Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

A viking invasion remake as a new dlc?

PERICLES1789PERICLES1789 Junior MemberPosts: 47Registered Users
Hi,

The time being Viking Invasion was enjoyable as Medieval 1 add-on. Carlo Magnus was very welcome for many Attila fans.
Would'nt a new dlc/patch be possible with a Viking Invasion remake? Or even a stand-alone?
What do you think?

Comments

  • TheBraveKnightTheBraveKnight Senior Member Posts: 1,632Registered Users
    I absolutely agree! Viking Invasion was a lot of fun in Medieval 1 as it is also one of my favorite events in history. I thought we would have something similar in AoC but the Dane AI were as passive as doves in that campaign.
    Total War Top 5 List
    1) Warhammer - Steel Faith Overhaul
    2) Attila - Fall of the Eagles mod and AoC
    3) Shogun 2
    4) Napoleon
    5) Medieval 1 - Nailed the dark atmosphere with memorable soundtrack and a unique art style. Also loved the trait system and general stats.

  • frozenmenbgfrozenmenbg Senior Member Posts: 716Registered Users
    Attila already got 2 Viking DLCs... and you want a 3rd DLC.... jesus
    This is my +FrozenmenBG+'s Collector's Rome 2 Overhaul Mod Pack Edition In top 8 Highest voted Mod compilations for Rome 2 in the Steam Workshop.

    Check out The Barbarian Invasions - Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign with 8 New Starting dates(395ad-681ad) mod coming soon to TW: Attila. It adds several new factions to the game with their unique rosters .
  • FedorFedor Junior Member Posts: 129Registered Users
    There are plenty of different viking games nowadays. I'd prefer any other DLC. For example rise of Islam. That is hot theme in modern world. I think it would be interesting to many people, no matter what side player would choose, and promise good sales all over the world.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 358Registered Users
    AoC already covers the Viking era. I guess they could focus only on the British Isles, like they did in the Viking Invasion, in M:TW, but it's still pretty much the same.
  • MrYellowMrYellow Member Posts: 125Registered Users

    Attila already got 2 Viking DLCs... and you want a 3rd DLC.... jesus

    This.

    And the first one was totally worthless and unnessesary. They should have saved it for AoC and made something bigger out of it.
    "Forged by Fire; Empowered by Passion"


    ¤ ANTI PRE-ORDER AND DAY 1 DLC MOVEMENT ¤
  • DariosDarios Senior Member Posts: 248Registered Users

    Attila already got 2 Viking DLCs... and you want a 3rd DLC.... jesus

    It amazes me that after "Vikings Forefathers" and AoC, people are still demanding VIKINGS!! when you have the most amazing and perfect DLC idea for a game based on late antiquity right there in front of you - Rise of Islam.

    Especially considering how all of Attila's mini-campaign have focused on the West. Let's move on to other theatres please...
  • DemcikDemcik Posts: 58Registered Users
    Darios said:


    It amazes me that after "Vikings Forefathers" and AoC, people are still demanding VIKINGS!! when you have the most amazing and perfect DLC idea for a game based on late antiquity right there in front of you - Rise of Islam.

    Especially considering how all of Attila's mini-campaign have focused on the West. Let's move on to other theatres please...

    Amen to that. People generally got overhyped when heard about possible upcoming content for Attila, some even wanted something more medievalish or Mesoamerican...this is especially strange, knowing CA unwillingness to create new settlement/battlemaps (AoC was really the last time they could use existing schemes from Attila GC) which would be vital for such content. Rise of Islam is way to go (though controversial, and thus probably will not happen).
  • petertel123petertel123 Junior Member Posts: 317Registered Users
    Fedor said:

    There are plenty of different viking games nowadays. I'd prefer any other DLC. For example rise of Islam. That is hot theme in modern world. I think it would be interesting to many people, no matter what side player would choose, and promise good sales all over the world.

    That would be difficult though, because it would require depicting the prophet, which is generally frowned upon by most muslims.
    Also, that expansion is gonna be pretty controversial, depending on how the muslims are depicted (enlightened rulers, bloodthirsty conquerers?).
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Dark Elves
  • FedorFedor Junior Member Posts: 129Registered Users

    Fedor said:

    There are plenty of different viking games nowadays. I'd prefer any other DLC. For example rise of Islam. That is hot theme in modern world. I think it would be interesting to many people, no matter what side player would choose, and promise good sales all over the world.

    That would be difficult though, because it would require depicting the prophet, which is generally frowned upon by most muslims.
    Also, that expansion is gonna be pretty controversial, depending on how the muslims are depicted (enlightened rulers, bloodthirsty conquerers?).
    Start date could be right after prophet death. Or even during his life, where player would lead one of the factions without prophet arive personally. Enlightened or bloodthisrty - player would choose by decisions he would make.
  • frozenmenbgfrozenmenbg Senior Member Posts: 716Registered Users
    Fedor said:

    Fedor said:

    There are plenty of different viking games nowadays. I'd prefer any other DLC. For example rise of Islam. That is hot theme in modern world. I think it would be interesting to many people, no matter what side player would choose, and promise good sales all over the world.

    That would be difficult though, because it would require depicting the prophet, which is generally frowned upon by most muslims.
    Also, that expansion is gonna be pretty controversial, depending on how the muslims are depicted (enlightened rulers, bloodthirsty conquerers?).
    Start date could be right after prophet death. Or even during his life, where player would lead one of the factions without prophet arive personally. Enlightened or bloodthisrty - player would choose by decisions he would make.
    634ad is the best starting date for all parties .- the best compromise
    This is my +FrozenmenBG+'s Collector's Rome 2 Overhaul Mod Pack Edition In top 8 Highest voted Mod compilations for Rome 2 in the Steam Workshop.

    Check out The Barbarian Invasions - Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign with 8 New Starting dates(395ad-681ad) mod coming soon to TW: Attila. It adds several new factions to the game with their unique rosters .
  • DariosDarios Senior Member Posts: 248Registered Users
    edited April 20
    I fail to see what would be the big deal about a campaign starting in AD 634. You don't have to depict the Arabs as either enlightened or bloodthirsty - just depict them as one would any other faction in Total War games - normal people looking to expand their empire.

    Attila is a game that does such a great job in depicting religious/cultural conversion, Rise of Islam would be the perfect environment to take advantage of that.

    You have decaying superpowers like the Romans and Sassanids, heroes such as Herakleios and Khalid ibn al-Walid, factional/cultural diversity, as well as a wonderful story/subplots to tell (the Roman-Sassanid wars, historical battles such as Yarmouk, the Copts rising up against the Romans and aiding the Arabs in Egypt, Arab raids in Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean, etc)

    It would be nothing short of amazing...
  • DemcikDemcik Posts: 58Registered Users
    Well, in Muslim world (especiallly among the Arabs, which is obvious) these early successful conquests of Rashidun Caliphs/Umayyads are considered as blessing/granted by Allah himself. After all, the Arabs destroyed completely one superpower of the region, and grabbed the wealthiest and the most prestigious provinces of the other in less than 20 years. Thus, beating them back to the desert by ERE/Sassanids (not to mention minor players such as Berbers, Armenia, Makuria/Axum, Visigoths or some Hindu guys) still may seem insulting. This is why the topic is sensitive and fragile, even without depicting the Prophet. Personally, I would love to have such DLC, though because of reason mentioned above and some points you guys have touched, the chances are really low.

    Coming back to the thread, while I am definately against new Viking DLC, overhauling Viking Forefathers would be a different story...I mean, VF suffer from being the first DLC (or, if you prefer, cut-out content). IMO it is the worst Attilas' DLC. Any DLC which was released later added something new for a game (actually, these DLCs flashed out factions to the ridiculous point, where main players of the period like Romans or Vandals look boring and unimportant) like new religions, buildings, mechanics, quests, events, new cultures etc. VF in comparison, are simply bland. Reused Saxon roster with 6 new Norse units and 2 units unique for factions, no events, no unique story. Funny thing is, the Norse units from VF look far more advanced than units of Kingdom of the Danes, 400 years later...
  • DariosDarios Senior Member Posts: 248Registered Users
    Demcik said:

    Well, in Muslim world (especiallly among the Arabs, which is obvious) these early successful conquests of Rashidun Caliphs/Umayyads are considered as blessing/granted by Allah himself. After all, the Arabs destroyed completely one superpower of the region, and grabbed the wealthiest and the most prestigious provinces of the other in less than 20 years. Thus, beating them back to the desert by ERE/Sassanids (not to mention minor players such as Berbers, Armenia, Makuria/Axum, Visigoths or some Hindu guys) still may seem insulting. This is why the topic is sensitive and fragile, even without depicting the Prophet. Personally, I would love to have such DLC, though because of reason mentioned above and some points you guys have touched, the chances are really low.

    I think that we're reading too much into this. We already have Muslims fighting under the notion of holy war in AoC, and CA has never been shy about depicting Crusades/Jihads. If Muslims were to really get **** about depicting the Rashidun Caliphate, then why didn't get **** about depicting Pagan/Jewish Arabs (which probably comes off as "worse") in the Empires of Sand DLC? Furthermore, Medina has been depicted in the Grand Campaign (as Yathrib) from day one. No one seemed to care.

    Personally, I feel that Westerners have a way of "Orientalizing" what we feel might come off as offensive to non-Western cultures.
    Demcik said:

    Coming back to the thread, while I am definately against new Viking DLC, overhauling Viking Forefathers would be a different story...I mean, VF suffer from being the first DLC (or, if you prefer, cut-out content). IMO it is the worst Attilas' DLC. Any DLC which was released later added something new for a game (actually, these DLCs flashed out factions to the ridiculous point, where main players of the period like Romans or Vandals look boring and unimportant) like new religions, buildings, mechanics, quests, events, new cultures etc. VF in comparison, are simply bland. Reused Saxon roster with 6 new Norse units and 2 units unique for factions, no events, no unique story. Funny thing is, the Norse units from VF look far more advanced than units of Kingdom of the Danes, 400 years later...

    That is the way things work. Fans of VIKINGS! got to play as their favorite culture from Day 1. As a fan of the Slavs, I had to wait two years before I got to even see them depicted in the game. The fact that the Slavic factions are better done is the result of CA having two years to examine the market and to perfect their DLCs. I'm not a fan of Charlemagne (the historical figure) at all, but I have no problem with the fact that AoC is light years better than the TLR or the GC. Stuff that is released later is usually going to be much better, and that is a good thing. It shows that CA actually cares.

    It does suck that major factions like the Huns, Romans, Goths, and Vandals ended up getting really shafted and I would love to see them get improvements in line with the newer DLC factions, but the fanbase's obsession over minor factions such as the VIKINGS! (or SPARTANS! in Rome 2) comes off as very petty and we have ended up with some really **** and nonsensical DLC for both games as a result.
  • frozenmenbgfrozenmenbg Senior Member Posts: 716Registered Users
    Just to remind you guys:
    The Faction DLCs for Rome 2 and Attila were releaced in 3 months gap between themself and for the Campaign DLCs the gap was 6 months without mixing the Faction/Campaign DLCs...So counting from March 17 2017 expect something in June for the next Faction DLC or in September for the next Campaign DLC.This is my best prediction on the question ''When?''
    This is my +FrozenmenBG+'s Collector's Rome 2 Overhaul Mod Pack Edition In top 8 Highest voted Mod compilations for Rome 2 in the Steam Workshop.

    Check out The Barbarian Invasions - Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign with 8 New Starting dates(395ad-681ad) mod coming soon to TW: Attila. It adds several new factions to the game with their unique rosters .
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyPosts: 554Registered Users
    I still can't get that hype for your wannabe "rise of islam" dlc, a campaign centered in the middle east with basically 3 or 4 major factions that will probably end up destroying the ERE together. What's the point? Sassanids from the east, arabs from the south then who? Bulgars from the north-northwest maybe? Add some minor factions that will join the slaughter and that's your rise of islam campaign: just like an ordinary GC but with less factions and in a smaller map.

  • frozenmenbgfrozenmenbg Senior Member Posts: 716Registered Users
    edited April 22
    Bura89 said:

    I still can't get that hype for your wannabe "rise of islam" dlc, a campaign centered in the middle east with basically 3 or 4 major factions that will probably end up destroying the ERE together. What's the point? Sassanids from the east, arabs from the south then who? Bulgars from the north-northwest maybe? Add some minor factions that will join the slaughter and that's your rise of islam campaign: just like an ordinary GC but with less factions and in a smaller map.

    Well Total War Attila is all about the story of the end of the Antient era and the rise of the Medieval era.The Antient era ended in the West with the 5th century,but in the east it ended in the 7th century with the Invasion of the Arabs all to Spain,India,China.

    CA can add also China also in a Rise of Islam DLC.The Last Roman and AOC dlc focused about the West showed how from the ashes the Medieval period started but nothing about Eastern Europe,Middle east and so on. And another thing until the modders cant edit the Campaign map a Rise of Islam campaign DLC focused about the east will be perfect for Big mods like Medieval kingdoms 1212ad with the crusade/jihad in the Medieval Era or Antien Empires mod with a campaign about Alexander the Great.

    And what will give us another 3rd Viking DLC? Reskined from the AOC and VF DLCs units with an invasion of Britain? Just like in Medieval 1? Nobody will play that for sure only because the all barbarian factions everywhere on the Campaign map with low replay value like the last roman DLC with the barbarian factions if we ignore the Roman Expedition faction.
    This is my +FrozenmenBG+'s Collector's Rome 2 Overhaul Mod Pack Edition In top 8 Highest voted Mod compilations for Rome 2 in the Steam Workshop.

    Check out The Barbarian Invasions - Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign with 8 New Starting dates(395ad-681ad) mod coming soon to TW: Attila. It adds several new factions to the game with their unique rosters .
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyPosts: 554Registered Users

    CA can add also China also in a Rise of Islam DLC.

    Very unlikely. Too much effort for a DLC, that's why I'd prefer a standalone game.

  • DemcikDemcik Posts: 58Registered Users
    edited April 22
    Bura89 said:

    a campaign centered in the middle east with basically 3 or 4 major factions that will probably end up destroying the ERE together.

    You have touched a very important thing, my friend. My biggest concern about that campaign would be unrealistic and ahistorical AI behaviour due to the fact, that CA is mostly reusing existing patterns. If factions like Sassanids, Arabs, Berbers and Caucasus people were in-game marked as 'Eastern", then they would be more prone to fight with common foe from other culture, than fighting among themselves. That would lead to sad situation that ERE is steamrolled from every corner, without ability to defend itself. Buddy-buddy diplomatic system from GC would kill the immersion.
  • DariosDarios Senior Member Posts: 248Registered Users
    Bura89 said:

    I still can't get that hype for your wannabe "rise of islam" dlc, a campaign centered in the middle east with basically 3 or 4 major factions that will probably end up destroying the ERE together. What's the point? Sassanids from the east, arabs from the south then who? Bulgars from the north-northwest maybe? Add some minor factions that will join the slaughter and that's your rise of islam campaign: just like an ordinary GC but with less factions and in a smaller map.

    How would that be boring? You would have three major superpowers (Romans, Sasssanids, and Arabs) stemming from three different cultures. The Romans would be "powerful" but bisect with public order issues due to religious conflict, as well as general exhaustion due to its conflict with the Avari, Sclaveni, and Sasssanids. The Roman army would be the increasingly antiquated Justinian/Maurikian "late Roman army" that would also suffer from huge morale issues in battle, as its Eastern provinces were more than ready to defect to the Arabs. Perhaps later in the campaign they would be able to stem the tide by researching "Thematic armies" that would be more capable of fighting the Arabs.

    The Sassanids would be in an even worse position, having recently suffered a major defeat by Heraclius and the Khazars.

    The Arabs, on the other hand, would start off as small, but with excellent morale and the ability to defeat far larger Roman/Sasssanid armies (something similar to how the Romans were able to easily crush large Celtic armies in the "Caesar in Gaul" campaign due to the Gauls having atrocious morale.) They would also enjoy public order benefits in regions such as Syria and Egypt. Perhaps their only weakness would be dealing with "cold weather" in regions such as Thrace or the Caucasus.

    On the side, you would have factions such as Axum, the Avari, Sclaveni, Armenia, and the Khazars to add interesting wild cards into the conflict.

    Again I ask - how would that be boring? Especially considering that a majority of players would probably prefer to play as the Romans, and have a really difficult superpower to fight against.
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyPosts: 554Registered Users
    Darios said:

    The Romans would be "powerful" but bisect with public order issues due to religious conflict, as well as general exhaustion due to its conflict with the Avari, Sclaveni, and Sasssanids.

    As seen in the GC.
    Darios said:

    The Sassanids would be in an even worse position, having recently suffered a major defeat by Heraclius and the Khazars.

    Not that different from the actual GC, you got khazars instead of white huns.
    Darios said:

    The Roman army would suffer from huge morale issues in battle, as its Eastern provinces were more than ready to defect to the Arabs.
    The Arabs would start off with excellent morale and the ability to defeat far larger Roman/Sasssanid armies. They would also enjoy public order benefits in regions such as Syria and Egypt.

    That seems more like a campaign just meant to be played as arabs.
    Darios said:

    Again I ask - how would that be boring?

    I remain unconviced.

Sign In or Register to comment.