New Campaign pack for R2! :)

[The Wandering Storyteller]

I'll keep posting this until we get it drilled into the heads of RII Players:

Make this DLC a success, give positive reviews, and we will get more R2 DLC, Ted and Terry.

[Daruwind]

I'll keep posting this until we get it drilled into the heads of RII Players:

Make this DLC a success, give positive reviews, and we will get more R2 DLC, Ted and Terry.

Amen! +1

I see expansion size DLC, with Alexander on mighty steed,behind him phanlanxes marching into India....

-----------------
@Rampante-Cid
Question of Carthage was already covered by Devs, it is not playable but has special function, unique building....to me it sounds like end game opponent? Foreshadowing First Punic War...Reason was simple this is not first Punic War yet.

The similar reason is for Illyria. They are like vikings raids in ToB.. If they make it playable and add particular settlements, they would be force to add enough new units, textures else people would call it cash grab (as they will anyway). So CA would probably need to remove some playable faction as the resources are limited. And we have already Illyria,Carthage,Greece in other campaigns..Honestly I agree we could use Masalia...but then again even some other cities, the line be must drawn somewhere sadly. :/

[captainkrunch]

The reason why Illyria, Masallia etc. aren't playable is quite simply because it's out of the scope for the DLC. They simply did not -want- to include Illyria, they clearly had the potential too, but this DLC is intended to focus on the Gallic Incursion into Italy and the conflict between Brennus and Camillus and the second founding of Rome. From a more zoomed out perspective, the DLC is also focused on the fight for Hegemony over the Italian Peninsula and the surrounding Islands. Carthage is the only faction missing that I could understand being legitimately upset/dissapointed about, as they were involved after all. Everything else isn't needed. Off map factions and Interactions are enough IMO.

By the way @Benjin, Have you seen references to Massallia in the files? They mentioned there would be some events interacting with them.

Amen! +1

I see expansion size DLC, with Alexander on mighty steed,behind him phanlanxes marching into India....

Never understood the Alexander Hype. To me, Alexander is similar to the Trojan War as a candidate for a TW DLC. You say it and at first it sounds cool, but then you kind of think and I feel it kind of falls apart. You have 1 faction(Persia) controlling like 60% of a possible map, and then you have Alexander and an Indian faction. So you either just grind through an empire as Alexander, or you face a couple spawning Doomstacks as Persia, or twiddle your thumbs as India. A much more interesting campaign of a similar vein set in the east would be a Cyrus the Great/Rise of Persia campaign IMO. It offers a much more interesting variety off actions. Cyrus's Persia, The Medean Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, pre-Ptolemaic Egypt, Lydia, the Greek states, Cilicia, maybe even push in to Northern India for a faction there, and probably more I am missing(maybe even throw in Macedon and give them some cavalry focus). That seems like a much more interesting start then Alexander's Hammer and Anvil extravaganza. Also an Eastern focus not plagued by Pikes would be nice.

[Benjin]

By the way @Benjin, Have you seen references to Massallia in the files? They mentioned there would be some events interacting with them.

Yes, there are a few events (around 5 - can't remember exactly how many unless I go back and look) related to Massilia in the game if you own certain provinces in close proximity to them.

[Valden]

Never understood the Alexander Hype. To me, Alexander is similar to the Trojan War as a candidate for a TW DLC. You say it and at first it sounds cool, but then you kind of think and I feel it kind of falls apart. You have 1 faction(Persia) controlling like 60% of a possible map, and then you have Alexander and an Indian faction. So you either just grind through an empire as Alexander, or you face a couple spawning Doomstacks as Persia, or twiddle your thumbs as India. A much more interesting campaign of a similar vein set in the east would be a Cyrus the Great/Rise of Persia campaign IMO. It offers a much more interesting variety off actions. Cyrus's Persia, The Medean Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, pre-Ptolemaic Egypt, Lydia, the Greek states, Cilicia, maybe even push in to Northern India for a faction there, and probably more I am missing(maybe even throw in Macedon and give them some cavalry focus). That seems like a much more interesting start then Alexander's Hammer and Anvil extravaganza. Also an Eastern focus not plagued by Pikes would be nice.

I partially agree: an Alexander Campaign charting his conquest of Persia would require special mechanics to avoid the problems you highlight. But what about having the campaign begin in Philip's reign? The campaign map could be focussed on Greece, Italy, the Balkans, Asia Minor and perhaps Egypt. You have a great variety of factions. The Greek city states are still strong, there are barbarians north of Macedon, 'eastern' Greeks in Asia Minor, a struggling Rome in Italy, and Macedon herself, in the process of developing from a barbarian kingdom into a formidable nation-state with an equally formidable military organisation. To me, the 'rise' of Macedon in this era, when Rome was also developing and the Greeks could easily have reasserted themselves, is a far more interesting moment to pick for a sandbox campaign than a slug-fest through Persia as an already consolidated Macedon.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

I partially agree: an Alexander Campaign charting his conquest of Persia would require special mechanics to avoid the problems you highlight. But what about having the campaign begin in Philip's reign? The campaign map could be focussed on Greece, Italy, the Balkans, Asia Minor and perhaps Egypt. You have a great variety of factions. The Greek city states are still strong, there are barbarians north of Macedon, 'eastern' Greeks in Asia Minor, a struggling Rome in Italy, and Macedon herself, in the process of developing from a barbarian kingdom into a formidable nation-state with an equally formidable military organisation. To me, the 'rise' of Macedon in this era, when Rome was also developing and the Greeks could easily have reasserted themselves, is a far more interesting moment to pick for a sandbox campaign than a slug-fest through Persia as an already consolidated Macedon.

Agreed. That would be an interesting setting.

[jamreal18]

Guys, Alexander needs his own game.

In order to get a massive overhaul to pikes, CA needs more budget, time, manpower and it's only posible if Alexander is going to be made his own title rather than dlc. We need pikemen phalanx to have; more men per unit, staying pikes, pikemen more responsive, etc... all of those can be achieved if Alexander has his own game.

Aside from that, Diadochi Wars must be tailored into his game as late game mechanic.

If you play as Alexander and after he died, Diadochi Wars will commence and you will be asked whom do you want to continue to play as.
If you play as another faction and he died, succesor states will float up to continue his campaign while being hostile to each other.

[Nikron]

Total War has a long tradition of "off-map" factions, threats and enemies, going back to the Mongols of Medieval 1 at least (I didn't play Shogun 1.) The Illyrians serve this purpose by the sounds of it.

As for why they didn't include them on the map, they didn't need to. This isn't their story.

I'd agree with you if my knowledge on Illyrians came from Total War games and I'd normally include also Wikipedia, but funny enough this time Wikipedia suffices as a source of basic information.

The fall of Liburnian domination in the Adriatic Sea and their final retreat to their ethnic region (Liburnia) were caused by the military and political activities of Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse (406 – 367 BC). The imperial power base of this Syracusan tyrant stemmed from a huge naval fleet of 300 tetreras and penteras. After he ended Carthaginian authority in Sicily, he turned against the Etruscans. He made use of the Celtic invasion of Italy, and the Celts became his allies in the Italian peninsula (386 - 385 BC). This alliance was crucial for his politics, then focusing on the Adriatic Sea, where the Liburnians still dominated. In light of this strategy, he established a few Syracusan colonies on the coasts of the Adriatic Sea: Adria at the mouth of Po river and Ancona at the western Adriatic coast, Issa on the outermost island of the central Adriatic archipelago (island of Vis) and others. Meanwhile, in 385-384 BC he helped colonists from the Greek island of Paros to establish Pharos (Starigrad) colony on the Liburnian island of Hvar, thus taking control of the important points and navigable routes in the southern, central and northern Adriatic.

This caused a simultaneous Liburnian resistance on both coasts, whether in their ethnic domain or on the western coast, where their possessions or interests were in danger. A great naval battle was recorded a year after the establishment of Pharos colony, by a Greek inscription in Pharos (384 – 383 BC) and by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (80 – 29 BC), initiated by conflicts between the Greek colonists and the indigenous Hvar islanders, who asked their compatriots for support. 10,000 Liburnians sailed out from their capital Idassa (Zadar), led by the Iadasinoi (people of Zadar), and laid siege to Pharos. The Syracusan fleet positioned in Issa was informed in time, and Greek triremes attacked the siege fleet, taking victory in the end. According to Diodorus, the Greeks killed more than 5,000 and captured 2,000 prisoners, ran down or captured their ships, and burned their weapons in dedication to their god.

This battle meant the loss of the most important strategic Liburnian positions in the centre of the Adriatic, resulting in their final retreat to their main ethnic region, Liburnia, and their complete departure from the Italic coast, apart from Truentum (nowadays on the border between Marche and Abruzzo). Greek colonization, however, did not extend into Liburnia, which remained strongly held, and Syracusan dominance suddenly diminished upon the death of Dionysius the Elder. The Liburnians recovered and developed piracy to secure navigable routes in the Adriatic, as recorded by Livius for 302 BC.

Illyria? Seems to me they're mainly pirates and raiders at this point, and that's exactly what their role appears to be in the campaign. Heck the First Illyrian War isn't for another 170 years!!!

Dominating the Adriatic, having established several colonies and trading posts and going head to head against Dionysios of Syracuse seems to you as just pirates and raiders? 2 words taken from a Total War DLC.

As for why they didn't include it anyway so modders could make them playable? Because they don't work for the modders, they work for the players. Because as a player who isn't that interested in mods (a sizeable chunk of the playerbase, despite what some think,) I'd much rather they invest their limited resources in something they're actually going to use in the campaign they've designed and I'm actually going to face when playing it, than in extending the map further than is intended for this campaign just so modders can then play with it.

They work for the easy money first of all and although you keep repeating how much you enjoy vanilla, understand that the rest of us who use mods and had to go through 20 patches and 5 years of continuous disappointment make up 99% of the buyers.

We're all so disappointed that some of us learnt to get happy by seeing a ridiculous DLC like Desert Kingdoms forgetting that this game ended up being so damn expensive and yet unfinished after all this years. Are we supposed to be happy for paying $200 and still not getting what this game deserves?


So again, to everyone who's going to repeat the same thing over and over again of how this game is only focused on Italy:

1) I'm interested in playing as Syracuse first of all, and this discussion it's not about Illyria. My "dream DLC" would include Greece and Makedon too but seeing that Illyria is already there together with Massilia, why not take advantage of it? CA already has Massilian/Greek units as they just copy paste from other Greek factions anyway, and they already have Illyrian units and it's not like they ever bothered about Illyrians in general.

2) The reason Illyrians were again mentioned was because THEY WERE IN ITALY and dominated the Adriatic, not to mention the Messapians, Iapygians, and Daunians in Apulia. So yes, this DLC is about Italy and that's why I'm bringing them up.

3) Rome didn't invade Sardinia and Corsica for another 200 years, so what are they doing there? Why not blame CA for wasting resources on factions that don't play a single role in the peninsula? Not to mention that Carthage isn't even playable and the DLC doesn't wanna focus on Carthage. So why not bring up the same excuses as for Illyria in this case even though we established the fact that Illyrians had a strong foothold on Eastern Italy? Did the Iolei dominate the Mediterranean? Did they launch attacks on Rome? Did they establish colonies?

4) The issue here is simple. Every single time Total War has to be Celtic focused so that they're British fan base and themselves get something to play with. How about make a bunch of Celtic hordes with full stack armies and allocate them somewhere in the Alps? No, they gotta be the damn center of everything. Wooohooo, I'm gonna sack Rome with Brennus, here's my $15.

[jamreal18]

Guys, we might get new units for Syracuse and Ardiaei in the future.

Also Carthage if they would have new unit in dlc.

It depends if CA will still work on Rome 2 after this dlc.

[Nikron]

Guys, we might get new units for Syracuse and Ardiaei in the future.

Also Carthage if they would have new unit in dlc.

It depends if CA will still work on Rome 2 after this dlc.

Units can be done within minutes with the Assembly Kit or PFM. The issue here is simply including them and the rest we'll handle ourselves. Carthage is included least and I don't see the Ardiaei as a relevant faction in this DLC unlike the neighbouring Liburnians.

I partially agree: an Alexander Campaign charting his conquest of Persia would require special mechanics to avoid the problems you highlight. But what about having the campaign begin in Philip's reign? The campaign map could be focussed on Greece, Italy, the Balkans, Asia Minor and perhaps Egypt. You have a great variety of factions. The Greek city states are still strong, there are barbarians north of Macedon, 'eastern' Greeks in Asia Minor, a struggling Rome in Italy, and Macedon herself, in the process of developing from a barbarian kingdom into a formidable nation-state with an equally formidable military organisation. To me, the 'rise' of Macedon in this era, when Rome was also developing and the Greeks could easily have reasserted themselves, is a far more interesting moment to pick for a sandbox campaign than a slug-fest through Persia as an already consolidated Macedon.

A DLC focusing on Philip would be great but CA is not going to make a map roughly similar to the Wrath of Sparta one.

[RexImperator]

Guys, we might get new units for Syracuse and Ardiaei in the future.

Also Carthage if they would have new unit in dlc.

It depends if CA will still work on Rome 2 after this dlc.

To be fair, all they said was that they wanted to know what we would like to see.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

To be fair, all they said was that they wanted to know what we would like to see.

Indeed!

[JERUSALEM]

Guys, Alexander needs his own game.

In order to get a massive overhaul to pikes, CA needs more budget, time, manpower and it's only posible if Alexander is going to be made his own title rather than dlc. We need pikemen phalanx to have; more men per unit, staying pikes, pikemen more responsive, etc... all of those can be achieved if Alexander has his own game.

I thing, you will have it very soon. CA is working hard for this game just as it has high average number of players, seems that they only care about money. Sad...

Anyway Alexander the Great's campaign will be fun to play and Era is quite interesting as well.

[Goffredo85]

To Nikron:
1)Unfortunately for you this DLC is not based on your "dream" DLC.
2)The Illiryans are in. Although in a different way. A cheap way for CA to say they put some new mechanic in? Most probably, yes.
3)You're right about sardinian faction. So why I think they are in?
a)they are new and never seen before in any another total war title.
b)Their presence is meaningless enough not shift the focus of the DLC, which is central Italy.
3)CA hungarian employees may not be aware that Sardinia started to be considered part of Italy just a couple centuries ago (at most). They may have thought that the DLC being focused on Italy, then Sardinia should have been part of it.
4)we already have non celtic centered DLCs: Hannibal at the Gates, Empire Divided, Imperator Augustus, Wrath os Sparta.
That being said, the poor sale rates which WOS scored show that a greek centered DLC/Campaign is not what the wider fanbase wants. The main problem of WOS being the lack of variety in units and factions.

[captainkrunch]

For those curious I took some time to count what I am fairly certain are the province lines and I counted about 110 regions in this campaign. Most provinces have 4 regions, quite a few have 3 and a few rare ones(such as Roma) have just 2. I am pretty sure Wrath of Sparta had 78 regions I think? Around that number. So the campaign is about a third larger than Wrath of Sparta for reference. A few regions I was a bit iffy on wheter I was just seeing the lines or not, but all in fall I am fairly confident it is around 110 regions.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

For those curious I took some time to count what I am fairly certain are the province lines and I counted about 110 regions in this campaign. Most provinces have 4 regions, quite a few have 3 and a few rare ones(such as Roma) have just 2. I am pretty sure Wrath of Sparta had 78 regions I think? Around that number. So the campaign is about a third larger than Wrath of Sparta for reference. A few regions I was a bit iffy on wheter I was just seeing the lines or not, but all in fall I am fairly confident it is around 110 regions.

Υοu're very patient and eager as it seems.

[Diocle]

Just a question, I'm trying the ancestors' patch, once the new DLC is out, will it work only with the new patch?

[Nikron]

To Nikron:
1)Unfortunately for you this DLC is not based on your "dream" DLC.
2)The Illiryans are in. Although in a different way. A cheap way for CA to say they put some new mechanic in? Most probably, yes.
3)You're right about sardinian faction. So why I think they are in?
a)they are new and never seen before in any another total war title.
b)Their presence is meaningless enough not shift the focus of the DLC, which is central Italy.
3)CA hungarian employees may not be aware that Sardinia started to be considered part of Italy just a couple centuries ago (at most). They may have thought that the DLC being focused on Italy, then Sardinia should have been part of it.
4)we already have non celtic centered DLCs: Hannibal at the Gates, Empire Divided, Imperator Augustus, Wrath os Sparta.
That being said, the poor sale rates which WOS scored show that a greek centered DLC/Campaign is not what the wider fanbase wants. The main problem of WOS being the lack of variety in units and factions.

1) I'm pretty sure it will be the best DLC ever made if it focuses on both Italy, Greece, and few important Mediterranean regions.
2) Yep, cheap way and we missed some full experience or additional fun/challenge.
3) I used Sardinia as an example as to why the way more important and actually relevant in an Italy based campaign Liburnians were excluded while Sardinians were in and even playable.
4) I had the same impression because it does seem like a map based on modern Italy. I believe you meant Bulgarian team.
5) HatG - good DLC, ED - a joke, IA is not up for discussion, WoS - worse than a joke.

Have you tried playing the DEI converted version of Wos into Macedonian Wars before thinking that a "greek centered DLC is not what the wider fanbase wants"?

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

If only I had a penny for every time that I had ideas for the best game (or extra content) ever made

I do admit not having at least a strip of the other side of the Adriatic is a bummer.

Here's to hoping DeI and other modders make sweet mods for this map. It has a lot of potential. Something like the Mac Wars in DeI or Hellenika for WoS would be pretty sweet.

Then again, I pretty much depend on modders making content like this more interesting, so I try not to get too worked up about it. Often, the content actually coming out is just the first step. Involves lots of patience

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Just a question, I'm trying the ancestors' patch, once the new DLC is out, will it work only with the new patch?

You mean your save ? The new DLC will have a completely different campaign. But the main grand campaign will probably work.

Here's to hoping DeI and other modders make sweet mods for this map. It has a lot of potential. Something like the Mac Wars in DeI or Hellenika for WoS would be pretty sweet.

Then again, I pretty much depend on modders making content like this more interesting, so I try not to get too worked up about it. Often, the content actually coming out is just the first step. Involves lots of patience

I'll surely not gonna touch it for at least 2-3 months. I mean playing an actual campaign.