Avalong Look At King Arthur II In Action

I think these are Picts. They must be.

An official website for a game has launched! Shout it from the hilltops! Proclaim it to the masses! There is also a release date for the game! It will actually be released on a day that is not very far away! Total War with myth, magic and choose your own adventure segments is how I think of King Arthur II, which is not to say it doesn’t have an identity of its own and perhaps you will be able to discover that identity on the aforementioned website or upon the aforementioned release date (Jan 27th). Or maybe in the rather more useful 56 minute recording of a livestream that I’ve buried in Avalon, which for our purposes lies just below. Click to retrieve it. Exhumation and archaeology made easy!

There’s a lot in there but if you still want to know more, why not read the impressions that Agent Smee brought back to us from his journeys in Albion?

Also, don’t forget that the prologue, which the video shows off, is available to play now for those willing to preorder. Oddly, I never played the original but I’ll surely take a closer look at this some time soon. History, myth and strategy are three of my favourite things, and I didn’t get any of them for Christmas so I’ll need to take care of matters myself.

Paradox also have this to say:

In celebration of the site’s launch, Paradox Interactive has planned a giveaway for free copies of King Arthur Collection.

Starting today up until Friday the 13th, Paradox Interactive will hide 10 unique codes each day somewhere on the official King Arthur II website; players only need find a hidden code, redeem it on Steam, and start playing!

New codes will be uploaded to the King Arthur II website at 9am EST / 3pm CET on each day of the giveaway.

Free games ahoy!


  1. durakh says:

    loved the first one. very excited

  2. jonfitt says:

    But the one thing we want to know is has this game been designed to contain sufficient iron?

  3. lowprices says:

    What a curious screenshot. I’m not the foremost Athurian scholar of my age, but I honestly can’t remember where the sandworms from Dune figure into the legend.

    • Anthile says:

      Sandworms? Those are obviously tyranids. We figured that out the last time.

    • lowprices says:

      I apologise Sir. My knowledge of the grim darkness of the far future is shaky at best. Let me try again.


      I’m not the foremost Arthurian scholar of my age, but I’m honestly not sure where the Tyranids figure into the legend.

    • Uglycat says:

      Tyranids? Those are obviously adrenaline-crazed Silt-riders from Morrowind.

    • sneetch says:

      No, those are in fact Picts, the last of which was slain in 1897 by Sir Montgomery Ffarbes-Bottomsworthy in the highlands of Scotland. It’s now in the Natural History Museum in Edinburgh.

    • bill says:

      They are clearly Garthim, as created by the Skeksis Emperor. They ate all the Picts. the last of them was slain in 1897 by Sir Montgomery Ffarbes-Bottomsworthy in the highlands of Scotland. It’s now in the Natural History Museum in Edinburgh.

    • lowprices says:


      I may not be the foremost Arthurian scholar of my age, but y’know what? This game is stupid. Why co-opt an existing mythos if you are going to add Tyranids and Sauron and what the hell ever else?

    • Davie says:

      The good news is that they don’t need an identifiable species to completely skeeve me out.

    • misterT0AST says:

      To be honest, I remember seeing that same exact picture in an older article here on RPS, someone said “they look like Tyranids”, to which I replied “They look a bit more like “Stiltstriders from Morrowind”.
      Good times.

    • Chris D says:


      The Arthurian mythos has been co-opted by pretty much everyone for probably the last six hundred years, if not more. Why stop now?

    • Sheng-ji says:

      My god, if you look back past the bastardisation of the legend by the French, you’ll find the myths involved any number of monsters. I understand that you may not get it if all you know of the legends involves knights, round tables and chivalry, but do remember that Arthur was a myth pre Romans whereas knights were a construct of the middle ages and chivalry was simply a way to stop them raping every woman they could.

      Don’t allow the fact this game has monsters in it put you off, let it broaden your mind to better stories than 18th Century obsession with love and right over wrong.

    • lowprices says:

      Allow me to rephrase then: Why co-opt one mythos (the Arthurian legends) and then put what appears to be an awful lot of effort into making it resemble another (the Lord of the Rings films)? If you are going to do that, why not just invent your own mythos?

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Well, I think that given that Tolkien was heavily influenced by Sir Thomas Malory’s version of Arthur, it’s really not surprising that you’ll find generic fantasy elements in it.

      But your point is as mute as asking why don’t every Lord of the Rings game bother setting it in middle earth, why not make their own universe – why is old republic set in the star wars universe, they could make their own etc etc.

      They wanted to draw on the rich background of Arthur – people want to play as him, control Kay in battle, rule England and use the power of Merlin. I don’t want to play Bob who rules Land of the Tomatoes and uses the power granted by his grandmothers farts to aid him – even if the gameplay is exactly the same!

    • lowprices says:

      Except my point wasn’t “why use an established mythos when you can create your own”, it was “why use an established mythos if you’re just going to do your own thing anyway?”

    • Sheng-ji says:

      And my point was that they are staying true to the vast majority of the stories – which include many Tolkienian elements, principally because they inspired Tolkien.

  4. yutt says:

    Okay, *I* trust all of you enough to know better, however…

    It looks a bit unsavory to post a press-release about a game the site is currently branded with. Just saying.

  5. Ev4n says:

    The website looks kinda cheap to me. They should have spent a few thousand bucks more to present the game on the internet…nowadays it’s kinda risky to present a game in such amateurish ways

    • Velvetmeds says:

      Yes, official websites are what makes me pick a purchase from a no-buy.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Some sites are so flashy, it actually makes it difficult to decide if you want to make a purchase or not because they hide the details behind ludicrous levels of interactivity.

  6. DocSeuss says:

    I think it looks pretty cool… but I played the first game, and a few turns in, I did this one battle that killed almost all of my units. I wasn’t sure how to get more units, so my attack to get a stronghold (which would get me more units) ended in failure, meaning I could no longer progress in the game.

    Did they account for that this time around?