By Jim Rossignol on December 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am.
More and more Empire news is turning up. Earlier in the week we heard that the multiplayer would feature a campaign mode for the first time, but there’s also a trailer for a secondary, introductory single player game mode called Road To Independence. It’s something like the the Alexander campaign, a limited scope campaign allowing players to play through the War Of Independence in the US, and fight off the dastardly British. Aiming for the US market, eh chaps? The trailer for said mode is after the jump.
19/12/2008 at 09:26 Heliocentric says:
I’m sure they’ll let you play as the dastards. You might have to defeat them first though. Failing that you could play as america and lose on purpose.
19/12/2008 at 09:33 Senethro says:
Heh, Sega’s logo is starting to look somewhat anachronistic.
19/12/2008 at 09:41 Gap Gen says:
Anachronistic for the 1770s? Ouch.
I’d just be happy for the option for the American colonists to pay their taxes and forget about this horrid war nonsense.
19/12/2008 at 09:41 yhancik says:
Being tired & all, I read “Empire: Rossignol to Independence”, thinking that it was some puny title :p
19/12/2008 at 09:42 phil says:
Huh? Surely Napoleon’s career would have infinitely more scope for a satisfying narrative – intro stages in France (you learn tactics in the same battles he did), intro to Navel warfare in the battle of the Nile, intro to the political side of the game with the coup of Brumaire, then bigger and bigger battles, till the chance to rewrite history by winning a land war in Russia. It would be more interesting than than the smaller scale stuff happening on the other wide of the Atlantic.
19/12/2008 at 09:48 Wisq says:
I assume I needn’t point out the irony of a British narrator cheerily detailing how players will get to wage war against the British.
19/12/2008 at 09:58 Bobsy says:
One of the great things about history is just how many wars the British were involved in. And rarely did they (we) have the moral high ground in. History rocks!
Also, didn’t Medieval II have a multiplayer campaign mode?
19/12/2008 at 10:12 Ian says:
We just had to show Johnny Foreigner what’s what, what.
19/12/2008 at 10:14 Kieron Gillen says:
Phil: I think the game’s going to be a hard sell to the Americans anyway. Starting playing as them strikes me as a way they’re trying to mitigate against that.
KG
19/12/2008 at 10:18 Gap Gen says:
Maybe Creative should have allowed Americans to play as themselves in Rome, too.
19/12/2008 at 10:20 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
Well, this answers the question regarding the American presence in the game. Probably better than having a scripted event suddenly spawn a new faction in British territory.
@phil: More interesting, yes. But as Jim points out, they seem to be aiming for the US market on this choice. Since, for Americans, the first thing that comes to mind when we see the “1700′s” is the particular world sideshow that won us a brand new country to call our own. (It didn’t hurt to note that American Revolution stories tend to end on a triumphal note. Not so much with Napoleon.)
Presumably, they’re saving rewriting Napoleonic history for the Expansion.
19/12/2008 at 10:20 Larington says:
Seems to be billed as a tutorial to a certain extent.
19/12/2008 at 10:21 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
Edit: @Gap Gen: They already did. Of course, they called us “Rome.”
19/12/2008 at 10:29 jalf says:
What’s with all the “unlock new stuff” nonsense? Haven’t they understood yet that players want to be able to play any faction, without first spending 3 weeks slogging through the campaign? I’ll play the US campaign if I feel like it thankyouverymuch, but please don’t *force* me to play through it first. Hopefully it’ll be simple to edit the config files to unlock everything, like in MTW2.
19/12/2008 at 10:32 Dreamhacker says:
A strange choice, considering the PC market seems to be bigger in Europe, and no Total War game has made it to consoles…
19/12/2008 at 10:59 Heliocentric says:
Let them try. We’ll buy it anyway. Its the first first-team total war since rome.
19/12/2008 at 11:26 cHeal says:
I wish they would give the player a chance to fight for indenpence for a number of fanctions. The Irish comes to mind because I’m Irish, but I’m sure there are hundreds of similar situations they could have picked from, like the Catalunya region in Spain, Sicily, Scotland, and whatever. Like in EUIII where every region has a native cultural identity which could rise up against you. Even in M:TW, when a rebellion occured you could side with the rebels (if it was from within the Monarchy).
19/12/2008 at 11:27 Piispa says:
@Dorian:
Triumphal on whose perspective? Brits lost a colony and saw the beginning of their decline as an Empire. And the world gained a future target audience for shoes-to-a-head.
I’d say Napoleon’s ambition ended with quite a bit more triumphal note for the Euros as a possible world conqueror got defeated and balance got restored.
19/12/2008 at 11:32 Gap Gen says:
cHeal: I want to play Eta: Total War, now.
19/12/2008 at 11:44 Bobsy says:
To be honest, a scripted faction-switch in the notably non-linear TW campaign would feel a bit jarring, I reckon. Plus the America we know was born out of some very specific geopolitical conditions, so emulating it in a game where variations on reality are the norm would be pretty odd.
IE: What if the dominant European power in Northern America had been Holland? Etc. (don’t) Discuss.
19/12/2008 at 11:48 phil says:
While I acknowledge the commerial imperatives of appealing to the blasted colonials, I think dreamhacker is right, in the that Total War games have an established audience base in Europe that might be suprised at being asked to play what was essentially a sideshow to a wider conflict. The war for independence would be pitch perfect for an expandalone, with a experience tailored to the American market. That said, I am still going to buy this.
19/12/2008 at 11:49 Subject 706 says:
Did the earlier Total Wars not do well in the US?
19/12/2008 at 11:54 Kieron Gillen says:
Subject706: I believe they did fine.
KG
19/12/2008 at 12:16 Stromko says:
(speaking as someone in the U.S. audience) Honestly the last Total War I bought (or played at all) was the original Medieval: Total War. I’m more intrigued by this new one since I’ve always liked the aesthetic of blackpowder warfare — much rather wheel a battery of cannons or a square of musketeers around than catapults or archers. That the guns are hideously inaccurate just helps reduce micromanagement and makes melee rather important, so in a way it’s one of the most complex and varied battlefields.
But I’m going to be made uncertain by the same things that stopped me from getting Rome or Medieval II, I just never had the time or patience to properly play through the original. I already get a much more intimate dose of strategizing with Dwarf Fortress, and a more visceral and brutal buildup of forces in Mount & Blade, it’s hard to convince myself to put down another 50$ on a semi-hardcore big picture strategy game.
OTOH it’s kind of an under served genre, with roots going back to some games I really enjoyed such as Fantasy Empires. It’d be a shame if the genre continued to sink due to people just not giving it a proper try. I should at least remember to give the demo a serious try once it’s available.
19/12/2008 at 12:34 Katsumoto (jvgp100) says:
“Triumphal on whose perspective? Brits lost a colony and saw the beginning of their decline as an Empire. And the world gained a future target audience for shoes-to-a-head.”
I think it was more annoying for the Brits than a beginning of the end. The 19th century was when the British really became the global dominating power and truly became the Empire. It wasn’t till the start of the 20th century that it all went tits up and decline set in. Innit?
Anyway, this all reminds me of “losing on purpose” when playing the original Colonisation. That was of course why I lost, not because I was utterly shit at it. Promise!
19/12/2008 at 12:35 Andrew says:
The brief shot of the factions screen on the India map showed the Mahratta Confederacy and the Mughal Empire. This means Empire: Total War will be very good indeed.
19/12/2008 at 14:52 Tom says:
haha, it “runs good on i7″, how the hell am I going to be able to play this one then?
Are there any specs available?
19/12/2008 at 15:20 Tom says:
Oh, and something else.
This game shines or falls solely depending on how well the ai gets implemented.
ME2 sucks because of bad ai, which is a real shame, because it is just so much fun to play. I mean, I keep having to remind myself, that Im not that good, its just that the enemy general happens to be a retard….
19/12/2008 at 15:22 Bhazor says:
You can say what you like about Games for Windows. But it sure got a relaxing logo.
If the AI isn’t broken like it was in Medieval 2 this could be dangerously addictive.
Quick question: Am I the only person here, whom despite playing all the Total War games (even the weird Spartan one) relentlessly for monthes at a time has never actually finished a campaign?
19/12/2008 at 16:45 A-Scale says:
Do you Brits really still have your panties in a twist about 1776? We saved your ass from the Krauts, show some respect for your benefactor.
19/12/2008 at 16:50 Nimic says:
You didn’t even finish Shogun? I think that’s the one I’ve played the most, possibly now with the exception of Rome. I always used to pick those fellows on the top right hand of the corner. And those purple horse-fellows south of me always used to betray our alliance.
Stupid purple horse-fellows..
19/12/2008 at 16:50 Kieron Gillen says:
GIVE US OUR TEA.
KG
19/12/2008 at 17:02 Philarchie says:
Just as long as the campaign features the heroic rebels having their own asses saved by the French.
19/12/2008 at 17:03 Real Horrorshow says:
If their tactic is to appeal to Americans, then it’s working. I’ve been a devout Total War fanatic since Shogun, but the prospect of having George Washington as one of my generals in a Total War game is really really freaking cool and is making this the most anticipated one yet for me.
The inevitable American Civil War expansion or mod is going to be very fun as well. Can’t wait to kill me some rebel scum.
19/12/2008 at 17:05 Senethro says:
The AI really does need to be improved. Having played a fair bit of Shogun, I kept nearly buying later TW games but would change my mind when I heard about the AI being poor, or the campaign being weird in some ways, i.e. corruption of large empires in Rome. With Shogun being explicitly a war game, I didn’t have a problem with AI players declaring Peace/War on alternate turns. But in recent TWs, constantly playing whack-a-mole against tiny impoverished minor factions hopelessly attacking me with their 2 peasant units would have driven me away from the game.
19/12/2008 at 17:06 A-Scale says:
19/12/2008 at 17:13 Kieron Gillen says:
SHAN’T! WE’RE PROBABLY STILL USING IT! AND YOU DON’T EVEN DRINK TEA! STOP BEING SELFISH! GIVE US OUR TEA!
KG
19/12/2008 at 17:15 A-Scale says:
Lies! I have a box of Lipton (shame on me) and Twinnings Aromatics Earl Gray (bought in England) right here!
And judging from the state of the london tubes, you really are still using it.
19/12/2008 at 17:18 A-Scale says:
Grey*
19/12/2008 at 17:21 Bhazor says:
Reply to Nimic: I was a bit too young when Shogun first came out and my PC wasn’t quite up to it. Then Medieval was a huge step up so I never really played more than a couple weeks of Shogun. Generally I set the wrong difficulty and either get bored or crushed.
But will we have small pox and dissentry simulation?
19/12/2008 at 17:27 Gap Gen says:
“SHAN’T! WE’RE PROBABLY STILL USING IT! AND YOU DON’T EVEN DRINK TEA! STOP BEING SELFISH! GIVE US OUR TEA!”
Hell, if they want their obsolete 60-year-old destroyers and Tommy guns back, they can have them.
19/12/2008 at 17:27 Bhazor says:
Reply to A-Scale
We bagsied those land leases fair and square!
Reply to Senthro
At release the AI is generally pretty gash but after the second patch, or a very keen modder, the AI will have you over it’s knee just giving your bottom a terrible time. So give it maybe six monthes or wait for a gold version with an expansion is my recommendation.
19/12/2008 at 17:28 phil says:
@A-Scale – We’ll give you back your land-lease shit when you give us back our economy
19/12/2008 at 17:35 SanguineLobster says:
Hmm, taking into consider my skill at Total War games, I’ll probably rewrite history into an awkward truce, giving the British the southern colonies because I didn’t train enough musketeers and they keep siegeing Boston.
I guess I’ll just go back to picking on the Native Americans. *sigh*
19/12/2008 at 17:39 A-Scale says:
Not our fault you based your economy exclusively on imperialism. Have you ever considered making something? In my time in London I met four types of people- managers, students, desk workers and bums. None of those people make anything, except the bums, who make a mess.
Your police use sticks. Consider it a step up.
19/12/2008 at 17:40 phil says:
I’ll not hear a word said about our bums, mine has never made a mess I couldn’t clean up.
Sorry.
19/12/2008 at 17:42 Piispa says:
@Katsumoto:
Yes, British dominance over the globe peaked during the 19th century. I ment that since the beginning of the colonization era from the 15th century, the loss of the 13 colonies was the first major setback for the British.
@A-Scale:
Which of the Krauts are you refering to? Of the WW1 when the war was pretty much over before any of your boys get into the trenches, or the WW2 when the Commie bastards kicked the Krauts for 4 years before any GI Joe stepped on the mainland European soil?
Well, for the French, sure, they might be speaking Russian in Paris without US intervention, but then again without the French, George Washington might be nothing but some local village rebel barely mentioned in the history books.
@Topic:
Shogun was pretty much the only Total War I got through with the main campaign. The European map was way too large to conquer, enter Micromanagement Inferno.
Interesting to see how they manage with the whole globe…
19/12/2008 at 17:47 Fumarole says:
Ahem, it is lend-lease. We supplied war material, not a place to build a summer home.
19/12/2008 at 17:51 A-Scale says:
The second time we came to your aid. You remember, the one where we won in Africa, then landed in Normandy, then pushed the Germans back from the shores facing the dinky island you call home?
19/12/2008 at 17:52 Real Horrorshow says:
Sigh, this is starting to turn into one of those embarrassingly childish YouTube comment arguments about WW2.
Hey, lets argue who’s got the best fighter plane, too!
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=mdRVbr1OfKc&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DmdRVbr1OfKc
19/12/2008 at 17:59 Bhazor says:
Reply to A-Scale
I really hoped you were joking before. But a lot of my family died in the second world war and I’d say everyone here lost someone even if they never knew them. Raking up their graves to score a point in an online argument is not rad.
19/12/2008 at 18:01 phil says:
@Piispa = British colonalisation peaked, in term of total landmass contained within the Empire , in 1919 after gobbling down Germany’s territories in Africa.
I agree that A-Scale got WWII a bit wrong – As Richard Overy says, Britian’s war with Germany was decided in the German advance to and retreat from Moscow. America helped significantly, but then so did India, Oz, New Zealand and dozen of other Commonwealth countries; they tend not be so smug about it. While it was Uncle Jo that did us a solid, the American’s did in fact almost bankrupt the British post war economy (and other’s, pushing them towards Communism) by ignoring Keynes & Co’s advice on the formation of the World Bank in favour of the States’ own national interests.
19/12/2008 at 18:07 Piispa says:
@A-Scale:
Sorry, I’m a continental European, not a Briton.
In Africa I believe there were some Brittish and French troops also in the “winning” side and, if I googled correctly, it was Montgomery who defeated Rommel. Although Rommel would probably call it tactical retreat, not a defeat.
Also, in Normandy there were three beaches with non-american landings. Wich all went pretty much better than Omaha. Anyone else wondered why the most badly went is the one best remembered?
19/12/2008 at 18:13 Piispa says:
@phil: “British colonalisation peaked, in term of total landmass contained within the Empire , in 1919 after gobbling down Germany’s territories in Africa.”
In landmass but how about influence? I’d say British influence on global economics post-WW1 was not near what it was during the Victorian era.
I might be wrong, though, and the initial comment of “decline” was too harsh.
19/12/2008 at 18:25 phil says:
@Piispa – Influence is difficult to quantify in international relations, unless you are playing Galatic Empires II. Certainly our moral international standing took a hammering after the Boer war.
In terms of trade between Commonwealth partners, I believe that this peaked in 1907, though historians disagree about this as they do about everything.
19/12/2008 at 18:39 Katsumoto (jvgp100) says:
ooo it’s Youtube all over again! I’ll throw this one in: the Germans had tried to invade Britain (Operation Sealion?!) and failed well before the Americans turned up. So nya-nya, pooh to you with knobs on, etc! *fingers in ear*
19/12/2008 at 18:51 RichP says:
It’s always funny how pretty and well-groomed the Continental Army looks in films and videogames. Journalists from all sides described the ragtag and decrepit condition of the American army: trails of blood left in the snow from lack of shoes, officers dressed in bedsheets, men unrecognizable from sores and unkempt beards. George Washington was the great exception, dressing gentlemanly at all times.
Why the uproar over this tutorial campaign? American Independence was extraordinarily important to modern history. The war also had plenty of small, important battles — perfect for teaching players the ropes. The Battle of Cowpens, for example, was decisive in the Southern theater, yet it involved only 2000 soldiers.
19/12/2008 at 19:32 Real Horrorshow says:
@ RichP:
I always found that funny about the depiction of the German Wehrmacht in WW2. The vast majority of movies and games have them in neat, tidy, freshly ironed Nazi uniforms even though they’re on the front line.
Anyways, I imagine most armies looked pretty dirty in the 1700′s when they’ve been out marching and fighting for extended periods of time, so I find that funny any soldiers in ETW look like they just walked out of the supply depot.
19/12/2008 at 19:40 Johnson says:
Just read up and yes it does resemble a youtube comments page. Lend lease was finally repaid under tony blair in 97 I believe. Don’t see the problem with the campaign it was kind of inevitable really, am looking forward to see what they do with napoleon though.
Also as is often mistaken the main contribution to the war by the US was not fighting men but war material. At the beginning of the war and specifically the africa campaign american soldiers were not of the highest quality in terms of experience and morale. I don’t want to fan the flames but some comments annoyed me.
19/12/2008 at 19:42 Andrew says:
Piispa:
Yes, British dominance over the globe peaked during the 19th century. I ment that since the beginning of the colonization era from the 15th century, the loss of the 13 colonies was the first major setback for the British.
Seeing as this is a Total War comment thread I feel I’m allowed to be a massive pedant and point out that the height of the British Empire was after WW1, territorial-control-wise. Of course the writing was on the wall by then, however.
19/12/2008 at 20:01 RichP says:
I highly recommend Prof. Richard Overy’s Why The Allies Won if you’re interested in a rigorous analysis of WWII. I think the Russians (especially the civilians) deserve more credit for their contributions to Allied victory, but that’s 50 years of Cold War propaganda for ya.
@Real: And they all use MP-40s and drive around in Panzers :) One of the shocking facts from Overy’s book is that Germany used 1 million horses in its invasion of Russia for lack of trucks and mechanized units. Indeed, Germany lacked an ubiquitous service truck like the US “deuce and a half.”
19/12/2008 at 20:16 Gap Gen says:
“Your police use sticks. Consider it a step up.”
Of course, every civilised nation needs to shoot every mofo who runs a red light. No nation could be called civilised if its police force feels it necessary to only shoot 2 people in the past year.
“Not our fault you based your economy exclusively on imperialism. Have you ever considered making something? In my time in London I met four types of people- managers, students, desk workers and bums. None of those people make anything, except the bums, who make a mess.”
You heard of the industrial revolution? But yeah, sure, we could start paying our workers nothing so they can compete with Chinese manufacturers.
Hmm. Not sure I wanted to promote xenophobia in this, but huh. To be honest, both nations have similar problems with post-industrial decline; look at the massive crime rate in American inner cities as well as the petty crime rate in South Wales and unemployment in North England. We banned guns because shooting up a school isn’t a constitutional right, but an outright ban apparently has problems, just as the American system (which varies from state to state) has.
19/12/2008 at 21:10 Satsuz says:
What’s all this about?
Not cool, England. I thought we were friends.
19/12/2008 at 21:35 Alikchi says:
I’m an American, and I think it’d be a lot more fun to play the other side, personally. I always had sympathy for Howe.
19/12/2008 at 23:05 Rob2984 says:
I can’t really see Napoleon working for a turorial campaing, which the American thing is. Sure, it’s good to attract the US market, but it seems pretty well structured to give players an easy introduction.
On that other topic, I think British power peaked during the late 19th century, ’bout 1895, a fair bit before the territorial peak. All started to go tits up when the European balance of power went into tailspin…
And on THAT other topic… anyone else think Washington looks kinda chubby in the video? Definate middle-age spread, if I’m not mistaken.
19/12/2008 at 23:39 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
I bought my tea fair and square. From some funny little brand called “Twinings.” Whoever they are.
19/12/2008 at 23:57 Bhazor says:
It’ll be interesting to see how Creative Assembly handles slavery.
I understand that was a pretty big deal for a while.
19/12/2008 at 23:59 TheDeadlyShoe says:
Far from the only person. I’ve owned every TW game and I’ve never completed a campaign ever. Well, I completed a short campaign once, but only to unlock some factions. Ordinarily I just play Long mode until I get bored.
20/12/2008 at 00:02 TheDeadlyShoe says:
I’ll be getting my War of Northern Aggression on for sure, if you know what I mean.
On that note, I’m not sure why people think the game can’t do scripted faction emergency for the US colonies – they did it all the time in the other games. Script strong rebel armies that keep popping up and when they take settlements they form factions.
20/12/2008 at 00:36 Gap Gen says:
Well, for one, I didn’t really like dealing with random resurgent factions in M:TW, especially since they often had better weapons than you. Still, a political model that deals with possible revolutions, etc, would be quite interesting if done right.
20/12/2008 at 05:30 Anthony Damiani says:
You say that like there’s another market.
——–
Interesting that they chose to call it “The American War of Independence” instead of “The American Revolutionary War.” Slightly British, as one would expect.
———
Napoleon would be more exciting, by far; I feel like I’ve done the American Revolution several times before, most recently in Age of Empires (haven’t gotten to Colonization yet). I’m American, but I’m just bored to death of the easy jingoism.
On the other hand, historical campaigns seem to like the player to be on the historically victorious side– presumably to avoid counterfactuals.
20/12/2008 at 07:04 A-Scale says:
To Bhazor:
I agree, so why are you doing it?
See Operation Torch. Montgomery couldn’t find his ass with both hands.
Please remind me what contributions the Indians, NZ’ers, Australians or Russians made in pushing the Germans out of Western Europe. I seem to recall that England falls somewhere along the west. And have you never heard of the Marshall plan?
What an asinine assertion. Like the Brits and Canadians trotted in firing from the hip and dropping German snipers from a half mile away and the Americans just bungled their parts. Omaha is the best remembered because it was the most difficult and hard fought. We generally don’t give quite as much respect to people who trot over a quarter mile with no resistance as we do to people who run against highly defended bunkers, losing a significant portion of their party in the process. We call the former joggers, and the latter heroes. There is a reason America was given the most difficult beach to assault; they were capable of taking it.
20/12/2008 at 07:25 Albides says:
This was better when there was less dick-wagging and more gentle ribbing.
20/12/2008 at 07:55 Mark says:
My ancestors can beat up your ancestors.
Or, they could, if everyone involved weren’t dead.
20/12/2008 at 08:34 Gap Gen says:
My zombie forebears could totally chew up your zombie forebears.
20/12/2008 at 10:02 thefanciestofpants says:
Okay people enough with the arguing.
We all know that Great Cthulu won WW2 for the allies.
Let’s stop pretending otherwise.
20/12/2008 at 10:05 Katsumoto (jvgp100) says:
Damn, I thought he was being ironic.
20/12/2008 at 12:00 Kieron Gillen says:
Albides: Yeah. It was much more fun when we were just shouting about Tea.
KG
20/12/2008 at 12:21 Frans Coehoorn says:
Yeah, well, come to think of it… I still want my New Amsterdam back!
20/12/2008 at 13:25 Bhazor says:
Damn it Fans Coehoorn! You brought this on yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsQrKZcYtqg
20/12/2008 at 13:33 Bhazor says:
Wrong video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0X77OBJUg&feature=related
Hey did you guys notice there’s no edit button? Whats up with that!?!?
20/12/2008 at 23:23 Whovian says:
“Ahem, it is lend-lease. We supplied war material, not a place to build a summer home.”
Thank you, I was just about to post this.
21/12/2008 at 05:54 jonfitt says:
The edit button comes and goes like your typical Fairy: appearing to some and not to others.
I for one do not believe the edit button exists. I’ve seen the “photos” but they’re hardly convincing.
21/12/2008 at 05:59 Pace says:
The conclusion I came to is that you can only edit your posts if you’re logged in to the forums.
21/12/2008 at 16:34 Andrew says:
A-Scale:
Please remind me what contributions the Indians, NZ’ers, Australians or Russians made in pushing the Germans out of Western Europe.
There were many Commonwealth troops fighting in Western Europe, not just Brits and Canadians. ANZACs and Indians fought in France in 1940 and in 44-45.
22/12/2008 at 11:52 l1ddl3monkey says:
Are the French in it?
29/12/2008 at 18:41 Springy says:
Why is the video using the ER theme as background music?
16/12/2009 at 17:10 Kadayi says:
But what about Penis reduction?
18/01/2010 at 11:30 provillus Reviews says:
Provillus natural hair loss treatment now available for Australian, American, Canadian and UK’s Men and Women . Order here for your 90 Day Money Back Guarantee. http://www.Managehairloss.com