The Battle of Bannockburn

There should totally be a scenario about the Battle of Bannockburn. My reasons are these:

  1. It would vindicate the horrible historical mistake of making William Wallace win at Falkirk. In the introductions, the narrator could tell how things really went, and besides, Bannockburn should be the last scenario in a campaign that depicts the Scottish war of independence.

  2. The Celts had to rely on tactics to win against the English, who always had superior numbers. There is a lot for the developers to explore. The English were known for their cavalry (the fetish of the Longbow came after), and it was to face them that the Celts developed the Schiltron formation, which is pikes tightly together. In the scenario, they could make the Britons train more Cavaliers than Longbows.

  3. Why not? The Celts are the player’s faction in only the learning campaign, so they need a proper place.


There are plenty of historical inaccurate things in the game campaigns.Do we really need to fix those?

1 Like

They could have done it
There is Art of War as tutorial. William Wallace could have seen 3 reworked scenarios

Absolutely not wallace was the original scenario from the demo version it should never change.


Art of War is more about learning to be competitive in multi or AI with harder difficulties. A complete beginner still needs to do the tutorial first in my opinion.
I wouldn’t be against some reworks on the later scenarios however. I wonder if just presenting the current Battle of Falkirk scenario as Stirling Bridge and the current Battle of Stirling scenario as a random skirmish wouldn’t do the trick. If I’m not mistaken, the map would fit better this way and it would also make more sense than having Wallace absent in one of his most important victories.

1 Like

That’s what the Historical Battles section is for. This should be added alongside a few more battles across the world. Also, it has puzzled me why the Celts get Paladins while the English only get up to Cavaliers and not particularly spectacular ones. English strength in cavalry was mainly as a legacy of the Norman traditions. The switch to longbows was to negate the weakness in numbers vis a vis the more numerous French knights more effectively. But against the foot infantry of the Celts, knights were used. Till Schiltrons helped even the odds. Maybe a special Schiltron Trooper with long pikes like the Kamayuk could be added as an editor unit and used as the main unit for the Historical Battle to capture this mechanic more effectively for the player.

The Celts have Paladins to reflect how they hired a lot of French mercenaries at times.

Cavaliers would have sufficed.

1 Like

I guess it was added for balance purposes.

Well to be honest since Celts could represent even Wales, they had even local heavy cavalry units, they were called “Teulu”, so another point in favor of giving them Paladins, plus balance obviously.

Balance reasons only - Not even the Welsh had French level Paladins…

Well obviously I’d say.
But since every civ in the game (except Saracens, Indians and obviously meso civs) gets knights and cavaliers, it seems right to me that the civs that employed for real heavy cavalry got the Paladin, to differentiate them from the bulk of the other civs.
Where possible obviously, for instance Britons made good use of heavy cavalry IIRC, but giving them top tier archers, FU infantry and Paladin would have made them totally OP.
Celts Paladins instead were a viable addition, even more since they’re quite weak in game, probably weaker than Byzantines one.

Franks would have needed the Frankish Paladin as UU, at least that was the plan before launch I think, but then they changed that and buffed cavalry instead.
The result in game is the same, the strongest Paladin without any drawback is indeed the Frankish one.

A very strong anti-cavalry, weak to archers pike unit, or the gallowglass would have been a good UU for the Celts.
For the Franks, a second UU - a lancer gendarme could have been added.

1 Like

Thats just the same as halbs

Super halb! Oh wait. He just means a Kamyuk! :joy:

As some people said, it was for game balance.

Yes, the map of Battle of Falkirk actually has a bridge, which would be good for the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

My problem with the Celts campaign is that it’s cheesy. I mean, Joan of Arc and Barbarossa die in the second-to-last scenario. It’s an important plot point. To claim that Wallace won at Falkirk is understimating the audience.

1 Like

Aztecs last mission is made up huns one before the last made up and so on…

We could see Battle of Flodden or Culloden Muir

I assume you mean the Hun’s victory was made up, because the Catalaunian Fields really took place. Look, everbody knows that the Aztec Empire fell, and the narrator says that Attila died in a stupid way. But the learning campaign is CORNY. It leads people to believe that William Wallace became King of Scotland or something.

1 Like

Its the learning campaign not some history lesson.