Agree with an Earlier post KOTOR 3 (although Bioware did say TOR would be KOTOR 3,4 and 5).

A proper Gothic 4 since Piranha Bytes does have the rights again to the Gothic series.

I know for a fact though Dragon Age 3 is in production :P

Fallout 4, not so sure, maybe a different title but not 4. Just wish they pick a different country next one. How about being a Chinese guy? And seeing the devastation caused on the Chinese side, could see some funky mutants from there :P

EDIT: Forgot Homeworld 3! Relic has gave hints that it isn't totally dead recently.

And it was the ulster plantation incident that forced scots not to accept the rule of the british empire to start with. You're dating previous events in history that have nothing to do with a handful of them disbanding themselves and fighting against the british during the american revolutionary war.

You're adding useless parts of history in order to gather more information to get an argument out of it. History that has no relevance in the 17th century or the war we are discussing.

cryceaye5

And by the way the Redcoats didn't start of as an english army. They were british when they started and never ended. All from great britian and northern ireland. All british.

The redcoats fought in the war and were called redcoats because they were redcoats. It wasn't a name that they were given just because of there attire. The redcoats didn't end at all and still exist under the "British army."

And the scots were never a seperate regiment of people who fought against the british. Like i told you in the 1760's a handful of them broke of against the british because of the ulster plantation. No scots left the redcoats in order to fight against the british during the war. No scots disbanded themselves from the redcoats and left the "British army" to fight on their own.

Yes you're still an idiot if you think the scots wern't apart of the redcoats. And yes you are an idiot if you think the british army were all english.

cryceaye5

1. I didn't say British Army was all English, you imagined I did to make your argument more valid.

2. Red Coats were formed as an English Army, it is how it was formed. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia.

"The red coat has evolved from being the British infantryman's ordinary uniform to a garment retained only for ceremonial purposes. Its official adoption dates from February 1645, when the Parliament of England passed the New Model Army ordinance. The new English Army was formed of 22,000 men, divided into 12 foot regiments of 1200 men each, 11 horse regiments of 600 men each, one dragoon regiment of 1000 men, and the artillery, consisting of 50 guns. The infantry regiments wore coats of Venetian red with white facings. A contemporary comment on the New Model Army dated 7 May 1645 stated "the men are Redcoats all, the whole army only are distinguished by the several facings of their coats" - The first sentence is talking about the modern army with Red Coats used for Royal Ceremonies, like Trooping of the Colour etc. Hope you read the words "NEW ENGLISH ARMY"

3. Yes they were called Red Coats in the war because of the colour of the uniform, I have said that a couple of times now, and again I never once said the Red Coats name was invented by the American opposition. Another one of your unable to read and comprehend wonders. I even mentioned how the Red Coats were formed BEFORE the Revolutionary War.

4. As for Red Coats being British, wrong.... Britain didn't exist until 1707 well after the Formation of the Red Coats. Read more history.

5. As for Scottish breaking away from the "red coats" or maybe we shall call them "lobsters" as the Bostonites referred to the British Army, a number did and joined up with previous emigrating Scots and Irish to help the American forces during the war. Plenty of literature on that if you want to google it.

6. Calling me an Idiot, when you can't even comprehend basic English and read what is being said correctly and then have the nerve to call others Idiots because you mucked up. Priceless?

During the war the scottish didn't break away from the british forces. And under british rule the scots still fought with "The red coats" which still existed during the 17th century.

Only handful of scottish people were resistant to british rule because of what they did to them in their involvement with the ulster plantation in the 1760's.

I'm 27 not a teenager. Quit with the assumptions.

cryceaye5

[QUOTE="DABhand"]

I like the fact that some people know their history and say it was against English forces and not British forces. As it is well known that 95% of Scotland and Scottish forces went North and South and left the English to do their pathetic wars :P

The 5% that stayed behind were from the East coast of Scotland so practically English :P

So will I be bothered about AC3? Nahhh.

cryceaye5

You're an idiot. The redcoats were apart of england,wales and scotland. All of which were british. The scottish wern't an independent regiment of people that seperated themselves.

I like the fact that some people know their history and say it was against English forces and not British forces. As it is well known that 95% of Scotland and Scottish forces went North and South and left the English to do their pathetic wars :P

The 5% that stayed behind were from the East coast of Scotland so practically English :P

So will I be bothered about AC3? Nahhh.