This campaign tries very hard to stay on the same narrative of the original Joan of Arc campaign of good guys and bad guys, it kinda makes me sick at times.
I have to say, that was an impressively cold way for Philip to cut Joan down in that epilogue. Not with any insults or blows but simply with the knowledge that she had been abandoned by the man she had struggled so hard for.
Dauphine had always been the true big bad in the story. The game never told you: but the assassination of John the Fearless was seem as such an atrocity that it made the then King and Queen disowned him and made the English king the heir to French throne. The Dauphine at the time of Joan already had no claim of legitimacy what so ever.
@@T2266 Meh. I disagree. By the time John the Fearless was assassinated (and we don't even know, to this day, if the Dauphin agreed with this or if he was just a helpless witness to the Armagnac plot), soon-to-become Charles VII had already been disowned by his (mad) father and his (overly ambitious) mother. That's the very reason why he left Paris and established his own court in Bourges. The assassination only gave the English and Isabeau (the Dauphin's mother) a good reason to make it official. He obviously had a legitimate claim: he was disowned by a father who, at the time, had been insane for decades, and a mother who had been plotting with the English and Burgundians and who was widely considered untrustworthy and unfaithful. As for his behavior with Jeanne, yeah, it sucked, no question about that. I'm sure he had his reasons, though it doesn't make it any less bad. But, in the end, he managed to make peace with the Burgundians (who would fall soon enough), to kick the English out of France and to reunite a kingdom that had been devasted by decades of foreign and civil war and the black death.
@@ArmandDupin It doesn't metter whether or not he was involved in the assassination, the point is he was disowned as a heir, which hurt the legitimacy of his claim, even more so when the right was given to Henry V. The only legitimacy he got to hold was thanks to the awkward situation in which Henry V died before the French King.
I mean, claims to a throne are mostly arbitrary anyway. John the Fearless didn't shy away from assassination himself after all. All of this is just power plays between nobles while the common folk toil and die for them.
It's just a big family squabble, both kings of France and dukes of Burgundy came from the same Valois house. If the French ones died out earlier, then Burgundian Valois would simply upgrade to France. In history it obviously didn't happen, because Charles the Bold loved to piss everybody off and wage ill-conceived campaigns, but a fun scenario to think about.
0:50 She was not a warrior; at just nineteen years of age, she carried nothing but a banner into battle. Where's her rusted blade that belonged to Charlemagne, grandfather of France?
The OG campaign had it wrong IIRC, the sword was supposed to belong to Charles Martel and not Charlemagne. Joan had a few different swords, other than this one. She was offered one by a knight (Robert de Baudricourt), and took one from a Burgundian soldier. It wasn't unusual for knights to have more than one sword, and even to have a ceremonial/family one, and one to fight with. That being said, she claimed, during her trial, to never have used her sword to wound another man. The only recorded occurence of Joan using her sword was to hit a soldier with the flat part of the weapon, as he had done something that offended her (probably cursing?). So yeah, she had a sword, but she mostly kept to her banner.
@@ArmandDupin iirc used the sword of Charles Martel to whack a prostitute with the broad end to chase her off when she was found in the French camp, breaking it
I heard that she actually never used a sword, and she didn't exactly lead in battle, instead she was a big propaganda symbol to raise the morale of failing armies. Certainly only a government in absolutely desperate situation would allow a random teen peasant girl come in to their palace, listen to her claims about a big hand from heavens choosing her to free France and then give her command of their forces. It somehow worked and as they say, the rest is history.
Just some ramblings here , years after the capturing of Joan , Philip the Good signed a treaty with Dauphine on cutting tie with the British and thus end the war , but it also lead to the downfall of Burgundy later . So don't feel bad about you dismount Joan .
Joan of Arc is a pretty complicated and fascinating figure, honestly. As was even hinted in this misison's epilogue, she supposedly did have a narrow and stubborn attitude, and there were a lot of people she considered gross or inferior. Her heroic resolve was incredible, but I can see why the Burgundians would despise her, coming from the opposite side.
I have read her biography, and yes, she is quite complicated, and sometimes the sources depict different moods and emotions with her. Devotion sometimes even clashes with her personal wish, ideas or fear. To me, this made her more of a person, rather than this larger than life figure.
@@windflier1684 First of all: Scenario. Second: the Battle of Castillon DID happen although without Jeanne and the French were victorious and kicked the English out of France. So it's true.
@@greekwarrior5373 Sorry for my typo, but 'A perfect martyr' is all kind of wrong at historical standard, even tho it supposed to be based on the Battle of Castillon, La Hire was dead by then, Richemont was not in that battle, Burgundy changed their side to France 20 years ago, the whole scenario can not stand as a "true scenario".
Those guys probably didnt realize that they can killed 17 years old girl , but they failed to kill the France Resistance. Joan is gone , but her tales lives on.
nah the Heavy Crossbowman is an actual unit from the genie editor xD. Sure it has the same skin but has a shit ton more pierce armor Its used alot in the Ottokar and other custom scenarios
Perhaps one of my favourite set of campaign missions, thanks to the switched perspective and the lovely message the epilogue shows: 'in the end, it's just politics.'
I bypassed the northern river crossing by getting my soldiers into a boat and dropping them at the end of the river and left them there so I can build up my army. I have to say I've loved all three campaigns.
Phillip's speech to her is like Walt telling Jesse about Jane in Breaking Bad. Not content with just having her captured and sent to her death, he then has to break her spirit through sheer words.
@@T2266 I wish the DLC next year would release new campaign and new civilization,The Swiss. I have read but not all the entire history, The Burgundians was reverted to French control after the battle of Nancy. This time, Charles the Bold was killer by Swiss mercenaries.
And yes... sadly Lord of the West campaigns are way too easy. Most of them give you plenty of time to boom, while opponents use non-FU units until very late. The Sicilian one has one and two tricky missions but that's about it :( That said, I do like the narration idea of this Burgundy campaign, it reminds players that the war at medieval times are often not about heroics, revenge or glory, but for loot, power struggles and the ambitions of a few.
Honestly I like the campaigns for the story and objectives. In terms of difficulty, I've been playing this game for like 14 years so if you're like me there really isn't anything that will end up inherently difficult unless it's another annoying campaign where the enemy has infinite resources like Le Loi 1.
You know you can kill Joan in this mission on hard with only your starting army? You have do distract Choisy and then walk over to Sirrois. The defense is light and your pikemen take Joan out in like 3 hits.
I really feel like this campaign has way too much modern day bias view of nationality. It tries very hard to stay on the same narrative of the original Joan of Arc campaign of good guys and bad guys. For expamle, the assassination of John the Fearless was such a horrific news that it basically made the then King and Queen of France to disown their son (aka the Dauphine in both the Burgundian and the Joan of Arc campaign.) and made Henry V the heirs to the French throne instead, with the Treaty of Troyes. Which should already had given Dauphine no ground to claim of legitimism.
I thought the whole point of this campaign was to show that the Burgundians thought they were fighting against a religious zealot who was the pawn of corrupt rulers? Basically seeing their PoV.
I played Joan 6 right after this obliterated the Burgundians haha they had to pay. It’s funny how they make the color the one from the opposite faction
You can cheese this just so you know! Go around and take out the walls from the middle of the map and rush Joan. I did it and took me like 5 minutes and boom.
I enjoyed these new campaigns, but something bothers me: What's the point making a new campaign about the exact same thing, just from the other side? Same with the Edward Longshanks campaign... There are so many other historical events that could be a good potencial for campaign, but no...
I mean, Longshanks is one of the most potent source for an interesting campaign. The devs could either choose him, or the Lionheart, but there’re already two campaigns about the Third Crusade
Nostalgia points sell well - and tbf I did enjoy getting to experience it from the other side. Would I have preferred civs that were less redundant and campaigns that showed us something completely new? Yeah probably, but I understand why MS chose to go with this - particularly for DE's first DLC. I still enjoyed the content :)
Because History isn't straight or Black&White, like Joan's viewpoint, it's important for us to understand that there are always many perspectives to every conflict, even in modern ones, and whether you agree with them or not, knowing the most narratives possibles is the only way to have informed knowledge to have an opinion. At least that's the humanisitcally historical perspective, in reality I'd imagine it's because Nostalgia sells and the Joan D'Arc campaign is very famous, just like her legend.
I didn't want to spoil myself with any achievements on my first playthrough! Just wanted to record my first "experience" with any given scenario, and do all of the things that I would naturally do first. That said, ofc Ima get all the achievements! :P
I feel like I had to play the Joan of Arc campaign again after this just to feel less dirty haha
This campaign tries very hard to stay on the same narrative of the original Joan of Arc campaign of good guys and bad guys, it kinda makes me sick at times.
@@T2266
Nah. It's more idealists vs pragmatists.
For Joan it's a divine mission. For Phillip it's just Tuesday.
Burgundian campaign: Literally the Lannisters
A Burgundian always pays his debts....
And then stabs you in the back and steals it back.
"Are we the Baddies" Campaign.....
Genghis, Tamerlane and Attilla too.
I have to say, that was an impressively cold way for Philip to cut Joan down in that epilogue. Not with any insults or blows but simply with the knowledge that she had been abandoned by the man she had struggled so hard for.
Dauphine had always been the true big bad in the story. The game never told you: but the assassination of John the Fearless was seem as such an atrocity that it made the then King and Queen disowned him and made the English king the heir to French throne. The Dauphine at the time of Joan already had no claim of legitimacy what so ever.
@@T2266 Meh. I disagree. By the time John the Fearless was assassinated (and we don't even know, to this day, if the Dauphin agreed with this or if he was just a helpless witness to the Armagnac plot), soon-to-become Charles VII had already been disowned by his (mad) father and his (overly ambitious) mother. That's the very reason why he left Paris and established his own court in Bourges. The assassination only gave the English and Isabeau (the Dauphin's mother) a good reason to make it official.
He obviously had a legitimate claim: he was disowned by a father who, at the time, had been insane for decades, and a mother who had been plotting with the English and Burgundians and who was widely considered untrustworthy and unfaithful.
As for his behavior with Jeanne, yeah, it sucked, no question about that. I'm sure he had his reasons, though it doesn't make it any less bad. But, in the end, he managed to make peace with the Burgundians (who would fall soon enough), to kick the English out of France and to reunite a kingdom that had been devasted by decades of foreign and civil war and the black death.
@@ArmandDupin It doesn't metter whether or not he was involved in the assassination, the point is he was disowned as a heir, which hurt the legitimacy of his claim, even more so when the right was given to Henry V. The only legitimacy he got to hold was thanks to the awkward situation in which Henry V died before the French King.
I mean, claims to a throne are mostly arbitrary anyway. John the Fearless didn't shy away from assassination himself after all. All of this is just power plays between nobles while the common folk toil and die for them.
It's just a big family squabble, both kings of France and dukes of Burgundy came from the same Valois house. If the French ones died out earlier, then Burgundian Valois would simply upgrade to France. In history it obviously didn't happen, because Charles the Bold loved to piss everybody off and wage ill-conceived campaigns, but a fun scenario to think about.
22:09 Burgundy: There she is! This time she will not escape!
0:50 She was not a warrior; at just nineteen years of age, she carried nothing but a banner into battle.
Where's her rusted blade that belonged to Charlemagne, grandfather of France?
The OG campaign had it wrong IIRC, the sword was supposed to belong to Charles Martel and not Charlemagne. Joan had a few different swords, other than this one. She was offered one by a knight (Robert de Baudricourt), and took one from a Burgundian soldier. It wasn't unusual for knights to have more than one sword, and even to have a ceremonial/family one, and one to fight with.
That being said, she claimed, during her trial, to never have used her sword to wound another man. The only recorded occurence of Joan using her sword was to hit a soldier with the flat part of the weapon, as he had done something that offended her (probably cursing?). So yeah, she had a sword, but she mostly kept to her banner.
@@ArmandDupin iirc used the sword of Charles Martel to whack a prostitute with the broad end to chase her off when she was found in the French camp, breaking it
I heard that she actually never used a sword, and she didn't exactly lead in battle, instead she was a big propaganda symbol to raise the morale of failing armies. Certainly only a government in absolutely desperate situation would allow a random teen peasant girl come in to their palace, listen to her claims about a big hand from heavens choosing her to free France and then give her command of their forces. It somehow worked and as they say, the rest is history.
Just some ramblings here , years after the capturing of Joan , Philip the Good signed a treaty with Dauphine on cutting tie with the British and thus end the war , but it also lead to the downfall of Burgundy later . So don't feel bad about you dismount Joan .
Joan of Arc is a pretty complicated and fascinating figure, honestly. As was even hinted in this misison's epilogue, she supposedly did have a narrow and stubborn attitude, and there were a lot of people she considered gross or inferior. Her heroic resolve was incredible, but I can see why the Burgundians would despise her, coming from the opposite side.
I have read her biography, and yes, she is quite complicated, and sometimes the sources depict different moods and emotions with her. Devotion sometimes even clashes with her personal wish, ideas or fear. To me, this made her more of a person, rather than this larger than life figure.
Well in the end she was right for the French were victorious. Joan of Arc campaign nr 6 'A perfect martyr'.
@@greekwarrior5373 Although that missions is not historical, it's a fake secenaior
@@windflier1684 First of all: Scenario. Second: the Battle of Castillon DID happen although without Jeanne and the French were victorious and kicked the English out of France. So it's true.
@@greekwarrior5373 Sorry for my typo, but 'A perfect martyr' is all kind of wrong at historical standard, even tho it supposed to be based on the Battle of Castillon, La Hire was dead by then, Richemont was not in that battle, Burgundy changed their side to France 20 years ago, the whole scenario can not stand as a "true scenario".
Those guys probably didnt realize that they can killed 17 years old girl , but they failed to kill the France Resistance. Joan is gone , but her tales lives on.
23:15 Joan of Arc is a Konnik CONFIRMED
Pretty interesting that both of Philip the Good's arch nemeses are women.
Philip the Based
nah the Heavy Crossbowman is an actual unit from the genie editor xD. Sure it has the same skin but has a shit ton more pierce armor
Its used alot in the Ottokar and other custom scenarios
It really makes more sense for them to have more pierce armor with the shield.
Perhaps one of my favourite set of campaign missions, thanks to the switched perspective and the lovely message the epilogue shows: 'in the end, it's just politics.'
You are lucky to be able to play it, my computer won't run it after the recent update and ran just fine before it
For the 6th scenario of a medium difficulty campaign, it was too easy I think!
I bypassed the northern river crossing by getting my soldiers into a boat and dropping them at the end of the river and left them there so I can build up my army. I have to say I've loved all three campaigns.
Phillip's speech to her is like Walt telling Jesse about Jane in Breaking Bad. Not content with just having her captured and sent to her death, he then has to break her spirit through sheer words.
So sad the campaign doesn't get to 1477 and the battle of Nancy, the true end of Burgudian state =/
Yeah, that'd be a good narrative to take with such a story.
@@T2266 I wish the DLC next year would release new campaign and new civilization,The Swiss. I have read but not all the entire history, The Burgundians was reverted to French control after the battle of Nancy. This time, Charles the Bold was killer by Swiss mercenaries.
@@T2266 Yes! I would like the campaign to be less focused on a character but more on history. Would love a Birth of Russia Campaign...
@@VdWck But you'd still need the characters in order for the story to have some emotional core.
My exact though.I would have loved it and was quite disappointed to learn it stopped with Jeanne d'Arc.
Everybody asks how bad is Philip, but never how is Philip.
Phillip looks like Frollo, from the Disney's version of the Hunchback of Notredame.
And yes... sadly Lord of the West campaigns are way too easy. Most of them give you plenty of time to boom, while opponents use non-FU units until very late. The Sicilian one has one and two tricky missions but that's about it :(
That said, I do like the narration idea of this Burgundy campaign, it reminds players that the war at medieval times are often not about heroics, revenge or glory, but for loot, power struggles and the ambitions of a few.
Honestly I like the campaigns for the story and objectives. In terms of difficulty, I've been playing this game for like 14 years so if you're like me there really isn't anything that will end up inherently difficult unless it's another annoying campaign where the enemy has infinite resources like Le Loi 1.
@@jimmyprimetime1050 Ah.. the good old castle vs post-imp infinite spam campaigns
RiP. Feels bad man.
Can't believe we just sold out on La Pucelle.
F
Man. That ending was absolutely epic. Up there with the Atilla the Hun's ending.
You know you can kill Joan in this mission on hard with only your starting army?
You have do distract Choisy and then walk over to Sirrois. The defense is light and your pikemen take Joan out in like 3 hits.
If you get Choisy targetted on your main force its over though haha
I really feel like this campaign has way too much modern day bias view of nationality. It tries very hard to stay on the same narrative of the original Joan of Arc campaign of good guys and bad guys.
For expamle, the assassination of John the Fearless was such a horrific news that it basically made the then King and Queen of France to disown their son (aka the Dauphine in both the Burgundian and the Joan of Arc campaign.) and made Henry V the heirs to the French throne instead, with the Treaty of Troyes. Which should already had given Dauphine no ground to claim of legitimism.
I thought the whole point of this campaign was to show that the Burgundians thought they were fighting against a religious zealot who was the pawn of corrupt rulers? Basically seeing their PoV.
At 18:04 why is it showing that you're attacking yourself😆
My Pucelle... :'( 💔
Joan of Arc is proof waifu culture was very much a thing back in the late medieval ages.
I played Joan 6 right after this obliterated the Burgundians haha they had to pay. It’s funny how they make the color the one from the opposite faction
Why Joan d arc?? Why William Wallace 😢😢??
You can cheese this just so you know! Go around and take out the walls from the middle of the map and rush Joan. I did it and took me like 5 minutes and boom.
You have over 5K subscribers. When is Dash face reveal video?
Why you build farm on the paved road? Why you build farm right after town center? Farm should be built near mill.
Age of simscity
We here at ornlu aoe believe in terraforming cities into bucolic agrarian pastures
Renart the fox meets little red riding hood
Well that sucks, sadly this is the story
Phillip The Good was not very popular among women I think
3 wives and 24 *documented* mistresses, he certainly got around, but you can't really refuse people in his position of power.
I enjoyed these new campaigns, but something bothers me:
What's the point making a new campaign about the exact same thing, just from the other side?
Same with the Edward Longshanks campaign...
There are so many other historical events that could be a good potencial for campaign, but no...
I mean, Longshanks is one of the most potent source for an interesting campaign. The devs could either choose him, or the Lionheart, but there’re already two campaigns about the Third Crusade
Nostalgia points sell well - and tbf I did enjoy getting to experience it from the other side. Would I have preferred civs that were less redundant and campaigns that showed us something completely new? Yeah probably, but I understand why MS chose to go with this - particularly for DE's first DLC. I still enjoyed the content :)
Because History isn't straight or Black&White, like Joan's viewpoint, it's important for us to understand that there are always many perspectives to every conflict, even in modern ones, and whether you agree with them or not, knowing the most narratives possibles is the only way to have informed knowledge to have an opinion.
At least that's the humanisitcally historical perspective, in reality I'd imagine it's because Nostalgia sells and the Joan D'Arc campaign is very famous, just like her legend.
You didn't get achievement! Destroy French Army before capture Joan.
I didn't want to spoil myself with any achievements on my first playthrough! Just wanted to record my first "experience" with any given scenario, and do all of the things that I would naturally do first. That said, ofc Ima get all the achievements! :P
I almost have to dislike for that La OverThere joke --
Key word is "almost" ;)
Philip was so based he not only killed her. He killed her spirit.
I felt kind of good killing joan of arc because i always hated her campaign since i was a child lol
I never seen her walk,because i one shot her with 30 hand cannoneers ,i also got achivement by defeating the French Army first.