problem is the shorty could do menial work for 30 years and still be fine, the tall person would die on stroke. That's one difference between populations.

Another difference is in prevalence of malaria resistance between ancient age Mediterranean populations. A rampant malaria is recorded in Rome, and similar areas in late Roman empire. Mutation introduced anti-malaria genes were happening basically in the whole Mediterranean area. Now, of course populations in central and northern europe didn't have any. Anti-malaria resistance come with steep costs, there is decent chance it prevents high intelligence, but there are other rather nasty consequences.

It's actually kinda funny how large differences are between ORIGINAL European populations. Living in isolation helped genetic mutations to create different genetics.

And as for peak skin tanning. Some skin variants basically never tan. I remember I had 3rd degree burns from sunlight during childhood. And when I went outside during summer, I'm white between some brown people. I seen people having weird idea, whiter skin is result of an office job, when they would do field jobs, they would be equally tanned. That's actually not correct, max tan is dependent on genetic, and its especially common with noble genes, or when people have Celt ancestors. When a person could have 3rd degree burns from relatively weak summer sunlight, such person is fucked when it's sold as a white slave to countries like Rome, or Egypt. It's one reason why Celt population never settled in Italy or countries like Spain or Greece. Too much sunlight, especially in summer, and too few forests.

 

[A horse of course]

Average Yuropoor Boringorum fan:

 

[Commissar Draco]

People definitely did get around, but it's always a question about who these people were and where they went.
Apart from some Nubians fucking around in Egypt, you never had blacks interacting with whites in any major way until the 19th century's scramble for Africa, with some minor exceptions (black slaves in medieval and early modern muslim Arab countries, but they were a small minority; religious conversion efforts by Christian ans Muslim missionaries in African kingdoms in the middle ages), so that's why the whole negro soldiers in the Roman Republic is such an annoying thing.

It's kinda funny, from my calculation Egypt/Nubia interactions actually created a big road block in the east. From what I found, Nubians didn't wanted to migrate to Egypt because they'd be forced to work hard so Pharaoh would have bigger profits, and they are not stupid like Egyptians (white). They even managed to create awesome dog embalming skills, to show a dog mummy and claim it looks better than Pharaoh mummy. So there was quite a few reason against at that time rather technologically advanced Nubia citizens to Egypt. And an Egyptian migrating into Nubia would likely be enslaved and sold somewhere. (I actually never seen any article about Nubians and if they were willing to interbred with someone with different skin color.)
Sahara prevented mass migrations. Then something prevented migrations around west coast. Actually, did they enslaved immigrants and castrated them, or was there different reason? I know that around year 800 - 1000 Kongo area was depopulated by massive epidemic of infectious disease. Population pressure that would otherwise forced them into wars, and move large numbers of migrants into South Africa and europe, which was delayed because of that. But, I don't recall any attempt of mass migration from Africa during Roman era.

With pretty much every major population movement, we have at least a rough idea where they came from (even the Huns who are largely a mystery!)

Actually, I never seen proper materials about central Europe, and some other areas. Either I'm too poor and it's in some academic resources I don't have free access to, or I missed that. But, from what I learned when I wrote algorithms for proper simulation of let say states including epidemic research and population genetics. The only correct and valid resources are properly dated archaeogenetic samples.
Is that dead body with 93+ Avar genes? It's an Avar, not Roman, not czech, not saxon. From what I seen, historians have bad habit of saying, this person used this type of decoration on pots, it was be of this genetic/ethnic/culture. This person used this type of clothing, he must be from this culture.

Thus as a consequence, some of stuff what historians are calling migrations could be simply a propagation of technology, where existing populations learned it themselves.

Also, it has to be kept in mind that most of these people were Caucasian sub-races. Celts and Germans? They're paler and blonder than the Mediterraneans but other than that, they don't look too different from your average Roiman. North Africans? They look like more tanned Romans. Carthaginians are west semitic (Phoenician colony), and look pretty much like people in the Levant... and Syrians even today don't look too different from Europeans.

I actually dislike the idea of calling someone Caucasian. Genetics and population origins of are sharply different between "caucasians".

Really, when it comes to unit models you shouldn't be able to tell much of a difference when it comes to skin tone. Soldiers recruited in Africa should be more tan, yeah, but then when you send a German to Africa and let him serve there for 20 years he's gonna get tanned too.

You might get some noticeable skintone differences when you enter India, but the India that the ancients interacted with is northern India, which has always been the center of the Aryan Indian civilizations, while the dravidian south - where the brown people are - wasn't really in anyone's picture.

Even in the huge multicultural Persian Empire, subject populations were characterized through their hairstyles, clothing, and mannerisms rather than their skin tone or facial structure or anything.

In Roman ethnographic texts, whenever they encounter a people that is not Caucasian, they find their features to be so strange they have to mention them as something strange and foreign, like the descriptions of the Huns (which most Roman authors considered to be barely human).

Well there are differences. People are actually forgetting that heart is straining itself far less by pumping blood in short sturdy 167 tall 80 kg weighting person than with 190 tall 120 kg weighting person. The problem is the shorty could do menial work for 30 years and still be fine, the tall person would die on stroke. That's one difference between populations.

Another difference is in prevalence of malaria resistance between ancient age Mediterranean populations. A rampant malaria is recorded in Rome, and similar areas in late Roman empire. Mutation introduced anti-malaria genes were happening basically in the whole Mediterranean area. Now, of course populations in central and northern europe didn't have any. Anti-malaria resistance come with steep costs, there is decent chance it prevents high intelligence, but there are other rather nasty consequences.

It's actually kinda funny how large differences are between ORIGINAL European populations. Living in isolation helped genetic mutations to create different genetics.

And as for peak skin tanning. Some skin variants basically never tan. I remember I had 3rd degree burns from sunlight during childhood. And when I went outside during summer, I'm white between some brown people. I seen people having weird idea, whiter skin is result of an office job, when they would do field jobs, they would be equally tanned. That's actually not correct, max tan is dependent on genetic, and its especially common with noble genes, or when people have Celt ancestors. When a person could have 3rd degree burns from relatively weak summer sunlight, such person is fucked when it's sold as a white slave to countries like Rome, or Egypt. It's one reason why Celt population never settled in Italy or countries like Spain or Greece. Too much sunlight, especially in summer, and too few forests.

There were Celts settled in granted North of Spain, present day Lombardy and Romagna in Italy and Central Anatolia, but I know if you are Celtic (red haired) you will never got proper tan such slaves were exotic so Romans send them all to mines or brothels instead and worked more tanned Syrians, Greeks and Phoenicians on fields they were not stupid people. Nobles being more fair skinned and haired was common belief during French Revolution which lead to many of such people being prosecuted as well although how much Frank blood french had its Mystery I would say it was 5% most and blonde hair could come from Celts too, anyways there is Zero chance of Roman units being comprised of sub Saharan Africans the very few black which did found their way to Roman Legions were either Nubians and Ethiopians which are not pure negroids like Saint Maurice and legendary V Thebian Legion.

 

[Jugashvili]

Average Yuropoor Boringorum fan:

The worst part about Yuropoor Boringorum is that there was so much false information and outright fraud that made its way into their research that they gave up on fixing it even after the team acknowledged they had been hoodwinked. There was one guy in particular who spent years feeding them bullshit and even won "best historian" before it was revealed he was just making everything up.

 

[Tacgnol]

Average Yuropoor Boringorum fan:

The worst part about Yuropoor Boringorum is that there was so much false information and outright fraud that made its way into their research that they gave up on fixing it even after the team acknowledged they had been hoodwinked. There was one guy in particular who spent years feeding them bullshit and even won "best historian" before it was revealed he was just making everything up.

Oh yeah, Ranikagate.

I think Ranika got exposed when he started arguing with an Irish scholar about the spelling of Irish unit names, or at least that was one of the incidents that helped expose him anyhow.

 

[Jugashvili]

Oh yeah, Ranikagate.

I think Ranika got exposed when he started arguing with an Irish scholar about the spelling of Irish unit names, or at least that was one of the incidents that helped expose him anyhow.

Iirc the Irishman got dogpiled by passive-aggressive devs when he dared challenge the veracity of Ranika-sama's claims, eventually Ranika started to behave erratically, disappeared, came back claiming to be his cousin, and the whole thing was swept under the rug and those ludicrous "Cycle of Telam" quotes were quietly removed during an update. According to an EBII dev, however, the EBI team never got down to purging all of Ranika's fabrications from the Celtic rosters.