>Your favorite historical setting and nation will never have a video game made after it
What's her names, bros
>You will never lead a charge against a horde of vermin to protect your abbey
They've tried a couple of times and failed. Pharaoh was alright.
Also want to see movies revolving around this setting. The flashbacks in The Mummy and the The Mummy Returns were incredibly awesome.
I am not quite a huge fan of M&B. Don't get me wrong, I've like the game, and I surely have at least 500 hours in both original and Warband each, but M&B really requires alot more elements and polish to become a proper RPG. M&B represents a combat simulator/sandbox to me.
>You will never be a cool old guy going around capturing all the castles and fucking sheep with a bunch of rag tag knights.
867 is pushing it a bit, a lot of historians have the dark ages end with the coronation of Charlemagne, though a viking game is in the style of the great germanic settlement movements that marked the dark ages
A game set during the colonization of Australia.
Gameplay is similar to TES, with the ability to explore Australia as you please, but with greater emphasis on survival, as well as the game progressing as you play with Australia growing more and more colonized.
Because Africa in general was always a shithole with nothing really interesting going on until the age of colonialism arrived.
DH or HOI3
That sounds shallow as hell though.
Now if there was a game about the Underground Railroad where you play as an escaped slave with survival elements, that would be interesting.
it collapsed due to environmental changes and relocation of trading routes
it had quite a few accomplishments, it just became impossible to sustain them since half their farmland turned into desert over a century
Erm, what's "Medieval" and what's "Dark ages" and whether Medieval=Dark Ages is up to interpretation...
I guess it's kinda like the renaissance where it happened earlier in some places than others. Seeing as Viking Conquest is set around Britain, and I would consider Britain to be "Dark Ages" up until 1066, I'm going to call Viking Conquest dark-ages.
All I want is to be a mayan warrior, fighting in the deep jungles and eating the hearts of my enemies atop pyramids.
Too few games are centered on the mayan empire anyway. I need to get Theocracy again someday, I was too stupid to play it as a kid.
nah almost all historians make a clear distinction between the dark ages and the medieval period
after all there's no real use trying to lump the 100 year war and the conquests of the Goths into the same time period
Ancient Egypt. Closest things to it are long gone. Nowadays it's Egyptian themed reskins of Bejeweled or that new Tomb Raider game.
I mean proper Ancient Egypt, Total War doesn't count because it's Ptolemaic.
Also, this was a relevant good game that deserved a sequel.
Not into the same period. When I wrote Medieval=Dark ages, I mean if they overlap. Obviously the time of the hundred years war (1300s-1400s) isn't Dark ages. But say the 1000s can be viewed as both dark ages and medieval.
>Implying Dark Ages ever actually transpired
>Implying Italian renaissance "intellectuals" weren't biased fucks who yearned for Roman Empire, and thus labeled everything after it's demise until their present day as Dark Ages.
that's what happened at first, nowadays the dark ages is used to describe the chaotic period of germanic migrations that followed the collapse of the western roman empire
and during that period there were comparatively little advances primarily due to the chaotic nature
>mfw East vs West got cancelled
Dark Ages doesn't imply a lack of technology, it implies a lack of knowledge on our part about the events that were happening at the time, since records weren't as well kept as they were during Rome.
I would, but mostly on the grounds that I grew up there.
>>Implying Italian renaissance "intellectuals" weren't biased fucks who yearned for Roman Empire, and thus labeled everything after it's demise until their present day as Dark Ages.
It's sad, really. All the circlejerking over Rome was just to convince themselves that the greatest advances since the Greek golden age hadn't all taken place in the 9th-10th century Islamic Middle East and 12th-13th century Western Europe.
Definitely needs to happen. RTS, FPS, wargame, I don't give a fuck.
Holy fucking hell, this is the first time I've ever seen /v/ mention this game. I didn't even own it, I just loved watching my younger brother play it. It had such a lovely vibe to it. I've been begging and praying this gets released on the playstation network.
No tercios game, no reconquista game, no proper conquistadores game (expeditions is bullshit with magical indians and black legend all around)
You can get some of that through the Egyptian campaign in Age of Mythology. (It's also the best campaign)
>Every wargame/RTS always have Cold War Gone Hot in the 1980s
>There will never be a Cold War Gone Hot in set in the 1960s
You can always run Anno Domini 1257 in Mountain Blade and engage in removing kebab with the Crusader States. (or start your own holy crusade on whoever the fuck you want to remove in Europe)
>No good Civil War game
>If AC touches it, they'll fuck it up horribly
Fucking hell, the Civil War has amazing setpieces, and some crazy ass motherfuckers you could use, like Pope, Mclellan the retard, Drunk general Grant, Motherfucking Robert E Lee, and William Tecumseh Sherman
I want a game based on the concept of groundhog's day.
>trapped in a time loop
>extremely fleshed out NPCs and areas due to limited number
>have to puzzle out what actions and dialog choices advance the game world
Medieval Central Asia.
I would love to see some later events like An Lushan's rebellion or the Manchu conquest.
>I don't even know what I'm talking about
Please, go watch some documentaries or fire up the wikipedia or something, you are embarrassing.
The Empire started with huge expansions, and basically all of europe got covered in roman infrastructures during the empire.
Rome didn't have a single marble building before this guy.
>tfw no game where you can play an African warlord, enslaving and selling other Africans to Europeans in exchange for guns and useful goods from Europe
/pol/ circlejerks pretty hard over Rhodesia
There need to be more geopolitical "brinkmanship" games, like "Balance of Power" and "Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator," set in the nuclear age.
This or Kosovo. I want to
I think there's an ARMA 2 mod for it
Suggesting to the people within those regions that they once worked or helped each other now causes them to have a slav chimpout. So it's probably unlikely it will ever get made even though in terms of activity an actions during the war it makes for a better plucky rebel story than that of the french resistance.
Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are the same entity. (while in reality there was even war between Cambodia and Vietnam)
Finland is part of the Russia blob as though it was 1917
I'm not sure what exactly is going on with Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary
Just to name the most apparent
You're like one of those people who complain about having saladin's army playable in a game about the crusades or the nazis in a ww2 or the soviet union in a cold war-esque game.
>pretty much any war that America didn't take part in
Holy fuck, this in regards to FPS and TPS.
I mean, nothing against my country, but this overly obsessive patriotic bullshit gets a little tiresome when you see it in so many mainstream movies and vidya.
I want to play as a noble in the 100 years war, or as a soldier of the Mongolian horde that wrecked loads of shit.
It doesn't even have to be entirely historically accurate (I'd even be willing to accept bizarre conspiracy theories thrown into the mix), just as long as it's not about American soldiers during WW2, some retarded ME conflict, or some bullshit OH GOD WE BEEN INVADED by (scary rival power) scenario again.
How do I gain a comprehensive knowledge of world history? There are so many events and people to keep track of it just seems like too much.
I'd ask /lit/ but they're too busy masturbating about DFW and Nietzsche
Cris Crawford combines some countries; otherwise, there would simply be too many, and the game would be unwieldy.
To play the game well, you very well need to mess around in each and every country (except those that are solidly under USA or USSR influence). If the game had a realistic number of countries - this would simply take too long.
They sold them to Arabs who moved them to the coast where they were sold to Europeans.
The whiteys didn't want to go into Africa and the niggers didn't have the logistics to move them out of it.
How about the Thirty Years War?
There's a great period novel about some schmuck called Simplicissimus that gets wrapped up in the mess. I heartily recommend it.
Are there any other games like "Balance of Power" and "Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator"?
I can understand why
It just rustles me
I'm pretty sure sub-saharan Africans sold slaves directly to Europeans. I can't think of how how it would be easier to take them across north africa and then through the mediterreanean and then to the Americas, than to take them to the coast and go from there more or less directly to the Americas, especially as Africa does have some big rivers. To be perfectly clear I am talking Atlantic Slave Trade period.