Next Expedition game speculation thread

[Skales]

I wanted to make this thread to do something while I where do you think next expedition game will be set in?

From what it looks like 2 expedition games we have now always took relativelly high number of pople and decrease to it a small party ( In reality you would have few hundreds pople in conquistador but you have around 20, vikings are little closer but still you would propably have more people altho they may be more pople in the background ) so have that in mind

[Bazrune]

Expeditions: Viking II would be my preference. There is so much that can be done with the Nordic history. Even including the British history from the first game in the new game would be cool for me. But it should be expanded with North America, the rest of Europe, Africa and Asia. A bit along the lines of the TV series Vikings - but with historically accurate flavouring.

[Skales]

Originally posted by necarus:

Expeditions: Viking II would be my preference. There is so much that can be done with the Nordic history. Even including the British history from the first game in the new game would be cool for me. But it should be expanded with North America, the rest of Europe, Africa and Asia. A bit along the lines of the TV series Vikings - but with historically accurate flavouring.

I would love Rus and the Byzantines as the setting for the sequel yes, but I believe it was said that wont be their next game.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by necarus:

Expeditions: Viking II would be my preference. There is so much that can be done with the Nordic history. Even including the British history from the first game in the new game would be cool for me. But it should be expanded with North America, the rest of Europe, Africa and Asia. A bit along the lines of the TV series Vikings - but with historically accurate flavouring.

I disagree. Vikings was a big step down from Conquistador. Vikings just gave us less of everything. Less territory, less exotic weapons, less diverse factions. We went an epic expedition all the way across the ocean from your home nation to a simple trip across the pond that a physically fit person could achieve by swimming.

A simple trip across the pond to a country the size of one US state is not my idea of an epic expedition. Hopefully the next game will get back on track and really do the meaning of the word "expedition" justice. Get us out of the ancient times and back into a proper gunpowder age.

[HolyFarglesnot]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by necarus:

Expeditions: Viking II would be my preference. There is so much that can be done with the Nordic history. Even including the British history from the first game in the new game would be cool for me. But it should be expanded with North America, the rest of Europe, Africa and Asia. A bit along the lines of the TV series Vikings - but with historically accurate flavouring.

I disagree. Vikings was a big step down from Conquistador. Vikings just gave us less of everything. Less territory, less exotic weapons, less diverse factions. We went an epic expedition all the way across the ocean from your home nation to a simple trip across the pond that a physically fit person could achieve by swimming.

A simple trip across the pond to a country the size of one US state is not my idea of an epic expedition. Hopefully the next game will get back on track and really do the meaning of the word "expedition" justice. Get us out of the ancient times and back into a proper gunpowder age.

I agree, Ohio! I really liked the supernatural elements of the first game as well, the second game really moved away from it.The crystal skull, fountain of youth, etc were really cool, and while getting Excalibur was fun, the end result was... anticlimactic. I would have loved a different ending by having it, or dialogue options. Ah well.

[Bazrune]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by necarus:

Expeditions: Viking II would be my preference. There is so much that can be done with the Nordic history. Even including the British history from the first game in the new game would be cool for me. But it should be expanded with North America, the rest of Europe, Africa and Asia. A bit along the lines of the TV series Vikings - but with historically accurate flavouring.

I disagree. Vikings was a big step down from Conquistador. Vikings just gave us less of everything. Less territory, less exotic weapons, less diverse factions. We went an epic expedition all the way across the ocean from your home nation to a simple trip across the pond that a physically fit person could achieve by swimming.

A simple trip across the pond to a country the size of one US state is not my idea of an epic expedition. Hopefully the next game will get back on track and really do the meaning of the word "expedition" justice. Get us out of the ancient times and back into a proper gunpowder age.

Exactly my point.

That's why I'd like an Expeditions Viking II. A more expanded version to full historic extent. More territory (Asia, Africa, the Mediteranean, even North America), more exotic weapons (think about the weapons and tactics they had in Frankia, the Byzantine empire and Andalusia etc.), an enormous amount of factions (Europe, Asia, Africa, the Mediteranean). If you play Crusader Kings II you will have a good idea of the possibilities.

Admittedly it would be a challenge to make such a game.

[Skales]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by necarus:

Expeditions: Viking II would be my preference. There is so much that can be done with the Nordic history. Even including the British history from the first game in the new game would be cool for me. But it should be expanded with North America, the rest of Europe, Africa and Asia. A bit along the lines of the TV series Vikings - but with historically accurate flavouring.

I disagree. Vikings was a big step down from Conquistador. Vikings just gave us less of everything. Less territory, less exotic weapons, less diverse factions. We went an epic expedition all the way across the ocean from your home nation to a simple trip across the pond that a physically fit person could achieve by swimming.

A simple trip across the pond to a country the size of one US state is not my idea of an epic expedition. Hopefully the next game will get back on track and really do the meaning of the word "expedition" justice. Get us out of the ancient times and back into a proper gunpowder age.

US states are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ massive mate.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by Frollo did Notre Dame:

Originally posted by Ohio9:

I disagree. Vikings was a big step down from Conquistador. Vikings just gave us less of everything. Less territory, less exotic weapons, less diverse factions. We went an epic expedition all the way across the ocean from your home nation to a simple trip across the pond that a physically fit person could achieve by swimming.

A simple trip across the pond to a country the size of one US state is not my idea of an epic expedition. Hopefully the next game will get back on track and really do the meaning of the word "expedition" justice. Get us out of the ancient times and back into a proper gunpowder age.

US states are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ massive mate.

Well that depends on which ones. Maybe Texas or California could be considered massive, but those are both larger then Britain.

[Skales]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by Frollo did Notre Dame:

US states are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ massive mate.

Well that depends on which ones. Maybe Texas or California could be considered massive, but those are both larger then Britain.

Most US states are huge. Texas and California are gigantic but they are outliers. Of course there are exceptions like Rhode Island, but otherwise I am sure every other US state is pretty huge.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by Frollo did Notre Dame:

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Well that depends on which ones. Maybe Texas or California could be considered massive, but those are both larger then Britain.

Most US states are huge. Texas and California are gigantic but they are outliers. Of course there are exceptions like Rhode Island, but otherwise I am sure every other US state is pretty huge.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I personally don't find most of them to be that huge. You can drive through an average state in a single day.

[HolyFarglesnot]

Whereas in Europe, you can drive through several COUNTRIES in a day. Just sayin'. I live in the US, and they seem "normal" sized, but they really aren't.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by HolyFarglesnot:

Whereas in Europe, you can drive through several COUNTRIES in a day. Just sayin'. I live in the US, and they seem "normal" sized, but they really aren't.

Well I think in any case, a single tiny European nation is too small for a big epic expedition. Particularly when all you have to do to get there is cross a few miles of water.

[HolyFarglesnot]

Agreed, Ohio9! The bigger the adventure, the better!

[Skales]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by HolyFarglesnot:

Whereas in Europe, you can drive through several COUNTRIES in a day. Just sayin'. I live in the US, and they seem "normal" sized, but they really aren't.

Well I think in any case, a single tiny European nation is too small for a big epic expedition. Particularly when all you have to do to get there is cross a few miles of water.

Britain is pretty big for a European nation, just saying.

I think early contact between the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons was a good pick, as we need to remember that the world seemed a much bigger place for people back them, most would not know anything outside of a few local villages, so sailing across to sea was a big thing.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by Frollo did Notre Dame:

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Well I think in any case, a single tiny European nation is too small for a big epic expedition. Particularly when all you have to do to get there is cross a few miles of water.

Britain is pretty big for a European nation, just saying.

I think early contact between the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons was a good pick, as we need to remember that the world seemed a much bigger place for people back them, most would not know anything outside of a few local villages, so sailing across to sea was a big thing.

Well that's a matter of opinion. When I think of "Big" European nations, I think of Russia, not the UK.

And I think the Vikings time period was a bad pick. It's simply too small scale for an "expedition" about one group of Europeans crossing a small amount of water to meet another group of Europeans. Nowhere near the epic scale of the first game, which involved a group of Europeans crossing a huge ocean to go to a huge landmass to encounter a group of people massively different then themselves in every possible regard.

[Skales]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by Frollo did Notre Dame:

Britain is pretty big for a European nation, just saying.

I think early contact between the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons was a good pick, as we need to remember that the world seemed a much bigger place for people back them, most would not know anything outside of a few local villages, so sailing across to sea was a big thing.

Well that's a matter of opinion. When I think of "Big" European nations, I think of Russia, not the UK.

And I think the Vikings time period was a bad pick. It's simply too small scale for an "expedition" about one group of Europeans crossing a small amount of water to meet another group of Europeans. Nowhere near the epic scale of the first game, which involved a group of Europeans crossing a huge ocean to go to a huge landmass to encounter a group of people massively different then themselves in every possible regard.

You seem the confuse fricking massive with huge. Russia is the biggest country in the world. UK is big.