"Viking Invasion" ? ... ok ... but ...

[Draksen]

Hi all

I have read /heard about the upcomming MTW expansion, "Viking Invasion" (or something like that)

I know that it is probably too early to speak about that, but there is a little detail... mmm , in fact a BIG DETAIL, I hope they will not forget.
I hope they will not build the exp scenario just as the Mongol Invasion by adding viking attacks (random) on the English and French coast and enabling those vikings to conquers territories (just as the mongols do in STW:MI).

In the case of STWMI it was historically almost accurate and possible. But with vikings it is different. They have "conquered", I admit, some lands by alliances or politically : some provincies of England and Normandy, but that's all. It was NEVER a "territory invading" army. They were there only for pillage and gold.

Hope only (really hope) that the CA will not do this mistake. It would be as stupid as making a game like : Medieval Total War : The space alien Invasion. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

mmm... just thinking, nothing more.
Have a nice day.
Best regards,
Draksen

[TheViking]

Thats your opinion.

I think it would be cool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[rasoforos]

the space alien invasion idea is cool too :P)

[ShadesWolf]

I totally disagree.....

Historically..

Tbe is proof they landed in N.America and setup a settlement.
They settled Greenland
They ruled york in england for a number of years. Part of our history is about Dane law.
The Rus and Normans were of Viking decent..

Therefore, I would say were an invading conquering army.

Viking Trail (http://www.vikingtrail.org/)

Who were the vikings (http://www.viking.no/e/ewho.htm) The maps on this page are quite interesting

[Leet Eriksson]

they invaded north africa tooAlso they were goona take over North America if it were'nt for the skrealings.

[Draksen]

I disagree.

Vikings are not a nation ( I mean ONE nation)
They were clanic people. Vikings never fouhgt vs. standard central/south European armies because they had not enough men to do that and ... (perhaps the most important) they didn't like that kind of warfare. They used quick attacks, harrassing, plundering. They get Normandy because of an alliance of Rollon (Dane viking) with Louis VI "Le gros": Rollon became the first Duke of Normandy, vassal of the king( hehehe, nice tactic isnt it?&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I have great respect for vikings and have always been fascinated by them. But please, don't compare vikings to other conquering armies.
And implementing settlements doesnt mean "invading".

Before that I already thought that the possibility of conquering Europe with England, France or Spain was stupid and unrealistic. Now, we will have vikings conquering Europe, yeah
btw, it could be nice to see a realistic battle of 30 vikings vs. 4000 feodal men at arms ... mmm ????
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

Draksen although they are not conquerers they still invaded(notice:Viking Invasion)

[Draksen]

Faisal,

I agree : if by "invade" you mean : they take all the gold, ok. Correct.
But if u mean : they CONQUER the land: FULLY DISAGREE.
How can they conquer and KEEP the land ? it is/was impossible.
Conquering a province or a whole land with less than 100 men ... mmm,
interesting .... and "keeping" it, .... oh much more interesting

They were raiders not military conquerors.


And if u are refering to what they have done (conquest) in England and Normandy, it is a much longer process (100 or 200 years long &#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and after that, btw, they were no longer "vikings" (heh&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif but Normands. It was much more politic and tactic than strictly "military".

And if u want to play with those Normands, u don't need an expansion :
play the game on early with "the english" who are in reality "Normands" in the early settings.
(post 1066 : Guillaume Le Conquerant, Duke of Normandy AND King of England)

[Leet Eriksson]

i did quote that"vikings were not conquerers"it should explain what i mean.also Guillaume Le Conquerant was William the conquerer right?

[Alrowan]

the vikings, or normans by that time caonquered as far as scicily, greece and antioch, not to mention that the vikings est Russian

[Draksen]

Normands WERE NOT vikings, only viking descendants.

Vikings - Normands
pagans - Christians
clanic system - feodal system
idependant clans - kingdom
small raider groups - large feodal armies

[Xiahou]

Don't forget that the Vikings even attacked Constantinople... they didn't succeed, but the Emperor was so impressed by their valor that he began hiring some as body guards- thus Varangian Guard.

Anyhow, there's something we're all overlooking- Its a game So what if its unrealistic to think that the English could conquer Europe or Vikings could take and hold large areas of land? Its just a game- and a fun one at that -not a history book.

[Draksen]

yes, true. It's a game.
But it is the "close to reality/history" feeling that I like in STW-MTW. I wouldn't play with a space totalwar. oh no

Hope only that they will not give laser sabers to the vikings. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[chunkynut]

I think the problem here is the word 'invasion'. If you would all just take it to mean settle, because settlers also invade to an extent, then this would be cleared up nicely http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. As previously stated the Vikings did take and hold land (not as often as they burn it to the ground but they did take land).

With this in mind the expansion itself takes on a different aspect of them being, possibly, more land hungry Vikings and following the ‘what ifs?’ of MTW.

Edit: Draksen love that sig http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[MonkeyMan]

Can i go entirely off topic for a second. I like your little movie thing after your posts Draksen. Can you make it go through once, then each frame in reverse and start again without the black screen in the middle. I think that would look great.

Or did you just find it somewhere else?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[TheViking]

Draksen i agree with you that it isnt close to history, as you call it, if the vikings would conquer whole europe or just a country and hold it.

but then i have a question for you:
How close to history is it that Egypt, Denmark, England or any faction that is playable in MTW without moding conquerd whole Europe??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[Kraxis]

Draksen...

The Vikings certainly conquered England, it was done by warfare, killing and defeating the English armies in battle. This was done two times, first the Danelaw or Danelagen (granted it was not all of England but that was only due to Alfred the Great) was set up, then when the English had performed a purge of Danish blood the Danish king went into a rage a conquered England again. That he died soon after and his son was hardly worth mentioning is not the point.

The vikings were more than clanbased warriors, that was what they wqere until about year 940, after that it became invasions with regular armies counting thousand of troops, more than most king would be able to assemble.
I sorry to tell you that your view on vikings is terribly wrong to think of them as only raiders and clanwarriors.

Why do you think Louis made that deal with Rollo? He was scared they would take more land, he could not stop them as his own country was more or less in the hands of the feudal lords. So he made a deal with Rollo, that gave him the land he had taken already and he would become a vassal under the king. But that didn't stop the vikings from spreading their lands over some time. But eventually they became the Normans.

In Russia the Swedish vikings beat up the locals and established the Rus kingdoms of Kiev and Novgorod. That was land taken from other people, that was land that was conquered.

[Pellinor]

Kraxis is right. The Scandinavians sent groups of people called (by the Anglo-Saxons) things like "The Great Heathen Host" and "The Great Summer Army", led by kings.

These beat the English kingdoms into bloody pulps, left the last English king hiding in a marsh, and were settling in nicely in their new lands when said king came back again (having given up his baking career) and managed to collect enough Saxons to beat them and take back nominal sovereignty, though the Danes had significant influence still.

Two hundred years later, the King of England was a Dane, and was beaten by a Norman.

Saying "Vikings weren't conquerors because they're famous for just raiding" is like saying Britain never had an empire because football hooligans aren't conquerors and neither was Francis Drake.

[Knight_Yellow]

Viking invasion isnt a good idea in my opinion simply becos vikings only pilaged and raped they didnt try to conquer countrys so its real unsuited for mtw's way of doing things.
theres so many other reasons but theyre all trying to get out at the same time.
actualy if it was my choice i would say no to an expantion there never worth it, instead roll on Roman totalwar. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Brother Derfel]

Quote[/b] (Draksen @ Dec. 12 2002,02:27)]I disagree.

Vikings are not a nation ( I mean ONE nation)
Yes, but then again, the Italians were not One nation until the late 1850's, yet they have been given an empire when realy they only consisted of City States such as Venetia and Lombardy.
I think that the vikings deserve an Empire as much as the Italians do, if not more so. They were not just the pillaging raders and In most cases settled in the areas they raided. England and Ireland were most certainly settled.

[hundurinn]

I'f you did't know Normandie i call that because northmen(vikings)attacked France and conquered normandie.

[Knight_Yellow]

Yeah they settled in areas but they didnt conquer them, conquering is when u trash whatever army stands in ur way and then keep a garrison and ruled that area not settled in it.

[Alrowan]

hmm.. so settling the land that you have gained by force is not conquest????

i tihnk it is... look at the romans for example.. although they did not settle eveywhere, they instucted thier way of life over people... as it was with the vikings... most vikings did not settle places, they merely overthrew the rulers, and put themselves at the top... go figure

[ShadesWolf]

The Vikings in Normandy:

The beginnings of the story
The part of the Frankish (east) and Saxon (west) Neustria which later became Normandy was not very orientated towards the sea. Living within quiet, unthreatened frontiers, administered by a land state which was not particularly well-organised, this territory became an easy prey when, at the beginning of the 9th century, the Viking threat manifested itself along the Frankish coasts.

As a consequence, Charlemagne organised a system of coastal defences which proved effective at the time of the first reported raid: that of AD 820 on the lower Seine. But these defenses were soon outflanked and, in AD 841, the city of Rouen was burnt down and important abbeys in the Seine valley were looted or held to ransom. From AD 851, the (mainly Danish) Vikings started to over-winter in camps on several islands in the River Seine. One of these, Jeufosse, became the main launching base for raids all over the neighbouring regions and, particularly, on Paris which was besieged several times.

The Viking presence became almost an annual event and the coastal zones soon became untenable. Along with numerous natives, the monks had to flee from the region, seeking refuge deep in the countryside, carrying the relics, treasures and archives which the Vikings had not plundered. Charles the Bald tried in vain to stem Viking incursions on Paris by building a fortified bridge at Pont-de-l'Arche, near Pîtres, in AD 862. As in eastern Neustria, the Frankish kingdom was also outflanked via western Neustria over many years. This region, under the control of Saxon lords, was also subjected to incessant incursions by Viking forces (mainly Hiberno-Norse from Ireland), particularly in the Bessin and Cotentin areas. Since the defenses could not confront them, in AD 867 Charles the Bald entrusted the Bretons with the task of defending Cotentin and Avranchin. The Bretons were unable to successfully defend these areas.
The Scandinavian colonisation of northern France was under way.


The 10th century foundation of the Duchy of Normandy:

The Viking colony of the Seine, largely Danish, had Rolf (Rollo/Rollon) as leader from around AD 887. He was the son of a Norwegian jarl. Without doubt, it was under his impetus that, from around the start of 10th century, the Scandinavians became attracted to the idea of settling on a long term basis in the area. In AD 911, Rollo started negotiations with the king, Charles the Simple, in order to formalise the Norman sovereignty which already existed de facto in the lower Seine territories. This resulted, in the same year, in the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, in which the Frankish king gave up to the Vikings a territory corresponding roughly to the eventual French départements of Seine-Maritime and Eure.

In return, Rollo accepted Christianity and was baptised, and also undertook to prevent other Vikings from entering the River Seine.

This treaty was the foundation of the Norman state, with Rouen as a pivot, and Rolf as "Jarl of Rouen" (Rudhuborg Jarl). The term 'Duke' was not to emerge until around AD 1000. The prerogatives of the Jarl were those of a Frankish count, having most of the attributes of the royal power, what remained of the royal patrimony and control of the Church included.

Simultaneously, other Viking forces settled further west, particularly in Cotentin (mainly Hiberno-Norse from Ireland, and Orkney Vikings) and Bessin (mainly Danes from the English Danelaw). In AD924 and AD 933, the Jarl of Rouen obtained from the Frankish king the transfer of these two territories, plus the one of Avranchin, further south, in order to be able to control these rebellious and very active 'western' Vikings. These territorial acquisitions were not completed easily, as these populations had for long resisted any central authority. The Breton occupation period in Cotentin and Avranches (AD 867-927) has left very few traces.

At the conclusion of this expansion, Normandy covered approximately its present-day area. Only two buffer territories remained, which were to be acquired subsequently : the land of Talou, on the Flemish border (in AD 996) and Passais (around Domfront), on the meridianal border (c. AD 1050). The Norman borders have not varied since, representing outstanding stability in a Middle Ages world were borders were complex and constantly fluctuating.

[Shahed]

Wow this debate has thrown up some good info.

Original Howler: Thx for those links, very cool i read about the Viking hit on Constantinople in 960 AD. Now calling that a logistical marvel is a major understatement how did they get all the way down there LOL great post too. thx for the info.

Kraxis: A quality, informative post, as usual http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Wow i really learnt a lot i did not know today http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

Personally i don't know if Viking Invasion is such a good idea, since the Danes are already representing the Vikings in the game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif Hey it would make a lot more sense if, in the add-on, the game went back 300 years http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Ckrisz]

The problem with the whole Viking Invasion idea is that the period of time of the Viking raids were further back in the history of Europe. Thus we are going to have to give up a bunch of units if this is going to be anything remotely approaching historical accuracy --- no boyars, chivalric knights, or Varangian Guards for instance.

The Vikings also never affected the southern Mediterranean, much less the Middle East, and probably did not have the numbers or mobility to ever threaten to do so (unlike, say, Mongols or Turkish Muslim forces).

Well, I suppose we'll just see how it turns out. CA really hasn't disappointed us yet, having given us two superb games --- I trust them.

[Teutonic Knight]

woohoo DarkAges:Total War
it could have Charlemagne, the emergence of Islam, The rise and fall of the Byzantine Empire, with Charlemagne, the establishement of the HRE and then the French losing it to the German king Otto The Great.
Man that would be cool. Not to mention the endless viking raids on French, English, Russian, and Byzantine towns and villagesthat had the serfs praying "from the wrath of the northmen deliver us O Lord". Whoo, I'm getting dizzy here..........

[Kraxis]

Despite my prior post, I'm not totally in favour of the Viking Invasion. Will it be raids? Will it be conquest? Will it be like MI in STW? I posted because we had a good example of the medieval propaganda against the vikings.

We already have Vikings in the game, though a few more might be added (they were quite able on horses and they are suspected to have introduced the longbow to the Welsh).
A lot of factions need an overhaul to fit this new timeline.

I'm waiting this out, not yet wanting to say if I like it or not.

[Teutonic Knight]

I would be in favor of a kind of spontanious raiding kind of game with the vikings raiding a province,burning buildings enslaving serfs, and pillage your forins there ,sweet. I think what Draksen meant in objecting to this was he didn't want, as I don't, A mass viking/Mongols invasion of Europe, you know, we have france and Spain and the middle east ruled by vikings. That creeps me out.....
Ckrisz, I think you are quite mistaken about relenting all this stuff, the game would simply start at another date (let's say 650 A.D. we could call it the dark period)then you would just advance up into what is the early period in MTW, so it also solves the other problem of a campaign too short...... well that's my 2cents

[Ckrisz]

You'd need, however, extensive rebalancing of all units and exclusion of several just to make the Vikings formidable in the first place.

Moreover, how exactly will raiding/pillaging work on the MTW strategic map? A gigantic horde of 3 stacks of Vikings appear in your province, destroy all the buildings, and disappear to another coastal province? Except when they were launching actual invasions of England, Normandy, Russia, etc., they didn't exactly come by the motherload. The essence of raiding/pillaging, after all, is a lightning raid by small forces that would rape/kill/slaughter relatively defenseless villages/monasteries/small castles --- not big set-piece battles like MTW specializes in.

[Pellinor]

Knight_Yellow: As far as the Vikings and Britain go:

Several Scandinavian kings in turn led large armies of their subjects into England, Scotland and Ireland. They met the local kings in pitched battle and defeated them. They then claimed the lands of those defeated kings as their own and proceeded to settle: giving land and loot to their subjects, relegating the original inhabitants to lowly status, imposing their own system of government, building residences, and calling themselves king. Their descendants used this as the basis for claiming the throne in later years, and succeeded.

How is that not conquering?

As far as the add-on goes generally, I would have thought it would be something like the MI add-on - happening 300 years earlier than the main game with different units. I don't know how the campaign would work, but I suppose they could do it several ways: redo the map to be just NW Europe, maybe adding Iceland; do an interactive "Historical campaign" series of battles, or just go the whole hog and let the Vikings loose on the whole of Europe. They did try very hard to sack Rome at one stage, and very nearly succeeded - they got the wrong town: if the road signs had been writ in runes they might have done it :-)

[Leet Eriksson]

i bet the viking invasion is a prequel,if it is i can't wait to try ommayad or abbasid dynasties and the ansar warriorsor if it is a true sequel to STW then the viking clans would be interesting...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

I want viking berserkers,derived from the viking word bersark it means shirtless warrior.much like the abbysinian guard but with a more powerful charge.also jarls would be interesting(Earl is a corruption of Jarl btw),jarls were viking nobility if i'm not mistaken...

[DojoRat]

Though the Vikings were more than just raiders, (I beleive Dublin, Cork and most other Irish cities began as Norse trading centers) I see problems with them as the focus of an add on.

In STW MI you had the same Japan as Shogun (for the most part) being attacked by the new Mongol units. It brought new life to the game, especially tactically. You had to answer the question how do I stop these guys, or simply revel in the new Mongol units speed and power.

The biggest difference you'd see in a Viking era add on would be a lack of units. In the west you'd have simple spear armies with some auxillaries and some well equiped household gaurds. These factions would be more fragmented, especially at the start, and most of the rest of the map had more pressing problems.

You also would get few new tactical challenges. The challenge would be strategic and diplomatic. How do I establish and maintain a system of forts with rapid reaction forces to limit the raids impact. That isn't MTW's strength. You want something that maintains this games scope but adds something new and exciting.

Most of the scenarios I come up with are really TW 3, so I don't have any answers to the add on question.

[Teutonic Knight]

I really think this should be moved to OT because this is not a discussion about the current playable version of MTW, and quite honestly, it's only taking up space. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Draksen]

I agree with almost all what, you all have said.
thank you for your posts and for this very interesting topic.

Although I agree that vikings were strong raiders (conquerors, sometimes) and very good for trading, do you really think that they could have "dominated" half of Europe ? was it what they really want ?

Vikings were able to fight large battle ONLY when allied with other vikings or with local inhabitants. At the beginning of the viking age, vikings were pagans and their society was a clanic one.
Later (look at the Danes in the game) they become christians and the feodalism permit their leader to build massive and more standard military forces.

But do you call a christian viking a viking, mmm?

Remember that during viking age, the word viking was almost unknown (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Viking: the expedition, Vikingr: the man
Same as Scandinavia, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland or Danemark with their actual borders and names.
Viking were also often Estonian or Finn.

"The vikings" is not a nation. The vikings have never been united or in peace before unifications and arrival of the catholic religion (bad thing, but this is my personnal opinion, sorry, hehehe).
I have read a lot of texts about attacks of vikings of Gotland (swedish island on the Baltic) vs. vikings of Uppsala (north of Stockholm)... vikings vs vikings that was really common.

I hope that CA will not present the vikings as ONE nation comming from the north, conqering lands and setting it's own color (1 color) all over the map, cause THIS would be VERY unrealistic and inaccurate.

---

About my sig :
You can found good animations (gif)
here:
http://www.conquest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

a want the map of scandinavia and several viking clansthat will be a true sequel to shogunanyone saw Highland Warriors?look pretty awesome

[Kraxis]

Well Draksen, a catholic viking might still be a viking.

The first couple hundred years as catholics, Jesus was portrayed as a warrior king, on the cross he has his head held high and he is muscular. So while the vikings might have been catholics (later periods when they stopped plundering monestaries) they retained their culture and way of life for about 200 years. But by the time of MTW this was all gone.

The first king of whole Denmark (there are older kings such as Dan but it is not certain they ruled all of Denmark) was Gorm the Old in 860, so it was very possible that he might have launched some attacks, but he didn't. And bloodfeuds were very common, so of course there were many viking vs viking fights, but should the king want to attack he certainly could do so, there would be no lack of volounteers (prospect of plunder and land).
The raids were individual enterprises, while the attacks on England were for most part commanded by Jarls and other nobles (who gained titles in the conquered lands), and the final attacks were king-commanded attacks. Attacks such as those of Knud the Great or Harald Harderåde were of the latter, while the sack of Lindisfarne was of the first. Rollo and his band was most likely of the second group.

You are right that the vikings did not want to control all of Europe, they had much more limited wishes, they wanted what they personally wanted, not as a whole. So it is impossible to think of them as conquering all of Europe.

Indeed the vikings were never united, but they came as far as there were three distinct kingdoms Denmark, Norway and Sweden and they survived. And these kingdoms have had a love/hate relationship until only 30 years ago, but when a general warming of the relationship in the late 1800s.

[solypsist]

moved to Monastary

http://solypsist.homestead.com/files/imgwrongforum.jpg

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Vikings as Raiders stopped by the Redskins?

Hey - those are the names of NFL Teams (American Football).

[The Scourge]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Dec. 12 2002,07:19)]actualy if it was my choice i would say no to an expantion there never worth it, instead roll on Roman totalwar. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Nine times out of ten I'd agree with you on that,but imo the Mongol Invasion was the exception to the rule.
It made an already great game twice as great.
Im still not that convinced about a Viking invasion.
Personally I woudn't mind another Mongol Invasion,but can understand the devs not wanting to go over the same ground again.

[TheDanesZandy]

Yup we did all that and some more , scary bunch the Danes ;o) aint we


The Danes Zandy

Ps: we jst invaded Medeval total war on-line , hide away the gold women and children ;o)

[Sjakihata]

Hi


I'd like to Viking Invasion as a true sequel as well. It would be cool to control viking tribes and attack others. And then when the king called upon an attack of England or France your clan could chose to join, and gain influence and money.

But viking as raiders or conquerors depends on what period of time we are talking. The viking era ended in about 1050, and from 950 to 1050 the vkings made some impressive attacks.
Before that raids and plundering by different tribes was the main thing.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Paladin]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but then again, the Italians were not One nation until the late 1850's, yet they have been given an empire when realy they only consisted of City States such as Venetia and Lombardy.

Correct. That's why in my mod, Venice has taken the place of the Italian faction and the other Italian provinces are now rebel held. It's more accurate this way.


I also think Draksen has a point when he says that the Vikings do not function in the same way as do other raiders or conquerors. I agree that it would look goofy to see Vikings ruling in Syria. If an expansion pack is to be made, I just hope they make special limitations so it functions rather closely to historical fact.

[cugel]

This is all speculation of course, but I'd be very surprised if this expansion was much different from the last one:

1. Same basic map as MTW (Shogun: MI used same map -saves development time.) i.e. same provinces, but held by different factions.

2. Several new campaigns (such as rise of the Carolingian empire, early Byzantium, etc., just as STW: MI added several different historical era campaigns.

In fact, those additional campaigns were the real bonus with MI that made it worth buying. The mongols were fun to play for battles (or just to let off steam by wreaking a little havoc http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif), but the campaign IMHO didn't work well. You either won or lost the 1st couple of battles on either side and it was all up/downhill from there (ZZZzzz). This expansion will be different because there shouldn't be 1 opponent faction.

3. A few new units, just for flavor, like the Kensai and battlefield Ninja (maybe a Viking Berserker?), but don't expect too much.

Remember that add-ons are really a just way to squeeze a little extra cash out of the franchise between major new games, without expending too many resources producing them. In this sense, MI was a value since they really added to the fun. We'll all have to wait and see if Viking Invasion lives up to that billing, but don't expect the moon, or be too critical http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif, especially BEFORE it's out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Papewaio]

IF there is a viking invasion then it could parallel the Mongol Invasion... ie a larger departure from the historical setting then the core game which has already side stepped history in favour of game play where it had to choose.

Anyhow Viking Invasion if it exists would be a 'what if' scenario... what if the Vikings united under a single clan and started waring earlier on while they had a sea advantage.

Of course other 'what if' scenarios could be 'Rise of the Celts'... the Celts reunite under a pagan (druid) leader and go to bash the crap out of the non-pagans.

Or really warped past history 'what if' the Americans already existed at a similar level of tech and invaded Europe... better still what if China had not gone insular and its fleet landed in the middle of the med or maybe India comes to take out the descendents of Alexander.

Etc... 'what if' scenarios are a departure from history. I think some of the most interesting are the ones closest to history. Like the what if such and such had went west instead of east or such and such peoples had united instead of internal wars.

[Nord]

Just a quickie on those who mentions the Vikings taking over Europe and how unrealistic that would be. As you can see at the totalwar.com (http://www.totalwar.com/) website the Viking campaign features a map of England and Scandinavia (I think that's it) and it's just an addon to the Europe campaign (which also features updates http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif)

Personally, I think the game will rock and I'll buy it for sure.
No offense but a lot of you people seem overly critical to alot of things http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

ps: Your sig is sexy Draksen