Age of Charlemagne : Big Heart, Tiny Dollars

Right action is better than knowledge; but in order to do what is right, we must know what is right... So, I chose for it to be right to rock!

While I've recently been as vocal as I'm able to be over the whole TW: Warhammer fiasco, I've also been as positive and praising of TW: Attila's DLC and expansions as possible. While the early DLC angered many fans over the "Cut Content" debate, the later stuff was all pretty excellent, with Empires of Sand earning a special place in my heart (all hail the spice king!). The latest, and perhaps least expected move from CA in the lead up to next year's big release was the release of the Age of Charlemagne expansion a few days ago. The expansion was spotted in the code a little while back, and there had been speculation over what it would cover. While community responses have been mixed, I'm happy to say that I've really enjoyed the campaign and period so far, and it has given me a healthy dose of nostalgia for Medieval 2, which was a candidate for the greatest Total War game of all time to me, and many in the community.

Age of Charlemagne covers the reign of the legendary Frankish king, and acts as a great background to the Middle Ages. The period between the games focusing on Rome and the Middle Ages is often a bit of a grey area for most people, as the so called "Dark Ages" seem to have less glamour. What I liked so much about Attila is that it covered the fall of Rome with as much lavish detail as Rome 2 covered the rise. The dark and apocalyptic Attila still left a gap between itself and the easily recognizable era of the Medieval games. Considering the speculation that Medieval 3 may be the next game in Total War's historical game franchise, a campaign for Attila that helps tie those periods together is a welcome piece of content.

I'll get it out of the way by saying that the campaign is pretty small in scope, with its campaign map excluding North Africa, the Eastern Steppe, Greece, and upper Scandinavia. Instead, AoC focuses on the Carolingian Empire, the often forgotten empire that succeeded Rome as the great power in Europe. It also includes the Iberian Peninsula, and allows the players to try their luck at the Reconquista. I played as the Kingdom of Asturias because I remember one of my longest and most enjoyable campaigns in Medieval TW 2 was as the Spanish Kingdom, and this AoC campaign was such a wonderfully nostalgic throwback for me. It felt great, tying the end of Attila's main campaign to the beginning of Medieval's. Before I knew it, I was riding Jinetes in circles around my Cordoban rivals, engaging in full javelin warfare, only to eventually unlock and establish the knightly cohorts that would come to rule Spain for almost a thousand years. I did notice very quickly how limited the unit rosters were in comparison with Attila, though, it never really seemed to be that big of an issue. Each playable faction had its own idiosyncrasies, with the Franks dominating with their knights, the Avars being literally the only faction with horse archers, and the Danes fighting exclusively on foot. Pike and crossbow wielding units had disappeared, and virtually no professional romanesque armies or barbarian warbands remained, with the peasant levies taking over the main role, and elite knights monopolizing the role of warriors.

There seems to have been a lot of effort put into capturing the feeling of the early Middle Ages. The maps and unit icons all are done in an illuminated art style, contrasting with Attila's more literal unit cards. This raised an early spectre of Rome 2's ridiculous pottery artwork, but while that design was practically indecipherable (trying to select a unit from the lineup was like selecting from a row of stick men), the unit cards here are obvious and easy to recognize at a glance. It feels closer to Shogun 2, which also had a highly stylized art design, but was at least simple to interpret. The limited unit rosters also feel closer to Shogun, which makes the game simpler, though it won't have a great deal of replayability.

My biggest complaint about the DLC pack is that there are a number of really cool factions in the game that are completely unplayable. The Irish, Welsh, Slavs, and Sicilian Duchy all have really cool units. The Irish in particular have a really fleshed out army, with unique units such as Kerns and crossbowmen (the only army to retain crossbows), and yet, they are unplayable. I don't just mean they can't be played as a faction, they are not even playable as a custom battle faction. This is really weird, and feels limiting to the game's replayability factor. Modders have been swift to unlock these factions, but it feels like such a mistake on CA's part to not just unlock them for custom battles from the outset. For those pessimists out there, CA has confirmed that they will not be adding them as a further DLC, but will simply leave them locked... umm, yay?

The biggest question for my readers is, of course, is it worth it? Yes. In the tradition of TW DLC, Charlemagne's story is well crafted, and reasonably priced for what you get. It seems to be aimed at delivering three distinct stories, firstly the tale of the Franks, secondly the struggle for Iberia, and thirdly it includes Britain and the Danes. The story in the East is a little less fleshed out, with only the Avars and Eastern German duchies duking it out (see what I did there?). It tickles the right amount of nostalgia, and brings true knights in shining armour back to the TW franchise for the first time in a decade. For the $15 (AUD), the content is pretty solid, and gives us all a temporary fix of medieval madness while we wait on the next historical game to be announced. I enjoyed it, but it has almost slipped under the radar in all the excitement and controversy building up for the waaaaahhgg next year.