Next DLC: Conquest of Britain?

[krisslanza]

If they want to stick to Celts and Romans, then I want to see King Arthur next They can borrow the story from Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles or Cornwell's Warlord series.

Ignoring the historical plausibility of King Arthur, he is also kind of outside the timeframe of Rome 2. It's something like 5th or 6th century? That's just a few centuries too late for Rome 2's timeframe as it stands now.

[prithupaul]

Its a new campaign, does not need to follow the Rome 2's timeframe.

Also King Arthur is like "open source". You can play around with the timeline.

[krisslanza]

Its a new campaign, does not need to follow the Rome 2's timeframe.

Also King Arthur is like "open source". You can play around with the timeline.

Well given it's an "expansion" for Rome 2, I would at least expect it to sit within that timeframe. They wouldn't need too, of course but it makes the most sense. Unless they do a FOTS.

While true, a bit, I don't think it fits to have him show up several centuries early. I mean, if he did, we'd be talking about bring medieval technology to the ancient age... wouldn't be too much of a fair fight, I think. This is before you factor in the mythological aspects of King Arthur. Like being immortal, until the whole incident that results in his death at Camlann.

[prithupaul]

Well given it's an "expansion" for Rome 2, I would at least expect it to sit within that timeframe. They wouldn't need too, of course but it makes the most sense. Unless they do a FOTS.

While true, a bit, I don't think it fits to have him show up several centuries early. I mean, if he did, we'd be talking about bring medieval technology to the ancient age... wouldn't be too much of a fair fight, I think. This is before you factor in the mythological aspects of King Arthur. Like being immortal, until the whole incident that results in his death at Camlann.

Barbarian Invasion and Alexander were "expansions" of Rome I, but were set in different time-frames

There are lot of ways and instances of King Arthur being treated as a non-medieval character. If you read the books I mentioned, you ll see lot of similarities with fighting styles depicted in Rome 2.

Come on!! It will be fun! And something different for once. Rome 2 already has a penchant for the "fantastical" and the "magical". At least we are less likely to complain about such things in case Total War: King Arthur

[krisslanza]

Barbarian Invasion and Alexander were "expansions" of Rome I, but were set in different time-frames

There are lot of ways and instances of King Arthur being treated as a non-medieval character. If you read the books I mentioned, you ll see lot of similarities with fighting styles depicted in Rome 2.

Come on!! It will be fun! And something different for once. Rome 2 already has a penchant for the "fantastical" and the "magical". At least we are less likely to complain about such things in case Total War: King Arthur

True, but those timeframes were still in the same era at least
King Arthur is an entirely different era. There's also the magic element in the mythos, which Rome 2 isn't really set up for. You could do something like that, in theory, with a Warhammer title but...

Well, given the actual King Arthur game is pretty terrible... I'd be pretty sure CA could do leagues better with it. But I wouldn't expect it, not unless a Medieval 3 came out, and they decided to start doing fantasy DLC.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Barbarian Invasion and Alexander were "expansions" of Rome I, but were set in different time-frames

Barbarian Invasion was main campaign expansion and to certain extend so was Alexander (though I think it's more about CA's attempt to go online distribution). CiG and HatG are mini campaigns base on specifics campaigns/conflicts within the main game time frame. HatG are early period of the game timeframe while CiG are mid period and this new upcoming campaign represented the late period.

I see the mini campaigns just like what we did with The Iberian Conflict for RTR VII.

The Arthurian Britain (as in Cornwell's book) are in the dark ages which could fit a s a mini campaign for a main campaign expansion like the Fall of Rome period.

[Scarrus]

Actually that could happen considering how CA listens to its Fan-Base

[prithupaul]

Sigh. What an unadventurous and unimaginative bunch (disappears in into the Mists of Avalon)

[prithupaul]

Yes it seems that many do not have the gall to think outside the box eh? lateral thinking even?

Indeed sir! TWR2 and they deserve each other

[GenTiberius]

Sigh. What an unadventurous and unimaginative bunch

I think your issue is more that they don't agree with you than it is about them unadventurous. Though, I'm not sure why being far off base is, by necessity, a good thing.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Yes it seems that many do not have the gall to think outside the box eh? lateral thinking even?

'Thinking' out of the box most of the time leads to off-topics.....

[Darios]

'Thinking' out of the box most of the time leads to off-topics.....

Cmon, I don't really get the desire to jump outside of R2's timeframe (Peloponnesian War, Barbarian Invasion, and King Arthur O.o people) when there are a load of untouched conflicts that do happen to rest inside the bounds of R2's timeframe. I would rather see R2 slowly become more fleshed out due to updates and DLC expansions (within the time frame - Trajan, Macedonian Wars, Roman Civil War, Boudica, etc) THEN make a stand alone Barbarian Invasion game that can in turn be more fleshed out with its inevitable expansions and DLC.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Cmon, I don't really get the desire to jump outside of R2's timeframe (Peloponnesian War, Barbarian Invasion, and King Arthur O.o people) when there are a load of untouched conflicts that do happen to rest inside the bounds of R2's timeframe. I would rather see R2 slowly become more fleshed out due to updates and DLC expansions (within the time frame - Trajan, Macedonian Wars, Roman Civil War, Boudica, etc) THEN make a stand alone Barbarian Invasion game that can in turn be more fleshed out with its inevitable expansions and DLC.

This is not about speculation regarding future DLC or campaigns actually but relating to next next possibly mini campaign DLC which so far is known only as SteamDB Unknown App 273381 which after patch 12 beta shows signs that it's about invasion of Britain (still speculative ?) with Battle of Waitling Street as possibly next historical battle.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Battle of Watling street would be really great!

[Templar Knight]

Battle of Watling street would be really great!

It would be if Rome 2 could in anyway accurately or at least semi-accurately represent the battle. As it stands now the battle would simply degrade into a giant brawl where the only difference between the nasty imperialistic Roman and the noble celt would be how they are dressed.

I'm thinking that CA has just about lost all of their creativity and is now just about quickly putting out a new shallow dlc simply to cash in on peoples infatuation with a fiery redhead that led her people to slaughter and destruction. If CA wanted to release an epic dlc mini-campaign they should move away from the damn celts, and oh I dont know, make a campaign about the various civil wars that were fought, Augustus' campaigns in Germania, Dacian wars, Parthian wars, etc... As others have stated there are plenty of options CA could take that dont involve celts.

Ignoring the historical plausibility of King Arthur, he is also kind of outside the timeframe of Rome 2. It's something like 5th or 6th century? That's just a few centuries too late for Rome 2's timeframe as it stands now.

On a side note, I find it hilarious that you would cite historical plausibility as a reason to not have a dlc, considering how you vigorously defend CA whenever someone brings up the sheer lack of historical accuracy in the base game.

[prithupaul]

For me, I think I have already played the basegame for too many hours. I tried HatG, the experience wasnt that different other than a short spike in difficulty and a few more land battles because of the distance between cities.

Hence I wish for something considerably fresh, be it in a different era. Thing is, 4th century Britannia or Peloponnesian war wont necessarily require any major changes in the gameplay mechanics. So I dont see the problem going for something like that. Only thing lacking is, as the Brigadier put it, an ability to think out of the box.

Anyway I know we will never see a Total War : King Arthur (which can incidentally still be called "Conquest of Britain" ) outside of mods. Just trying to point out that its the only thing fresh out of the Celtic - Roman combination that all DLCs seem to involve.

[Kraut]

If I imagine the faction selection menu correct (have to imagine, cause I neither have CiG nor HatG) nearly all the cultures (Gallic tribes, Hellenic, Eastern, etc etc) now should have more than one faction to choose.
Specially the Gallic tribes might be really crammed now, I guess there were three or four tribes added (do the Iberian factions have their own culture, or are they added to the Gauls?)

I guess only two cultures (Britons and Germanic tribes) still have only one single faction to choose, right?
So a Briton DLC makes sense for CA.

[Scythion]

Really? A Boudica rebellion dlc? There were more significant events in Rome's history, like the Mithridatic wars, the Barbarian invasion, the conquest of Dacia, the wars againts Parthia and Armenia and the Civil wars after Caesar's death.

[prithupaul]

Really? A Boudica rebellion dlc? There were more significant events in Rome's history, like the Mithridatic wars, the Barbarian invasion, the conquest of Dacia, the wars againts Parthia and Armenia and the Civil wars after Caesar's death.

All DLCs must contain Celts. It is known.

[DeVrie]

All DLCs must contain Celts. It is known.

It is known.