I guess there will be Vikings with horns...

Upon looking at the new unit description, I immediately noticed that he had horns on his helmets. But to really be honest with you, I don't care. Although CA's TW series boasts the mostly historcally accruate games, this doesen't bother me.

It wasn't untl about 4 years ago tht the Vikings didn't even were horns. And, although this historically "accurate" game features Noresemen with horns, I actually like it better. That was what was taught to me as a child, and they look a lot cooler... You can't tell me that the Jomsviking doesen't look like it can kick someone's arse Check it out...

http://www.totalwar.com/community/viking.htm

Well, the existance of the Jomsvikings in the first place is rather tenuose, so I suppose a certain ammount of artistic lisence can be given to CA...

..although I am still not at all pleased that they will have horns. it wont stop me buying the game though.

I'm more bothered by the no-woman rule they have. And they're breeding how? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif

Sherwood Foresters? Jomsvikings? Its gonna be Viking Invasion: a fantasy game then...at least there isn't any magic

I don't think it's that bad.

There is definitely an arguement to be made for the existance of the Jomsvikings. Considering that they're likely to be an elite, fairly uncommon unit, giving them extravagant equipment (like a horned helmet) doesn't seem that unreasonable.

As for the Sherwood Foresters, that's also within reason. While historical records are, at best, extremely limited, there are claims that Robin Hood existed in some form or another. Even if he didn't exist, guerilla warfare was in practise, albeit in a limited manner. I think that works, especially seeing how you can't directly build the foresters but can only recruit them through rebellion and bribery.

I heard something of it somewhere. Jomsvikings where like somekind of brotherhood(like knights templars or something). You were chosen to be there after some test or proofs... You couldn't leave it either( i think).

what the heck is wrong with h0rny Vikings, I think it looks kinda cool. If it were in a movie however, I'd be very upset http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif

I don't understand why people get so hung up over these minor historical details. It's a GAME. Suspension of disbelief, anyone? Most of these 'errors' are tiny, anyway.

71-hour Ahmed - I'm with you. First person to make a Forrester and Jomsviking free mod, I'm gonna be downloading it...

Didn't like that similar sill stuff in the Mongol Invasion add on too... At least CA seem to keep the main games more on the straight and narrow. Otherwise what are we going to get in RTW? Empress Livinias, paste poison onto the Emporer's figs overnight... Dashit, forgot about those bloomin' Geishas - how did I do that?

Ugh, gay They might as well make it LOTR, I will not be buying VI if this is the case on release.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Oberiko @ Feb. 05 2003,21:22)]I don't think it's that bad.

There is definitely an arguement to be made for the existance of the Jomsvikings. Considering that they're likely to be an elite, fairly uncommon unit, giving them extravagant equipment (like a horned helmet) doesn't seem that unreasonable.

As for the Sherwood Foresters, that's also within reason. While historical records are, at best, extremely limited, there are claims that Robin Hood existed in some form or another. Even if he didn't exist, guerilla warfare was in practise, albeit in a limited manner. I think that works, especially seeing how you can't directly build the foresters but can only recruit them through rebellion and bribery.

---

Im with the guys who dont have a problem with the Joms or the Forresters. If the game was 100% accurate, where's the fun? Come on guys...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Emp. Conralius @ Feb. 06 2003,14:57)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Oberiko @ Feb. 05 2003,21:22)]I don't think it's that bad.

There is definitely an arguement to be made for the existance of the Jomsvikings. Considering that they're likely to be an elite, fairly uncommon unit, giving them extravagant equipment (like a horned helmet) doesn't seem that unreasonable.

As for the Sherwood Foresters, that's also within reason. While historical records are, at best, extremely limited, there are claims that Robin Hood existed in some form or another. Even if he didn't exist, guerilla warfare was in practise, albeit in a limited manner. I think that works, especially seeing how you can't directly build the foresters but can only recruit them through rebellion and bribery.

---

Im with the guys who dont have a problem with the Joms or the Forresters. If the game was 100% accurate, where's the fun? Come on guys...

---

Truth is, that no one realy knows what is enirely historicaly accurate. Almost all evidence from the time comes from Archaeological evidence and the few surviving documents of the time. Ok, so only very few helmets with horns have been found, suggesting that either they were serimonial, or that only a very small elite war them. But we can be sure on neither. So why take out a unit merely beause it probably didn;t exist, when it could have. Jomsvikings are certainly documented in the Saga's, and were perhaps more skilled and experienced mercenaries than a warrior class like the teutons. Ok so CA has perhaps portrayed them a little over the top, but why discout that unit entirely?
The foresters arn't just Robin Hood's merry men either, they are meant to represent the many skilled foresters and hunters who made their livelihoods with their bows. These were both existant and numerous in Dark age britain but were not often used in war. But why does this mean that a clever king could not raise up the foresters of his kingdom in a time of need?

I will be buying VI anyway, and if you object to the foresters and Jomsvikings so much, then just don't use them on principle. I think the fact that VI opens up new units and campaigns to use will perhaps lengthen the time that It will take for me to get bored of MTW......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Pretz @ Feb. 06 2003,13:49)]Ugh, gay They might as well make it LOTR, I will not be buying VI if this is the case on release.

---

A tad homophobic, are we?

Seriously, folks, I agree completly with Emp. Conralius. These units may not be 100% accurate, but I think that all would agree that the purpose here is not to be accurate to the nth decimal point, the purpose is to have fun playing a game.

And to those self-styled purists who refuse to buy the game on "moral" grounds, you really shouldn't have bought Medieval in the first place. Actuall battle in the medieval period was very rare. Almost all generals could expect to fight one, maybe two, if that, real battles in thier lifetimes. It was simply cheaper, easier, and safer not to fight. Furthermore, when these battles did occur, they hardly resembled battles in the game. The battle engine, incredibly good and fun and what have you, as it is, only a very rough representation at best.

Therefore, if you won't buy a game because some vikings have horns or because you don't believe in a certain band of merry men that may or may not have existed, then you really have no business playing this game at all.

thats probably the most logical post to come out of this topic...

ummm.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif

u guys havent heard the devs post like 5 times that the horns will not be in game. they are only on promo material like website drawings and box cover.
show me a screenshot of a ingame battle with a horned viking and i will beleive but until then im gunna give CA the benefit of the doubt.

Being a Dane I'm very sensitive towards horns on vikings, but with the Jomsvikings I would actually like it. They are an Elite, supermen, Kensais in groups... They have damn well deserved the horns, which actually look good on them (but how should a person ever be able to wield such an axe?).
I jst hope the rest of the vikings don't have horns.

And the Sherwood Foresters as far as I have heard are an Early unit, not a VI unit. And since the Jomsvikings are from the sagas, which can be said to be little more than legends at times, well then the Sherwood Foresters need to be there too as they are from the legends and then some.
BTW, I have heard that Robin Hood is in the game as we know it now, a rebel in Wessex or Northumbria. Should you bribe him and give him a title he will become Lord of Locksley.

of course robin hood existed

he stole from the rich and kept it for himself.

I'm not hung up over accuracy, I'd just like to know how far into fantasy they are going to go.

Some is OK, but there is a thin line, many games cross it. DOn't want this game to do that.

And if I had horns on my helmet, I'd use them to stab people, two extra weapons per Viking. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Pretz @ Feb. 06 2003,13:49)]Ugh, gay They might as well make it LOTR, I will not be buying VI if this is the case on release.

---

I agree. the expension pack is going more towards fantasy. This was one of the features that i didn't like in the Mongol invasion.

But just like the STW expension there is going to be a lot of things added to the Main game to make the expension worth buying. I will personally not playing the British Isle TW, without modding the daylight out of it. Not for moral reason, it's just that i like a more accurate game. And from the post i read here i know i'm not allone, A lot of us like to use our emegination/support some of the bugs and stupid AI moves in MTW.

Grrr...I really don`t know why you are whining about few not so realistic units. There was Robin Hood in the original game so its good that we get Sherwood merry men in this expansion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Feb. 06 2003,13:14)]71-hour Ahmed - I'm with you. First person to make a Forrester and Jomsviking free mod, I'm gonna be downloading it...

---

why dont you just mod them so they dont have horns

and rename the sherwood foresters to simply "forresters" or something

they will probably be great units

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]And if I had horns on my helmet, I'd use them to stab people, two extra weapons per Viking

---

i heard somewhere that, as the helmet was not padded, they were bullet shaped so that they would not absorb the full hit - blades wouldnt direct hit as much

but with horns, they would catch anything that struck the helmet - causing major damage to the cranium - er something

who is the farging icehole that put horns on vikings in the first place? just some fruity opera herb?

LOL........ I can't wait to have some good ol Native American troops...would really like to play as a Blackfoot warrior defeating the Sioux LOL
And ya know what???? the Blackfoot DID and DO have horns on some of their war bonnets.,
CA when can we have the Indian Wars?
How bout seeing the muslims invading INDIA? That would be cool too...Most Indian states had their own kings and whatnot....crazy thuggees and assasins would abound......
Doubt that they would have horns on their helmets.......

Though I'm no expert, I don't think horns are all that bad.

Pros:
- Psychological
- Additional protection against side blows to the head
- Rare instance of use as weapons
- National identifier (similar to the German spiked helmet)

Cons:
- Additional Cost
- Additional Weight
- Helmet is a larger target

As for the point of the horns being a disadvantage by catching weapons that would otherwise probably slide down, if they didn't catch it then the weapon would probably impact on the shoulders anyway.

Personally I think the sheer pyschological edge of horned helmets (especially against Christians) would make up for any faults, even more so if used by an elite unit.

Hmm.... did the vikings ever fight against christians?

"And to those self-styled purists who refuse to buy the game on "moral" grounds, you really shouldn't have bought Medieval in the first place. Actuall battle in the medieval period was very rare. Almost all generals could expect to fight one, maybe two, if that, real battles in thier lifetimes. It was simply cheaper, easier, and safer not to fight. Furthermore, when these battles did occur, they hardly resembled battles in the game. The battle engine, incredibly good and fun and what have you, as it is, only a very rough representation at best."

True. Even more than that, I suppose I could go on and on about this point, but. . .

Given the small size of armies and the immense size of available terrain, at any time prior to the 20th century armies ACCEPTED battle or SOUGHT battle. This means that there was mostly a LOT of maneuvering for advantage or to avoid battle with a superior foe. Battle was NOT automatic. Unless you were ambushed or attacked by a faster marching enemy you didn't have to fight a pitched battle as depicted in MTW, unless you wanted to, you could always march around trying to outmaneuver your enemy or remain in the field as a threat to his forces without actually fighting. Of course, an invading army could loot the province it passed through or assault some town, so that the defenders sometimes had to fight to defend their homes.

As a perfect example of how hard it was to force battle and how generally rare pitched battles were consider Napoleon's campaign in Russia in 1812. The only pitched battle between the 2 main armies similar to the kinds of battles depicted all the time in MTW, was at Borodino and Napoleon had to march all the way to Moscow to force the Russians to stand and fight. Months of campaigning and fought 1 major battle Then a long retreat with no major engagements and at the end of it, Napoleon's army was destroyed. There was even MORE maneuvering compared to battle prior to the 19th century. Armies were small and expensive to raise and equip. No king or general wanted to risk a major battle unless he had to to defend some important town or province or thought he had the advantage. Generally, when the defending army "accepted" battle they would draw up in ranks outside their camp and await the attack. See Ceasar's War Commentaries for numerous examples of how often this happened WITHOUT a fight (the attackers declined to attack on that day)

Arguing about minute historical accuracy in terms of MTW is ludicrous This is a GAME. It's fun and set in an historical setting. That's it. You wouldn't like a really historically accurate game very much. Armies would be much more limited than they are depicted here. Battles would not be automatic. There would be much more maneuvering without result. Sieges would be long and boring, with few pitched battles. . . etc. etc.

Horns, its just a tad annoying, but no crusades for any scandic nation, that ticked me off

(Been through that discussion though.. =))

Atleast here, some people know alot about the vikings and scandinavian history, but to tell you the truth, it DOES get annoying in RL when you say you're from Sweden, and people always say, Oooh, vikings with horned helmest =)

Vikings fought often Christians (would say most of the time).
The psychological aspect of horns might have been significant. To superstitious people who believed that demons are a everyday threat these horns may have had a very frightening effect. Don`t know if horns were actually used on helms, but the disadvantages are no reason not to use them. Many warriors in old times used a lot of unpractical things just for psychological reasons.

cugel you make a lot of good point (so i didn't want to take up the whole page quating your post),but
if you look at the preview of RTW, it sound a lot like your post.
Armies will be able to move around and avoid battle, you would chose the path your army takes. armies speed would be determined by it's slowes unit. Sieges will be fought building to building, and many other realistic/historicly correct features.
My point is => to me it looks like the TW series is moving towards a more realistic/historicly correct game. I would like to believe that that was the gual from the begining. that's why many of us find it disterming that VI will move a way from this direction.

I don't think that VI is moving away from any direction. Most of the posters here seem to be ignoring the point I made earlier, and that cugel reinforced.

You cannot be annoyed by horns and not by the battle engine Cannot Cannot

The total war series is a game with a historical setting. A setting The key word here is GAME. Historical accuracy is nice. It is, in fact, very nice. But its still a game.