A Co-op Survival Multiplayer Mod revamping Classic Full Invasion mod by Arch3r and to continue his work. This mod aim to have as many factions as possible and it is one of the most demanding mod out there for warband. (For 64 bit Windows and 64 bit Operating System only) With lots of new factions to choose from, and more coming with each update, Full Invasion 2 builds further upon Arch3r's abandoned mod, breathing fresh life in his interesting concept. Try to survive for as long as possible and fight against hordes of enemies. Build barricades, fences, form a spear-wall / shield wall to fight against the foes. The game sends waves of challenges to the player that become more difficult with each subsequent wave. But can you hold till the last wave? You will be tested (Please read the minimum requirement page before you download to avoid disappointment or crashes in game) This is a very large mod due to having over tons and tons of factions+

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Invasion of Socialists
embed
share
previous next
 
Post comment Comments
plyuto518
plyuto518 Mar 24 2013, 10:58am says:

Gays at arms, lol wut!! Very good idea though! I can't wait to see some screen shots.

+13 votes     reply to comment
plyuto518
plyuto518 Mar 30 2013, 1:29am replied:

why do i have 10+ likes.....

-1 votes     reply to comment
VeniVdVici
VeniVdVici Mar 24 2013, 2:33pm says:

Technical things here; the Union is the civil war was the republican party; i.e. very much anti-socialist. I would change em to hippies or something?

+4 votes     reply to comment
VeniVdVici
VeniVdVici Mar 24 2013, 2:50pm replied:

Or do invasion of Obamas

+7 votes     reply to comment
SantaofDeath
SantaofDeath Mar 24 2013, 3:57pm replied:

I agree! Do this!
And can we get an Invasion of Chairman Mao too?

+1 vote     reply to comment
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL Mar 24 2013, 5:15pm says:

Technical things here:
1. Being a republican doesn't mean not being a socialist. The Republican party has always been diverse in terms of views.
2. The Civil War was not really about slavery, as it is said nowadays, but the division of power.
3. The central government released an act which abolished compulsory work on farms but few wanted to leave plantations.
4. Already there was a difference between North and South of America. South was more conservative, The north was more socially liberal.
5. Washington tried to supress Home Rule of the south. Just like socialists.
6. Union army was looting and burning the South and the South did not rise from the fall ( it is not as powerful region now as it was in the past) they were doing it just because Washington felt threated by the finansial independence of many Americans there. Government didn't care about people hurted during burning ground actions. Just like socialists.
7. Abraham Lincoln was quite like a progenitor of socialists. He chose social engineering rather than evolutionary path of reforms with regard to the views of citizens.
8. As you see I don't need lessons of history.

+8 votes     reply to comment
VeniVdVici
VeniVdVici Mar 24 2013, 6:30pm replied:

1. No it doesn't but it is fair to point out that the republicans are typically anti-socialist.

2. I can get into an argument about slavery easily. While it was a division of power/states rights problem, the big issue was that the division of powers wouldn't protect slavery any more. The election of an Anti-Slavery president who was not even on the southern ballots led the southern states to seceded. There would have been enough votes to outlaw slavery as it wasn't a constitutionally protected right. Most of the states that seceded specifically enumerated slavery as the cause in the secession documents.

3. Name the act. If it was the reconstruction stuff, I will point out the southerners coerced slaves to work on plantations. Look up the ku klux klan.

4. The south voted for the political platform advocating larger stronger governments. The north voted for the whig successors who preferred limited government.

5. Its Lincoln here for the war; now Washington did consolidate power at the federal level but only to a limited extent.

6. The issue with your argument here is positing that the south was a more powerful region before the abolition of slavery. I believe that if you look a GDP per capita adjusted for inflation and the percentage of the population compared to the union it has grown in power.

7. Abraham Lincoln did not social engineer anything. Look at the responses to events like draft riots. He forced social order to stay as it was. Slavery is an exception only because he saw it as a moral wrong.

8. Yes and no. Historiographically the arguments for states-rights and slavery as the causes of the war are both logically valid. I hold to slavery. However I am unconvinced you can call Abraham Lincoln or Union ideology socialist. I am not offended at all, I just think you could choose something better.

+2 votes     reply to comment
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL Mar 24 2013, 11:45pm replied:

1. Most of them call themselves anti-socialists but maintenance central banking, government and health insurance emerytalnie, Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education, to maintain a constant inflation, borrowing, and many others are the sing that they are Republicans only by name. In XIX century Republicans didn't mean right-wing yet. Most of catholics were voting for Democrats ( It changed mostly after R.Reagan) where it was easier to make a political career for less well-off/indigent people.

3. I'll name that act. I can't find it now. English is not my native spoken language and it is hard for me to search for it.

4 If you look at historical maps showing distribution of votes in votings on the shape of regime and the whole system in many countries ( I saw Italy, Poland, Germany and other countries with such similarity, Sometimes sides are converted) you will see a regularity. In the north, people willing to see democracy and parliamentarism and social liberalism, and in the south people would like to see a strong executive or a monarchy and a higher percentage of believers. The same was already noticeable in the USA. Give me proof that they wanted to noon growth of government power rather than north and they do not want to do so to build a state and to defend themselves against assaults north. To sum up now South and the Middle of USA is mor right-wing. California and North-East is more follows left-wing ( which means following California). In XIX it wasn't differently. History is written by winners. Look at the given facts given from a distance.

7. Lincoln is accused of first in history using extreme power of executive to hold his political aims. Lincoln condemned the Polish January Uprising as Poles as insubordination against Russia. In return, the Russian military assistance was indeed used against compatriots from the south. He also showed his superiority to all local separatism. This was the beginning of the era of the Big Brother in Washington.

+1 vote     reply to comment
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL Mar 24 2013, 11:45pm replied:

2. and 8. "Most of the states that seceded specifically enumerated slavery as the cause in the secession documents". Yes that's right but as you said - that wasn't the only reason. It would be a bias to say that it was mostly because of slavery. Tell me why XIII amendment to the constitution was passed only four months before the surrender of Confederats? So late? Apparently the main objective, master slogan, and so late? It was rather the opium for the people, propaganda but business is business. Lincoln was pragmatist not a ideologist like Spielberg movies shows. XIII amendment was not applicable law for States of CSA group. Think about it. It is a bias and a historical lie.

6. Great fortunes and estates of rebellious southerners were taken over by the industrial giants of the north. Burned ground of the South meant a fall of the power of this region, end of unique culture, pauperization of white people and appalling misery for liberated African-Americans. The South converted into dried land beset by poverty, crime ( see - New Orlean), backwardness and xenophobia of frustrats associated in Ku-Klux Klan. It's just part of the legacy of Abraham Lincoln's total war with no rules.

+1 vote     reply to comment
VeniVdVici
VeniVdVici Mar 25 2013, 3:36am replied:

I can and will rebut some of these tomorrow, please know that I am thumbing your comments up as I see this as a friendly debate.

1. In the 1800 the republicans were right wing, they came from the right wing party. Education and finance reforms were made to improve agriculture and finance the war. HE was not a strong government guy, he was a hold the union together guy.

0 votes     reply to comment
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL
FI2_Dev_Valamis_PL Mar 25 2013, 10:20am replied:

Don't treat this thing too seriously :). I just had some hidden agenda/aims. Including Union and Confederacy I wanted to point out that Americans do not always agree on the dictates of Washington. That was the primary aim. These two fractions will be made due to current political reasons.

+2 votes     reply to comment
SirTorgrad
SirTorgrad Mar 25 2013, 12:46pm replied:

1. The Republicans emerged from the formore Whigs wich ceased to exist after their election defeat against the American Party and the Democrates in 1856. From what was left and out of the abolishment movement the so called Republicans rallied between 1856-58. Allthough the Civil War was not about Slavery a big group of Lincolns supporters were contra slavery and therefor his act from 1863 (the 13th Admantment or Emancipation Act wich Fuin2 is refering to in his 3rd point) was a neccesary tool to win the 1864 Election. As you can figure they were conservative, yes but not as conservative as the Democrates (oh the irony) in that time, as they were a new and "young" party which best is senn if you compare Lincolns Age on the date of his election to his predessesors.

0 votes     reply to comment
Jace_J._Coleman
Jace_J._Coleman Mar 24 2013, 7:04pm says:

Lol Obama in front btw bad idea

-2 votes     reply to comment
VeniVdVici
VeniVdVici Mar 24 2013, 7:35pm replied:

We thought he was mlk lol

-3 votes     reply to comment
DoctrineDark
DoctrineDark Mar 25 2013, 8:29am says:

Also, Nazi's were not "socialists" In fact they were afraid of the spread of socialist ideals/communist ideals, that is part of the reason why they attacked russia during ww2

-3 votes     reply to comment
VeniVdVici
VeniVdVici Mar 25 2013, 5:28pm replied:

Nazi comes from National Socialist; socialists can be socially conservative (Nazi) or liberal (Russia).

+7 votes     reply to comment
ciamek
ciamek Apr 16 2013, 10:17pm replied:

Well the attacked Russia becasue Russia would attack anyway,there was some Russian documents that prove that Russia had almost only offensive troops,thats also why they lose in a first part of war,they were just not prepared for attack.In my opinion if Hitler would not attack,Stalin would do that for sure, their "allience" was just not real, 2 ambition psychos ready to conquer the world...there was just no place for both.Well i have thinking about that them both,and it looks like germans have actualy copy the soviet way to control the people and just used on their way 1.You need someone to blame for so people would like to follow you to destroy the primary enemy (jews or bourgeoisie) 2.After getting the control start to kill people in realy big numbers so you could get their money,property,respect of the others,make everybody fear of you (communists had a special lists were they had writen how many people do they have to kill ore put in the prison in one week/month,that was not about a justice,that was about to make people afraid,also in a nazi version of this). 3.People must treat you like a God,make much of holy prtraits of yoursleves,give them your books,your photography ,you,you and you everywhere ( look at Stalin`s and Hitler`s pictures). 4.Everyone who thinks different is traitor or is not mind healthy man. There is much more of similarities like that ones,just look closely, they were different,that is true,but the main purpose and ways to achieve it was the same,just the form was different.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ciamek
ciamek Apr 16 2013, 10:21pm replied:

Sorry about my English skills and mistakes,but i am still learning...and my arms shake every time when i write about things like that... :( .

+1 vote     reply to comment
DoctrineDark
DoctrineDark Mar 26 2013, 9:42pm says:

Socialism is and idea of a classless society. The nazi's were far from that idea of thinking.

+1 vote     reply to comment
VeniVdVici
VeniVdVici Mar 26 2013, 11:24pm replied:

No, its more the idea of a society where the government cares for the needs of the people. Classless is specific to communism.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Homar
Homar Jul 6 2013, 1:23pm replied:

NSDAP=NationalSOZIALISTISCHE Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
Solved.

+1 vote     reply to comment
FI2_Dev_usnavy30
FI2_Dev_usnavy30 Mar 27 2013, 8:38am says:

I like the debates on this page :)

+7 votes     reply to comment
Storander
Storander Apr 2 2013, 10:53am says:

lol

+3 votes     reply to comment
Gorlock911
Gorlock911 Jun 24 2013, 3:12pm says:

Holy hell people, its a game, stop being butthurt he put him there, tbh he is a socialist

+1 vote     reply to comment
panteramartin
panteramartin Sep 13 2013, 2:16pm says:

Hollande XD

+2 votes     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Description

UPDATED DESCRIPTION 1.3!

Attention!: ALMOST COMPLETED first version!! Should appear in 12 version!

Here they come to take care of you, take your money and bring up your children!

"Invasion of Socialists".
Maximum plan ( don't expect final version too soon):

1. English revolutionists of Cromwell ( we need help with that)
2. French revolutionists (READY),
3. Union soldiers of American Civil War,
4. Kingdom of Italy and mason revolutionists of Risorgimento ( 1867-1870)
5. Prussian soldiers of Bismarc,
6. Turkish Armed Forces during Armenian Genocide (1915–1923),
[Will Teleworlds beat me for that?]
7. Bolsheviks (1917-1920) ( READY),
8. Piłsudski's Legions ( 1926)
9. Mexican federal troops of Calles ( 1927-1929),
10. Forces of republican Spain ( 1936-1939),
11. Third Reich of Germany ( READY),
12. Red Army at World War II (READY),
13. Forces of Mao's Communist Party of China (READY),
14. Mad eugenic doctors, ( We have some models)
15. Revolutionists of Latin America ( under development),
16. Soviet Union (the '80s),
17. Fallen hedonistic young people ( READY),
18. Ecoterrorists, ( READY)
19. Bureaucracy ( READY),
20. Gays at Arms and human rights followers ( READY),
21. Left-wing militias and politicians ( READY),
22. European Union stabilisation forces ( READY)
23. US Democracy and "Peace" makers (READY)

Support this project by sending us models and textures! ( they must be free, not extracted from games etc.)

PS What I hear? We will never manage to make that? We have already many models and textures and it needs editing only and sometimes even not.

Image Details
Type
Entertainment
Date
Jun 24th, 2013
Size
620×496
Options
URL
Embed (big)
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only