KINGDOMS: NEW BRITANNIA campaign video is up on IGN !

Hi all !

Just in case this has not been posted yet a new Kingdoms Britannia campaign video is up on IGN since yesterday.

It's an excellent preview.

I always wanted forts that you could actually USE, and they're in here. Now next step, that you can build these anywhere !

Graphics are beyond anything out there. Completely annihilates the competition, or should I say... what competition ?
There is no denying it. This preview demonstrates M2:TW absolute and total dominance in the genre.

Well done CA.

SALUTE !

One day Ill get my new system

and then my M2TW will look like that

then you wont hear me complain about gameplay issues anymore

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Big fat Alienware Crossfire and all !

Very very nice movie. And I am in completely compliance with Yunus Dogus. I need the money to build another computer before I can play with graphics like that, especially with army sizes such as those. :no: Either way, it is going to be fun commanding vikings for the Britannia campaign! ^^

Tschüß!
Erich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

Big fat Alienware Crossfire and all !

---

lets not get carried away

I dont even know what that is... I am an old man really a ludite pretending to be part of the net gen by using words copied from younger mens posts

HAHAHAH ! Alienware is an expensive gaming rig basically, Crossfire is a method to have 2 GFX cards in your machine. You can have 2 high end GPUs (Graphics cards) in the same machine, if you take 2 of the highest end cards you're in with the men. You can get the same performance with one card but that one obviously has to outperform the other two. Click the links for more info.

Damn CA, now I'll have to replace my inspiron8600 with an XPS 1710 ! My wife won't be happy.

I wonder what else is in there which they did't mention in the video.

Green and red FTW!

I can't wait.

I think the guy doing the voiceover could do with some voice acting lesson, I mean would it have killed him to have put a little enthusiasm, emotion, or drama into his presentation.

even if he'd hammed it up abit, at least it show some life

nit picking.. sure
:laugh4:

but dont tell me the dead pan delivery didnt take the edge off the excitement and anticipation

we're it not for this that preview wouldve had me drooling like pavlovs dog

Um ca has the time line mixed up. The viking invasion was already beaten in 1066 and William Wallace lived circa 1270 - 23 augustus 1305

and the viking invasion never fought the English because the men in England didnt call themselves Englishmen at the time. and the invasion was stopped by William the Conqueror who then founded England so a viking invasion doesnt make any sense in m2t kingdoms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snorky

Um ca has the time line mixed up. The viking invasion was already beaten in 1066 and William Wallace lived circa 1270 - 23 augustus 1305

and the viking invasion never fought the English because the men in England didnt call themselves Englishmen at the time. and the invasion was stopped by William the Conqueror who then founded England so a viking invasion doesnt make any sense in m2t kingdoms

---

try not to crash the party with those pesky little historical facts snorky

you know no-one likes a 'know it all'...

besides see the polls results vis a vie "would you like a fantasy totalwar game" and wa la 'Kingdoms'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus

try not to crash the party with those pesky little historical facts snorky

'

---

I think you mean pesky little historical mistakes, but we won't go there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D Wilson

I think you mean pesky little historical mistakes, but we won't go there...

---

no I meant facts as I refering to snorkys facts not the games mistakes

unless your saying snorky got it wrong.. in which case I stand corrected

Quote:

---

Um ca has the time line mixed up. The viking invasion was already beaten in 1066 and William Wallace lived circa 1270 - 23 augustus 1305

---

They're Norwegians, not sure why CA are calling them Vikings, but Norway did hold territory in the British Isles during the time period of the Britannia campaign, and im guessing their invasions are more of a what if situation.

Looks like it will be very entertaining to play, bizarre history notwithstanding. Bit disappointed that there arent more factions, like there were in Viking Invasion, however it should be relatively easy for someone to mod this into a VI style mini campaign.

Norway was beaten by Scotland at the battle of Largs in 1263. That's when they conceded cliam to most of scotland.

However they still retained Shetland and Orkney until 1468 I think, when they were wedding gifts (dowry) for Queen margaret to James 111.

The Norwegians were stil "vikings" at this point (witnes the viking museum at largs). I think what CA may have done is transpose norwegian invasion by 30 years or so (and made the country of invasion subject to random chance) to make it more interesting.

The date in video is 1296 so wallace popping up during the course of game is accurate.

I don't know so much about wales and ireland, but they were pretty constantly in rebellion so I take it that's right.

And there were baronial rebellions around that time so I assume that's vaguely accurate.

Quote:

---

And there were baronial rebellions around that time so I assume that's vaguely accurate.

---

Oh yeah, Simon De Montforts Baronial rebellion was in 1264 or something, i know the Battle of Lewes was then. I thought the Britannia campaign started in 1250 or something.

Thats a nice video. Its the kind of campaign which would suit a good multiplayer.

Remember that the Faeroe Islands(sp? Færøyene in norwegian) is still under danish control(to some extent)... They were originally norwegian, but we lost them(as well as greenland and a few others) when the danes lost norway to sweden after napoleon, but retained our colonies... So a "viking" presence is well-founded.

Quote:

---

The viking invasion was already beaten in 1066

---

Oh really? Then why did harold have to fight off a huge viking army in 1066?

Quote:

---

and the viking invasion never fought the English because the men in England didnt call themselves Englishmen at the time.

---

This kind of complaint is so foolish as to not even deserve a reply. It's like saying the Americans never fought the English because we didn't call ourselves Americans at the time.

Quote:

---

and the invasion was stopped by William the Conqueror

---

Explain to me how in your world the viking invasion was simultaneously over before 1066, and *also* stopped by William the Conqueror, who didn't show up until 1066?

Quote:

---

who then founded England

---

William the Conqueror did not *found* England. He conquered it. If what you say is true he'd be called William the Founder.

Quote:

---

so a viking invasion doesnt make any sense in m2t kingdoms

---

It made perfect sense in MTW1, and thus it makes perfect sense in MTW2.

Oh My God... Looks great! Gone are the days of Shogun sprites...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

Norway was beaten by Scotland at the battle of Largs in 1263. That's when they conceded cliam to most of scotland.

---

They weren't beaten. It was simply a skirmish between a Norwegian scouting party and Scottish soldiers.
Claims to the islands were abandoned after Håkon died of a fever on the Orkneys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

The Norwegians were stil "vikings" at this point

---

No. Most historians would not agree with you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

I don't know so much about wales and ireland,

---

Obviously not much about Norway either, I suggest you stick to scottish history :sweatdrop:

The movie is superb! I really like it, and I look forward to his expansion. Hopefully it will bring more immersion into the game.

I had almost zero interest in the idea of a Britannia campaign or indeed the expansion itself, but am intrigued after this video. Playing the English on VH/VH and foreswearing all alliances might provide a fun challenge - not unlike the WRE in BI. Welsh, Irish, Scots, Danes and rebel barons to contend with. :juggle2: Sounds like fun. :2thumbsup:

The modding potentials alone have me drooling. It's a gorgious map.

Yeah, plus I like how there will be more regions for the same geographic locations. IMO in M2:TW there are too few regions.

England in particular should have at least 15 on the Isles alone. Same goes for almost all regions and factions, too few regions.

Please bring back GOAL ORIENTED CAMPAIGNS !.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Welsh, Irish, Scots, Danes and rebel barons to contend with

---

Uh... what?
American by any chance?

Oh and please give the Orientals due attention.
If Broken Crescent (a user MOD) can do it so can you CA. No excuses ! ;P ;)

Oops. I seem to have placed my pre-order on an internet retail site already. Does this make me a bad person?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lillehammer

Uh... what?
American by any chance?

---

No, as English as Yorkshire Pudding. But what's odd about calling the Vikings Danes? Didn't England used to pay them Danegeld? And aren't they called that in both MTW and M2TW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

No, as English as Yorkshire Pudding. But what's odd about calling the Vikings Danes? Didn't England used to pay them Danegeld? And aren't they called that in both MTW and M2TW?

---

I think Lillehammer is asking why you didn't refer to the Vikings as the Norwegians instead of the Danes. It was the Norwegians that owned the Shetland & Orkney Islands, as well as being the last Norse people (aside from the Normans themselves) to have launched a major invasion of England. ~:)

The invasion of most of England by Vikings in the 9th century and its subsequent reconquest by Wessex is what made England a united state. Thereafter it was England. One can go and read documents from the time in which Kings referred to themselves as "King of England" or "King of the English and Danes", etc, etc. England continued to be attacked by Viking after that, and was conquered entirely around the turn of the millenium, so yes "England" was attacked by "Vikings".

And there was definitely no "Vikings" in the 13th century. Notwithstanding that medieval historians still can't agree on exactly who the Vikings were and when the "Viking Age" began and ended, it had definitely ended by the 12th century.

The video, it stopped loading midway through, how tragic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lillehammer

Obviously not much about Norway either, I suggest you stick to scottish history :sweatdrop:

---

Ooh, I want to swear now.

Do an internet search for Largs and Vikings. Go on.

How many references are there? About 7,000? Including Vikingaar, the UK Viking society and many many others.

An awful lot of people talking about the Vikings and largs and scottish invasions methinks. Now just because you're outnumbered 7,000 to 1 doesn't make you wrong.

Outnumbered, lonely and sad, yes, but not wrong.

However it doesn't make me wrong either, and at least I have the tyranny of the majority with me.

Now I did the Vikings at University in medieval hsitory and I know that the classic "Vikings" (Danes is a perfectly acceptable term too) is usually around 10 C but some people here refer to the commonly held terms for simplicity. Perhaps you should learn to relax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I think Lillehammer is asking why you didn't refer to the Vikings as the Norwegians instead of the Danes.

---

Fair enough - I will defer to someone called Lillehammer when discussing Scandinavian history. However, while I may be ignorant, I must protest at being referred to as an "American" on account of that shortcoming. That is just insulting to the good folk over the pond.

Lillehammer, you've managed to offend at least two Orgahs (Moah and I) in your first two posts. That's not cool.

Agreed.

If I may add, with all due respect, this thread is about discussiing the video. I posted this for information, as I thought it hasn't been posted yet.

It's NOT a precise history debate/discussion anyway. It's certainly not meant to be an argument or flamefest.
So if it can't be kept civil, please take it to private messaging or take it elsewhere.

SALUTE !

I bet William Wallace has some in-game war cry, screaming "Freedom!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Fair enough - I will defer to someone called Lillehammer when discussing Scandinavian history. However, while I may be ignorant, I must protest at being referred to as an "American" on account of that shortcoming. That is just insulting to the good folk over the pond.

Lillehammer, you've managed to offend at least two Orgahs (Moah and I) in your first two posts. That's not cool.

---

I offended you?!
Come on! It's ok not knowing much about Scandinavia or its history, but labelling all vikings "Danes", is just plain ignorant. There were Danish vikings, Swedish vikings and Norwegian vikings.
Hell, even the guy in the video said norwegian vikings, so why did you feel the need to f#¤% it up by naming them Danes? It really puzzled me.

If anything, you offended me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scot

Do an internet search for Largs and Vikings. Go on.

---

Do a search for Norwegians and Largs as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scot

Danes is a perfectly acceptable term too

---

No, definitely not!
It amazes me you can believe if you have studied viking history.
Calling them vikings is totally ok, and that's what 90% of the worlds population does, but then again there has to be some idiot who goes around labelling them all as danes.

Crazy how a tiny spark can ignite such flames. :juggle2:

Tschüß!
Erich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lillehammer

Do a search for Norwegians and Largs as well.

---

Yep. So they were Norwegian vikings. I shortened that to vikings. You told me that was wrong and they were Norwegians NOT Vikings.

As for Danish/Norwegian/Swedish vikings: Err..So my vikings at largs were norwegian vikings. Vikings. Like I said. Which you yourself just said is ok. I'm a little confused about your objection to my posts now.

Referring to all vikings as Danes, if that's what was done by econ, was inaccurate but merely a mistake. I understand - I get just as narkey when people refer to scots as english - but no need to be quite as offensive.

BTW - was the changing of my name intended to be deliberately offensive too?

My reference to using Danes as ok was not that all vikings were danes but that the danes were vikings - not in reference to this invasion. I can see how that wasn't clear. Sorry about that.

Helpful Hint: Check Econ21's rank man......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

Yep. So they were Norwegian vikings. I shortened that to vikings. You told me that was wrong and they were Norwegians NOT Vikings.

As for Danish/Norwegian/Swedish vikings: Err..So my vikings at largs were norwegian vikings. Vikings. Like I said. Which you yourself just said is ok. I'm a little confused about your objection to my posts now.

---

No, I wouldn't say they were vikings at this time. My last response was merely a response to Econ on how he called vikings, "Danes". I didn't mention whether the troops at Largs were vikings or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

Referring to all vikings as Danes, if that's what was done by econ, was inaccurate but merely a mistake. I understand - I get just as narkey when people refer to scots as english - but no need to be quite as offensive.

---

Well, honestly it doesn't happen often, but it really got my blood boiling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

BTW - was the changing of my name intended to be deliberately offensive too?

---

No, I couldn't remember your name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

My reference to using Danes as ok was not that all vikings were danes but that the danes were vikings - not in reference to this invasion. I can see how that wasn't clear. Sorry about that.

---

That's ok. Guess I misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

Helpful Hint: Check Econ21's rank man......

---

So because he's some high-ranked guy he can spout all kinds of bullshit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lillehammer

So because he's some high-ranked guy he can spout all kinds of bullshit?

---

I believe what Moah is trying to say is that econ is a moderator who has obviously been around for a long time. Someone who can possibly get you banned or otherwise if you continue to spout swear words, dear sir.

Tschüß!
Erich

Ahem. Let's get back on topic please. The topic is the video of the Kingdoms expansion for M2TW, and generally the expansion itself.

Lillehammer, I repeat, what offended me was your insinuation that all ignorant people must be American. That's just silly country-bashing.

I really don't care whether the blokes in the video were Norwegians, Danes, Vikings, Norwegian Vikings or Danish Vikings. I watched the video late in the evening and did not pick up on the nomenclature during the stuttering. In replying to you, I readily conceded my ignorance on the matter. For you to then say that I was talking "bullshit" shows a lack of grace I suppose I must come to expect from your posts. Welcome to the Org.

Sorry, Tincow. :creep:

Quote:

---

Uh... what?
American by any chance?

---

You don't think the English fought Danes?

Ignoramus by any chance?

Quote:

---

It's ok not knowing much about Scandinavia or its history, but labelling all vikings "Danes", is just plain ignorant.

---

The only way you could *possibly* interpret econ's remark as saying that "all vikings were danish" is if you are gifted with a stupidity beyond the lot of mortals, or are deliberately trying to troll and stir up trouble.

Given the history of your posts, I suspect the latter.

Childish "You called this group of people by the wrong name!" complaints are among the most tediously tiresome to read, and the most completely irrelevent to the game's 'historical accuracy'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

You don't think the English fought Danes?

Ignoramus by any chance?

---

How is this any relevant to the video?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

The only way you could *possibly* interpret econ's remark as saying that "all vikings were danish" is if you are gifted with a stupidity beyond the lot of mortals, or are deliberately trying to troll and stir up trouble.

---

He surely draws no line between a norwegian viking or a danish viking. So yes, I'll assume that's what he's saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

Childish "You called this group of people by the wrong name!" complaints are among the most tediously tiresome to read, and the most completely irrelevent to the game's 'historical accuracy'.

---

Nationality is irrelevant to this game? What are you on?! ~:rolleyes:
While we're at, lets call the danish russian and the byzantines turkish.

I suggest you read this trough one more time and try again :sweatdrop:

Dansk, ikke sant?

Quote:

---

He surely draws no line between a norwegian viking or a danish viking

---

Really? Where do you get that from? Please quote econ anywhere saying that Norwegians and Danish are the same group of people.

Quote:

---

I'll assume that's what he's saying.

---

Looks like we found your problem.

Assume less and maybe you won't look like such an ass?

Quote:

---

Nationality is irrelevant to this game?

---

I think you need to step back, take a goooood deep breath, maybe count to 10, all that stuff, and then try engaging in dicussion again, only this time, reading what is actually written instead of randomly leaping to wild and bizarre conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

Really? Where do you get that from? Please quote econ anywhere saying that Norwegians and Danish are the same group of people.

Looks like we found your problem.
Assume less and maybe you won't look like such an ass?

---

Strictly speaking, there are 3 kinds of vikings. He already labeled norwegians as danes, I bet most people would assume he labeled the swedish vikings the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

I think you need to step back, take a goooood deep breath, maybe count to 10, all that stuff, and then try engaging in dicussion again, only this time, reading what is actually written instead of randomly leaping to wild and bizarre conclusions.

---

Or maybe you should explain it a little better?
What are you really saying? That labeling norwegians as danes is irrelevant and not worth explaining?
This is not just calling them by the wrong name, but calling them a totally different nationality.

Quote:

---

I bet most people would assume he labeled the swedish vikings the same way

---

Actually, most people didn't care.

You should consider joining their number, instead of making random assumptions.

Quote:

---

He already labeled norwegians as danes

---

Really? Where? Where did econ say "Norwegians are Danes"?

In the end, no one really cares what generic phrase someone uses to indicate "Scandinavian Invaders from Over the Sea" whether it's Vikings, Danes, Norsemen, Norwegians, Northmen, Swedes, etc.

It is known that these invaders so referenced may be any or all of these nationalities, and thus quibbling over the exact phrase used is bizarre and foolish. All the more so since you insist upon referring to these groups as "Vikings" when the viking age is considered by most scholars to have ended somewhat earlier.

I can just imagine Lillehammer in the 18th century...

Paul Revere "The British are coming the British are coming!"
Lillehammer: "What a load of bull! You just called all inhabitants of the British Isles British, when everyone knows there are Welsh and Irish and Scottish. You really are a silly ass, Paul Revere"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

Actually, most people didn't care.

You should consider joining their number, instead of making random assumptions.

---

I know its easy for you to sit there and critizise, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't just stay silent if he made the same mistake to your nationality.


Really? Where? Where did econ say "Norwegians are Danes"?[/QUOTE]
Why should I bother? You will twist your way out of it.
You know what I'm talking about and you'll find the post on the first page.

You mean this one of econs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I had almost zero interest in the idea of a Britannia campaign or indeed the expansion itself, but am intrigued after this video. Playing the English on VH/VH and foreswearing all alliances might provide a fun challenge - not unlike the WRE in BI. Welsh, Irish, Scots, Danes and rebel barons to contend with. :juggle2: Sounds like fun. :2thumbsup:

---

Which he later explained as:

Quote:

---

I really don't care whether the blokes in the video were Norwegians, Danes, Vikings, Norwegian Vikings or Danish Vikings. I watched the video late in the evening and did not pick up on the nomenclature during the stuttering. In replying to you, I readily conceded my ignorance on the matter. For you to then say that I was talking "bullshit" shows a lack of grace I suppose I must come to expect from your posts. Welcome to the Org.

---

So he said he was not paying attention to the video and so said Danes instead of Norwegians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

In the end, no one really cares what generic phrase someone uses to indicate "Scandinavian Invaders from Over the Sea" whether it's Vikings, Danes, Norsemen, Norwegians, Northmen, Swedes, etc.

---

That may be true in the early parts of the viking expansion, but later cases were better documented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

It is known that these invaders so referenced may be any or all of these nationalities, and thus quibbling over the exact phrase used is bizarre and foolish.

---

Yes, lets just call them whatever we wish. That's how history is written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

All the more so since you insist upon referring to these groups as "Vikings" when the viking age is considered by most scholars to have ended somewhat earlier.

---

You can't have read my post. My point is that I have no problem with people calling them vikings (although inaccurate), it's better than calling them danish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

I can just imagine Lillehammer in the 18th century...

Paul Revere "The British are coming the British are coming!"
Lillehammer: "What a load of bull! You just called all inhabitants of the British Isles British, when everyone knows there are Welsh and Irish and Scottish. You really are a silly ass, Paul Revere"

---

We are not living in the 18th century now, so what's your excuse for disregarding accuracy?

Meh, it's just another guy aggroing over a small thing and then name-calling like a petulant toddler.

It was a pretty good preview. What draws me the most to it is, however, the idea of the Baronial Revolt feature. That could really open up a very good classical M:TW feature to the main M2:TW campaign. However, I can also see this feature having it's flaws - without the ability to remove your own generals, as in M:TW, the Baronial revolt would not be able to be stopped before it started.

So what's all this about the Danes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

So what's all this about the Danes?

---

I think they post drunk and angry? At least one seems to.

:laugh4:

I'm afraid this thread has gone way off-track, despite the warning from TinCow to stick to the topic.

Closed.