Originally Posted by ballon009 Go to original post
Actually, the Vikings formed a major army of mercenaries (Varangian Guard) who were hired by Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Emperors....
The earliest members of the Varangian guard came from Kievan Rus'. A treaty between Rus' and the Byzantine empire under Basil I was agreed in 874 after a period of hostilities. A clause in the treaty obliged Rus' to provide men for Byzantine service. Renewed hostilities between 907 and 911 ended with a new treaty under which any Rus' who chose could serve Byzantium as a right.
So, Eivor from Valhalla could easily go work as a mercenary for Byzantium. It is sad that Valhalla does not have a DLC set in the Eastern Roman Empire (Constantinople). Same place as AC Revelations but 650 years earlier.
Originally Posted by Olympus2018 Go to original post
Indeed! The Byzantines were SO tired of having to deal with those guys that decided to buy their services and use their aid against the Arabd in later wars, clever.
I wholeheartly agree. I mean, knowing next to nothing about Eivor's story and his/her importance within the lore (now that I think about it, why did we relieve Bayek's memories?) and ignoring the timeline of the Varangian's earliest mention around the 911 AD or something like that, it wound been a nice wrap up detail to have Eivor involved with the Varangian Guard and then have one of him/her ancestors headed to what would become Masyaf.Originally Posted by Olympus2018 Go to original post
However, I do understand Ubi's decision of choosing the siege of Paris instead. It's just more mainstream and way closer in terms of assets, but damn I'd have loved to see Constantinople.
Well, in 874 AD, London and Paris were.... villages compared to Constantinople, which was massive in size and population, compared to the other two cities....Originally Posted by Megas_Doux Go to original post
The Seax knives\daggers still animate like such - all thrusts and stabs but nearly no slashing. a sword is mostly slashing with some stabbing and should be animated very differently. a one hander should animate closer to the axes than the knife.Originally Posted by Zidster19 Go to original post
I would even take a greatsword that is about 60% in length compared to the monstrous swords we've seen this far, and make it swing as fast as a one handed weapon like a lighter axe, and i think i'll be fine with it. a faster, shorter two handed sword. it should be a bit closer to how it looks in The Witcher 3 or in Shadow of War (both games used only longswords but with either two hands or one), Then I can use it with a shield and it might look OK. though im pretty sure that if, in ACV, you use a greatsword with a shield, Eivor will wield it like it weighs 5kgs. not the nimble sword n' board warrior I expected to look like. )
I guess I will stick to the axe and shield and seax...Maybe if we complain they will add them back in. :/ Two handed swords didn’t exist back then and these swords look like final fantasyWhy Ubisoft? When will they learn that people actually like stuff that is more grounded in reality...
That's a bit different when it comes to Odyssey. Even though I think it was a stupid choice to create a Spartan protagonist and not give them a shield, they couldn't exactly remove the spear and substitute it with a shield or hidden blade because the spear was integral to the entire plot. For Valhalla I don't think a few animations for a single handed sword would be tough for them to create, plus it would have no bearing on the plot if Eivor could suddenly use one handed swords.Originally Posted by Zidster19 Go to original post
Its confirmed no 1 handed swords in valhalla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXtVzJFlr20