Assassin's Creed Ubisoft no longer deserve to have their games bought at full price. |
- Ubisoft no longer deserve to have their games bought at full price.
- A game with Aya set in Rome could do what Rogue failed to do.
- Unity is around 5,000 times better in French.
- Origins is an AC Game, no amount of banter is going to change it.
- Theory, there is something hidden in the north sea
- What are people's opinions on the Assassin's Creed Revelations Theme?
- I'm fairly certain I've sequence broken AC Valhalla on accident (spoilers)
- Ac Valhalla. I need 10 more raw material.
- One Person’s Valhalla Review and Thoughts (Spoilers)
- Missing side missions/WW1 in AC Syndicate
- Seeking help with the Assassins creed games
- Entry point and favorite games in the series
- Black Flag social treasure chest things
- AC newbie with a couple of questions in AC2?
- Weird question, but... why opal?
- Shout out to Ubisoft for saving like 10 autosaves in Valhalla
- Fairly new to AC, had to get this off my chest
- An interesting opinion on why Assassin's Creed has lost its identity. Worth a read whether you agree with the opinion or not
- Reviewing on Assassin's Creed Unity
- Winged Hussars and the Great Turkish War as a setting
| Ubisoft no longer deserve to have their games bought at full price. Posted: 08 Feb 2021 01:26 PM PST Not when they keep selling us games that aren't fully finished. Not when they keep locking content behind pay walls and fucking microtransactions. Not when they keep sacrificing the core essence of their franchise for mainstream bullshit. That's it for me, I'm no longer buying a Ubisoft game at a full price, Assassin's Creed or otherwise. We have the power to make them change their ways, we just need to use it. [link] [comments] | ||
| A game with Aya set in Rome could do what Rogue failed to do. Posted: 08 Feb 2021 06:56 AM PST AC Rogue had an interesting concept: Show the Brotherhood of Assassins as the villains, not the heroes. Making the top secret murder cult seem evil was a relatively easy job. The main issue with Rogue was an absolute lack of nuance in the Assassins. They were willing to kill a ton of innocent people in order to achieve their goals, and ignored the Creed completely in doing so. For all intents and purposes, they just swapped places with the Templars. The game didn't go into flaws within the actual beliefs of the Assassins, it just had a few of them ignore all those beliefs completely. The first Assassins Creed game showed a lot of the grey areas in the world. Hospitalier was horribly torturing the patients in his hospital, but in doing so, gained vital information that could save others. Talal was enslaving homeless people, but viewed himself as a hero, as they all would have starved alone without him. Abu'l told Altair that he too was killing people for what he believed would gain peace, and even poisoned a large number of those profiteering off of war and misery. The point of the game was that it wasn't as simple as good vs evil. The comics featuring Aya in Rome (I'd highly recommend them) featured her teaming up with Cassius and Brutus in order to assassinate Caesar, and prevent Marc Anthony's rise to power. However, at the end (minor spoiler, but kinda obvious knowing history) Aya convinces them not to kill Antony, as that would just cause more harm to Rome, and violate their ideals. It was then hinted that Aya had formed some kind of alliance with Augustus later on. It introduced the idea that killing the Ancient Ones wasn't always the right move, as in some cases, allowing people to be controlled would be better than having them die. That's why the Pax Romana would make such a great era for an AC game exploring the concept of the Assassins as villains. Augustus essentially practiced the exact ideas of the Ancient Ones/Templars: He exercised military and political control, as well as manipulating the media and public perception. And it worked. He established an era of peace and prosperity, reduced crime, offered new opportunities for advancement to lower classes, and generally improved society. Having the Assassins deal with an issue like that, where them taking action might actually make things worse would be a legitimately interesting conflict for the characters. [link] [comments] | ||
| Unity is around 5,000 times better in French. Posted: 08 Feb 2021 07:09 AM PST Seriously, I love it. The voice actors are really good (or at least they seem really good because I don't quite understand the language) and it's just so much more immersive without the obnoxious British accents and phrases (pisspot) in the French Revolution. Also, I feel like I'm learning a bit of French. And I really like Arno's voice, his original voice annoys me. [link] [comments] | ||
| Origins is an AC Game, no amount of banter is going to change it. Posted: 08 Feb 2021 12:37 PM PST Honestly, never thought I'd have to actually post this because I assumed people would look at the story. Been seeing a lot of people tell that Origins is just an RPG like Odyssey and has nothing to do with Assassin's Creed Games. Of Course you are not going to see ASSASSINS AND TEMPLARS GO CLASH IN EGYPT, it's literally in the goddamn title, ORIGINS, Start of the Creed, How Assassin's and Templars came to be, how everything was set in place. Bayek was nothing more than a father seeking Revenge and a Medjay still upholding his duty, The Order of Ancients are the templars here, they weren't known as templars, But they are the Origins, the start point, you aren't going to look at Red-Cross Necklace or Sword Hilt Ornament wielding templars. People say that the story has little to no reason, it does have reason, Bayek starts off as an Revenge to make sure all those who were involved in his sons death were to play, There's no Isu here, there's no higher being involved, there's no apple of eden, because at that point, Only the Order of Ancients existed and they knew about the Artefacts and the bloodshed they caused for it. The entire game is Bayek trying to avenge his son and losing himself in the process, Aya seeing how futile Egypt has become and how it has completely transformed, death of Khemu finally made Aya see that her little world with Bayek and Khemu in Siwa was far isolated from the actual problems of Egypt. The Entire story tells us of how Egypt is oppressed and how helpless the people are, oppressed, their dead and gods desecrated, their children unsafe, Aya believes Cleopatra will restore Order to Egypt and does everything in her power and by extension, Bayek to make sure Egypt sees another day. Bayek was focused on Revenge and Revenge and Revenge, ultimately ending up at a point where he bloodies his hands far too much to ever be united with his son in the Field of Reeds, consumed by Rage. Aya on the other hand desperately tries to make Egypt better, burying herself in the woes of others in order to not look at her own life. The ultimate self-reflection of both of them ultimately end up creating the Creed, to even the scales of balance, to give people a hope that there's someone out there who will protect them and their freedom, someone that will prevent a complete destruction. To make sure not another Bayek and Aya happen, losing their child to greed and incompetence and losing themselves in an effort to make things right. Exactly why such a small DLC like the Hidden Ones make such a big difference, that one small hug between Bayek and Aya, showing how much they sacrificed and still sacrifice so that what happened to them doesn't happen to anyone again, is indictive proof that this game was the setting foundation for the Creed, selflessness as the other Assassin's that came after their time. The entire game is about how helpless people are, when a behemoth organized group like the Order of Ancients set their fangs free, There's no one to oppose them, even the great Cleopatra has no control, nor does a literal Roman Emperor, there's no one to even believe that these people indicate, which is exactly why The Hidden Ones, the brotherhood was created. In a effort to make sure there's no Khemu incident again, there's no Siwa Massacre, there's no higher power completely taking control of dangerous objects that have the potential to end the world. It is not going to feel like an Assassin's Creed game, simply because it shows how things were set in motion, how Bayek and Aya came to be the founders of the Creed, why the Hidden Ones were organized in the first place. The core mechanics of the game has been changed to fit the RPG genre, I understand the frustration about that, but if you look back on it, the same fanbase was the one criticizing for a lack of difference in Assassin's Creed Games, I wasn't onboard with the RPG decision, but looking at Odyssey and the way that was implemented, Origins is miles ahead and actually feels like a game. To me, calling a game like Origins a "RPG game, there's no assassin's creed except for the last 10 minutes" , it is a RPG game that tries its best to stick to its roots, while also tackling a major issue, to give a proper story on how the creed came to be, it tries to do way too many things and actually excels, actually sets the tone for the next game (which Odyssey ruined with their Atlantis and Magical Woo-Hoo Spear), you can't just throw in Assassin's and Templars and say " one day they just assembled inside a hall and decided to fight each other for centuries " I only wish people understood the true meaning of Origins, it isn't another RPG game that tries to parade around with the Assassin's Creed Title, it is the beginning and it was executed to almost near perfection, trying to introduce a new formula while hanging to its roots. [link] [comments] | ||
| Theory, there is something hidden in the north sea Posted: 08 Feb 2021 07:24 PM PST They put this giant sea in england that literally covers 30% of the map, just to hide nothing in it? there has to be something in it, but honestly who tf would actually take there time to explore the bottom of the north sea. [link] [comments] | ||
| What are people's opinions on the Assassin's Creed Revelations Theme? Posted: 08 Feb 2021 04:00 PM PST The Assassin's Creed Theme in Revelations was one of the most emotional and memorable themes in the series for me. I thought that it would have deserved at least some motif use in a similar way to Ezio's Family, however it's been abandoned. [link] [comments] | ||
| I'm fairly certain I've sequence broken AC Valhalla on accident (spoilers) Posted: 08 Feb 2021 08:32 PM PST I have yet to do Esthexe or Susthexe as part of the main quest, but I've done almost everything else. All of the order save for Fulke and the head leader are dead, as I painstakingly went through all of the order as to get the tablets for Excalibur. At any rate, when I go back to Ravensthorpe and speak to Hytham, who proceeds to give me Thor's cloak after a cutscene talking about how Aelfred is the leader of the Order. Ah well. At least I have all of Thor's armor and a cool sword now, at least. [link] [comments] | ||
| Ac Valhalla. I need 10 more raw material. Posted: 08 Feb 2021 09:34 PM PST I have done all of the abby locations. Yet i need 10 more raw material to get too level 6 in the village (forgot the name). Does anyone know where I might find it or if anyone else has this issue. [link] [comments] | ||
| One Person’s Valhalla Review and Thoughts (Spoilers) Posted: 08 Feb 2021 08:57 AM PST I know there are a lot of these, and I actually personally enjoy reading the long posts and getting various perspectives and thoughts about the game and direction of the franchise. Differing opinions is great. Anyway, here's mine. TL:DR - I actually really enjoyed this game, in almost 110 hours and close to 100% completion (damn cairns). I think there are some really significant areas that could stand to be improved and discussed though. Length - this is a very popular topic, and one I've commented on the in the past. I don't have any problem with the length of a game, per se, or the developer's desire to tether me to a game. We're all free to move on as we choose. I put in 1200 hours into Monster Hunter World and loved every second of it. For me, the issue with the length of Valhalla is less about cumulative playtime or gameplay loops than the underlying structure of how the game plays (a lot more on that below in gameplay). A long game that either 1) provides narrative impact or 2) increases player power and game feeling is one that I can get behind. An example of 1 would be Witcher 3 - I've played it 4 times and made different choices every time (romance, politics, life/death, etc.). And example of 2 would be actually Odyssey - as you advanced, you could fine tune builds/gear to actually make a difference. Neither is present here. I actually loved the mini-arcs from conquering various kingdoms of England. I think it's a really nice way to have sort of side quests/mini quests while still advancing the story, and I looked forward to each one. The problem with these is that 1) they're mandatory to seeing the end; and 2) they don't really change anything about the world-state. Like I never agonized over who would live or die, or which king I picked, since I basically had a sense it wouldn't matter. I do get that it's the "animus" and there's a over-arching linear plot that has to advance, so there's a tension there. I can't get over the Kyra side-quest in Odyssey though. That's my favorite questline in the Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla group, and felt alive and interesting. I played through it multiple times to see the different outcomes. I don't know if it's possible to have a "meta-Kyra" game but I, for one, would love to see Ubisoft try it. One easy way would've been to make certain alliances optional and have which ones you did affect the final battle. It could've made the game long enough for players like me who wanted to see everything, but allow others to end the Sigurd/modern day arc in 40-50 hours. Gameplay - here's the one that I probably have the biggest issue with, and welcome some disagreement here. I really didn't love the combat. Two reason - I think the "weight" of the combat just doesn't feel right, compared to other games and even Odyssey before it. No matter how powerful you are or what weapon you use, there's about the same number of hits to kill an regular enemy or a high level "Goliath" type. Parrying felt good, but then about 10 hours in I got the "slow time while dodging" skill and it kind of rendered everything else irrelevant. Parrying just felt like it took too long when I could literally kill 30 enemies in 60 seconds dodging and lighting them on fire. Almost every fight I just dodged and destroyed. Ghost of Tsushima has gotten the "weight" and feeling of combat the best of any game to date, for me. Parrying is tight but basically required there, and you don't move at warp speed around your enemies. The timing is good, and 1-3 hits kills someone (as it should). You feel like you're on the same level as your opponents, and it feels good to win. Here, I treated the enemies as more of a nuisance than anything. Second, the AC franchise has (as noted by many people) gotten away from the stealth that was it's bread and butter. We've gone from getting desynchronized for getting detected to basically never needing stealth at all. I used to view a new area as a sandbox to plan an assassination or an assault. In Origins and Odyssey you could pick your way through a fort, although I'll agree the games have gradually moved away from stealth. I'm sort of not making any judgment as to whether Ubisoft should go back to those styles or not, even in short segments. My point is basically that there is absolutely no consequence for the players in taking the full frontal assault route. Like zero. This could be fixed if the combat was more difficult - like if I storm into a fort and get swarmed by 20 guys, I should die. But no, I basically just take a few extra seconds to kill them. Stealth basically has no reward in-game. It changes nothing or affects nothing. Even in Odyssey there were sometimes consequences for not using stealth. Here, unless I missed something, there's nothing. The RPG Again, I know it's not easy since they're trying to push an RPG, but the RPG part has to actually mean something. Like, I should look forward to leveling up/acquiring new gear/weapons. I still like the appearances, but it basically doesn't matter once you get a few skills. I played a good chunk of the game on Drengr difficulty and I couldn't really tell if any of the skill points I was using made any difference or not. One personal pet peeve of mine was the stat "critical chance." Like I had it at 107 or something. What does that mean? In almost any game, critical chance is a percentage of 100, and you strive for the 100% crit chance. Odyssey had it. Here, I feel like it's basically random and whether or not I use my crit chance runes has no substantive effect on my game. That's just one example. It's sort of how I feel about all the skills. Basically, I want to see a difference in the skills and weapons.... I felt like there were a few skills I noticed - extra adrenaline bars, and the slow time when dodging. Also dual wielding heavy weapons. I had all of them within the first 80 or so points and nothing else mattered. Also flails felt significantly different from other weapons, and while I didn't like them, I loved that they felt different. For the rest, it was basically how I wanted to look while killing everyone. Narrative On this, I am far from an AC expert although I have played all the games. I won't comment on modern day since I only know enough to sound like an idiot. I will say again, I enjoyed the narrative flow of the England arcs. It really works. They felt like episodes of a TV show, and I enjoyed them. As I noted above, I think making some optional would've reduced the length for some and also allowed the urgency of the main quest (find Sigurd!!) to shine after you find his arm (oh but let me help this dude get rid of his wife!). On that score, Dag was probably right when he said we were gallivanting around England while ignoring Sigurd :). Anyway, all of the king-making basically amounts to nothing. The final battle is super anti-climatic and lacking of the grandeur of the earlier castle sieges and left me going, oh that's it? You barely notice the armies of King Aelfred or your allies - it's like 30 people fighting. I even think the territory battles for Odyssey felt more grand and important than the last fight here. Odds and Ends So I think all of the little mini-puzzles to solve just to find minor chests are a bit much. I could've done with far less, especially since all of the puzzles start to become completely repetitive (shoot this wall, move this shelf, lower this ladder, etc.). I think toning down the amount of minor loot and making the puzzles unique to major loot (armor, tungsten, etc.) would be an easy fix but of course, decrease playtime :). On that score, leveling up Raventhorpe to level 6 is unncessarily tedious. Doing all the monasteries and getting the major chests should be sufficient - that's sort of what the game tells you to do at first! It's kind of bizarre how the "legendary" weapons that you spend hours getting - like Exaclibur - are basically just underwhelming. I guess if we get transmog it won't matter, but Excalibur and Thor's stuff are kind of bad (from a stat perspective). But again, I'm using them and the combat is basically the same for me, so it doesn't matter. There's no real way around this, but I did feel like every town in England aside from London and York basically felt the same. It's a tough one, I admit. I just honestly forgot where I was on the map most of the time. Lastly, the Reda system is absurdly bad. You get Opal at a snail's pace, the selections are almost always bad, and there are WAY WAY WAY too many paid items in the store, compared to the game, which is basically just cosmetics given the combat. I get it, people buy them, but man. I got like one hammer and a bow and maybe a helmet. That's crazy for how much time I've put in. Anyway, if you got to the bottom of this, congrats. I enjoyed playing the game, and this is basically some suggestions or ideas for how it I personally think it could've been better. Just one man's opinion :). [link] [comments] | ||
| Missing side missions/WW1 in AC Syndicate Posted: 08 Feb 2021 08:37 PM PST Finally got around to playing syndicate and loving it so far. Only thing is I'm on sequence 6 (just finished 5) and some of the memory missions that I saw available on the map are no longer there. Also, I saw a mission entitled WW1 during my last mission in sequence 5 which I was gonna save to do after, but now it's gone. Will any of these missions reappear or have I shot myself in the foot? [link] [comments] | ||
| Seeking help with the Assassins creed games Posted: 08 Feb 2021 05:32 PM PST Getting into assassins creed It took me awhile to get back into my Xbox and start playing AC again. By the time I did, there's was a couple of releases and left me somewhat confused. I know there's a couple out right now that are available for the Xbox one and was wondering how I should start playing them, is there actually a timeline between all these games. I was wondering because there's creed one and two. -thanks [link] [comments] | ||
| Entry point and favorite games in the series Posted: 08 Feb 2021 02:38 PM PST This by no means applies across the board (obviously) but I've noticed a correlation between someone's entry point in the AC series and their favorite game(s). All criticisms of each era aside, I think every AC game has lots to love about it. Older fans generally still hold the Ezio trilogy in the highest regard, while newer fans love the RPG trilogy (and some of us older fans too). So I'm curious to know what was your first AC game, and which ones are your favorite? Does this correlation hold true for you, or not? [link] [comments] | ||
| Black Flag social treasure chest things Posted: 08 Feb 2021 06:18 PM PST I've been hauling my ass around the west indies looking for these damned chests all day. I used the maps and the Russian guy's videos but I still have to find one after 6-7 hours of actively looking for them. Are they still in the game or am I just incredibly unlucky? Edit: for the record, I'm only asking because I can't find a post that says they're still in current year. Only one from last year. [link] [comments] | ||
| AC newbie with a couple of questions in AC2? Posted: 08 Feb 2021 12:50 PM PST Never played an AC game before, just kind of passed me by and then they started churning one out every year so I just left it alone. Anyways bought the Ezio collection the other day and so far it's decent, even for an old game. I found the free-running a little iffy at first as it was a bit clunkier than I expected having played inFAMOUS which came out the same year but it's not so bad now, however a couple of things keep happening. To get up a wall at pace you have to hold the free run button (R2 for me) and the walk fast button (X), but half the time I start running up the wall and jumping off it backwards, or randomly yeeting myself sidewards off a wall, I know there is a wall jump action but the buttons are absolutely buried down and I'm not tapping X to jump off mid run up the wall, it just seems to happen. Tbh any tips and tricks would be welcome but specific advice on stopping yourself leaping backwards or off in a random direction to your death would be great. I can't help but feel that they could've mapped things a little better to make it so two completely separate actions like jump up wall and suicide off the wall could be different buttons but I guess it's too late crying about that now. Oh also, having just got to eastern Florence, guards are now on the roofs of buildings, is this tied to being notorious atm or are they always there from now on? If the latter that would kind of suck, it would be nice to have the rooftops as your own private kingdom and not have to keep avoiding goons. Last question, how worth it is buying upgrades early? I see the leather shoulder guard available for 2000 or so Florins, is there any point in always upgrading weapons and armour or will the benefits be short lived before a new shiny thing is available for purchase that will make the upgrade redundant? Thanks to whoever bothers to read this shit. [link] [comments] | ||
| Weird question, but... why opal? Posted: 08 Feb 2021 03:42 AM PST We've collected a lot of minerals in RPG Creed. Silica makes sense (kind of. I don't think it's "normal" silica, but Isu material). Shards from a Star? Meteorite iron has always been legendary (and is typically stronger from what I've read. Orichalcum and adamant? Those are literally legendary. But now with Valhalla we have.... opal. Why? I can't find any legends about it. It's not even really a thing in England or Norway. It's just pretty and therefore has value. Was Opal chosen just at random? Could it have just as easily been "Any igneous rock"? [link] [comments] | ||
| Shout out to Ubisoft for saving like 10 autosaves in Valhalla Posted: 08 Feb 2021 12:46 AM PST I was doing the mystery with the wine cellar in Essex and it glitched out and I couldn't grab what I needed. I had about 70 hours and about 14 regions 100 percented at the point so getting stuck on a bug like that would probably make me delete the game and quit until it's patched. thankfully I had an autosave from about an hour before I could reload. There are a lot of bad, quest breaking glitches in the game but at the very least they compensate by making several autosaves. Lesson learned though, make a manual save before getting all the collectibles in a region. [link] [comments] | ||
| Fairly new to AC, had to get this off my chest Posted: 08 Feb 2021 01:10 AM PST I never liked AC by just looking at gameplay. I also missed the Playstation 3 era of games, so there's that. I started out with AC Odyssey as my first game and I absolutely loved it, and could not understand the critisism by fans of the franchise. I really liked the open world RPG game. After this I played AC Origins, since I felt it would be the only one after Odyssey I'd like, because of the open world mechanic. It was okay, and I'm a huge fan of old Egypt, so that has to say something. Feeling empty, and haven't played a game since (that was about two months ago), my friend handed me his copy of AC The Ezio Collection. Painstakingly I tried to get into the game, but the first few hours were no fun to me. It felt like a tech demo, and I had the feeling I was a bit too late to start playing, and I felt like giving up. Then, when the first Assassin Tomb arrived, I suddenly was hooked and everything clicked. These last few days I've been playing hours upon hours and I can't get enough. This game is, by far, the best thing I've never played, and I hate myself for turning the other way all these years. The game got me hooked on AC, and more importantly, this game made me enjoy videogames again. If anyone is ever curious if the game still holds up, take it from me that it DOES hold up in every way. I'm off to roam Venice again. Can't wait to play Brotherhood and Revelations after this, and I'm eyeing to buy all other mayor installments after this. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 08 Feb 2021 08:50 PM PST
| ||
| Reviewing on Assassin's Creed Unity Posted: 08 Feb 2021 11:19 PM PST So I finished playing AC Unity, but I don't really know what to say about it. First, the multiplayer was really good. Respect to these kind of multiplayer cooperation. And why its trash? Well, first its combat system. Like come on, why can't we parry like in the early games, and instead you bring some "Golden bar" bullsh#t. I would take on an entire army in Black Flag, but always die really quick in Unity. Seriously, Ubisoft? I heard people saying about its parkour, but honestly, I didn't like it. It introduced some new controls of "Freerun up" and "Freerun down". It really confused me at first, and even today I'm still confused about these freerun. COME ON!! And the story wasn't very interesting (well, except the last part). No Isu (they make the story more interesting), no outside Animus, just... that. I haven't yet played Dead Kings yet, got exams approaching. But as soon as I finish it, I'll also review on it. Have a good day!! [link] [comments] | ||
| Winged Hussars and the Great Turkish War as a setting Posted: 08 Feb 2021 08:00 AM PST Throughout the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire attempted to expand its hegemony past the Balkans and compete with the Habsburg Monarchy, Russia, and Poland, losing in a series of successive wars causing a brief peace around 1676. During the peace, Tsar Peter the Great took the Russian throne in 1682. Mehmed IV, the current sultan of the Ottoman Empire was displeased with this peace, and desired more land, and as such ordered the Siege of Vienna in 1683 led by Vizier Kara Mustafa Pasha. King John III of Poland mustered a large Christian alliance and attacked the Ottomans at Vienna in August of 1683, forcing Kara Pasha back to Belgrade due to the Polish Winged Hussars, where Pasha was executed. This battle began a large alliance of the Polish, Habsburgs, Russia, Venice, Spain, and rebels across the Balkans in a war against the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate, marking the first time Russia entered a western alliance. This large war ended up spanning multiple wars on multiple fronts. The first of these wars was the Polish-Ottoman War from 1683-1699. The Polish initially pushed the Ottomans into Serbia, Hungary, and Ukraine fighting at Parkany, Buda, and a few small towns between 1683 and 1691. In 1687, Mehmed was deposed and imprisoned within Topkapi Palace, replaced by his brother Suleiman II following the disastrous Battle of Mohacs led by Leopold I. Despite being imprisoned most of his life, Suleiman allowed prince Ahmed to lead the Siege of Belgrade, a major city besieged by Ahmed and new Vizier Fazil Mustafa Pasha, eventually taking the city in 1690. In 1691, Suleiman's health began to wane, and clerics began scheming to place Mehmed on the throne again. This, however, never came to pass as Ahmed was placed on the throne and Mehmed died in 1693. The Habsburg and Polish alliance had largely taken Hungary, parts of Serbia, and Transylvania by 1690, and Ahmed sought to take them back, sending Fazil Pasha to battle at Slankamen, which was later dubbed the bloodiest battle of the century. German commander Ludwig Wilhelm von Baden led the charge and killed over 20,000 Ottomans in the process, even killing Vizier Fazil Pasha. In 1694, the Ottomans went on a large counter-attack, attempting to retake Varad in Romania which was lost in 1692, and entering Poland and sacking cities leading to the Battle of Hodow. King John III led his 40,000 men to victory in what is often called the Polish Thermopylae. In early 1695, the loss at Lviv and Gyula devastated the Ottomans further only for Sultan Ahmed to die 3 weeks later and be replaced with Mustafa II, the son of Mehmed IV. A year later, King John III suddenly died in Wilanow Palace allowing Augustus II the Strong to become King of Poland. By this time, Poland and the Habsburgs controlled nearly all of Hungary and a large amount of Serbia and Romania. During that phase, the Venetians launched a war with Croatia against the Ottomans as an act of revenge for the Ottomans taking Crete a few years earlier. In 1684 they launched campaigns taking large parts of western Greece and using Epirus as a staging ground before moving to the Peloponnese. They then took Patras and moved south to the Koroni and Mani Peninsulas in 1685, then holding Athens until 1688 as they conquered Morea and parts of the Aegean Sea. The Ottomans took up a large naval counter-offensive going up to Montenegro and the fortress of Valona. By 1694, Venice had retaken much of this land and captured the independent Republic of Ragusa.jpg). Starting in 1686 Tsar Peter began getting involved with several invasions into Crimea, failing and being forced east of the Dnieper river. He tried again in 1689, failing again. Rather than trying a third time, he moved to Ottoman territory on the southeast of the Dnieper and began the Azov campaigns, taking a large fort there between 1695-1696. The Polish victory at Podhajce and Holy Alliance victory at the Battle of Zenta forced the Ottomans into signing the Treaty of Karlowitz, with Russia signing the Treaty of Constantinople a year later in 1700, ceding Azov back to the Ottomans while preparing for war with Sweden. Something interesting about this war is that there are two Isu temples in the region. One is in Bucharest while the other is in Kyiv. Peter the Great initially sided with Poland during this war, but just a few years later initiated the Great Northern War which was used to subdue the Swedish Empire and put Russian influence into Poland by force. I'd love to see a game as a Russian Assassin working to help Peter during this war and assassinating major leaders like Ahmed and John III to weaken Peter's enemies while he seized a PoE from Kyiv, only to then turn around in a sequel during the Northern War where we get to assassinate him while working with Swedish politicians that changed from the empire into the Swedish Age of Liberty. With lore being extremely scarce during the 17th century and Eastern Europe as a whole, there's a ton Ubisoft can do with it, and the amazing and diverse lands and cities. [link] [comments] |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Assassin's Creed. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment