Viking Special Unit

snuggs · July 9, 2002, 16:13

I notice from the screenshots the Viking special unit has been made the 'Berserk'. That's a big disappointment. Berserkers could never have been said to have formed any unit on the scale of Civ, were lone crazed individuals whose job was less to fight than demoralise an unarmed foe. Viking field armies fought behind shields and attacked only when the enemy broke. If there is to be a Viking-specific LAND unit, let it be the Huskarl, which should be a bit like the Roman Legion unit.

On the other hand, what do we remember the Vikings for - SEAFARING! The English have a naval special unit and the Americans get an air one - so why not give the Vikings Longships? Like a galley, but faster, can cross sea but not ocean without sinking, and possibly with a small bombard value to represent those bloody berserkers.

Incan_Warrior · July 9, 2002, 16:48

word to your mother.

I agree (not meant to be a Xarxo spam).

I hope their leader is Eric the Red.

Firebird · July 9, 2002, 16:59

The problem is as far as I am concerned that a longship UU must come very early to be of value. To me the navy is nearly only there for transportation of units over water. To have a military effect it must be a landunit.

Actually the vikings where much more traders (as far as present-day Turkey), explorers (they discovered Greenland and America) and expansionists (founding settlements in present-day Iceland, Greenland (later abandoned), Canada (later abandoned), England, Ireland, Russia and France).

Hm, looks like an expansionistic (or militaristic), commercial civ...

Incan_Warrior · July 9, 2002, 17:10

I can see Firebird's point, but I still like the idea of a Viking longboat. A player's strategy varies depending on the Civ they play, and a player would just have to adopt a naval strategy if they choose to play the Vikings. There's no doubt that land is 'where the action is', but (as much as I hate dealing with naval units) I think Civ 3 can be expanded as a game by putting more action on the ocean. For instance, oil could be modded to show up on the ocean floor and Civ's could battle for the resource. SeewhatI'msayin?

Gangerolf · July 9, 2002, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Incan_Warrior
I hope their leader is Eric the Red.

why?
yes, he discovered Greenland (he killed someone and had to leave Iceland) and his son Leiv discovered America, but he wasn't a king or anything like that

Andrew_Jay · July 9, 2002, 21:52

Perhaps replace the caraval with the longboat. Sure the galley looks like one already, but the Norse were more a late Late Ancient/Early Medieval (about 400 - 1200 ? ). Also, I think an upgraded galley would be too powerful. While other civs are stuck patrolling their coast and sending ships to die in hopes of finding land, the Vikings could be everywhere settling like crazy.

Chandragupta · July 9, 2002, 22:34

Gangerolf has the right train of thought here, why eric the red? Canute would be a much better leader from everything i've read about viking history.

Mikhail · July 10, 2002, 03:57

I agree, a Huskarl is a much better choice than Berserker. The 'berserk' included (as well as the AoE version) already look like the ax-wielding Huskarls, might as well give them the proper name.

Longboat is better than anything else, but as it's been said, I don't see how it could be effectively implemented (I say this as if all the other UUs were effectively implemented *shrugs*) I'd just give it extra move and attack though, rather than letting it travel on sea squares. maybe allow it to transport more units.

As for the leader of the Vikings, it will either be Erik the Red or Leif Erikson. Just look at Joan of Arc or Gandhi. Firaxis goes for the popular choice, not the practical one (canute)

Darkworld Ark · July 10, 2002, 04:55

Just imagine that the Berserker is a Huskarl or rename it in the editor, it's not that hard. I myself wouldn't mind if it was called the Viking Fruity-tootie, as long as it gets the job done.

As for these Longships, I can't see how they'd be very usefull, or at least not as usefull as a anphibous Swordsman. Even if they were used, they should definitly replace galleys. Just because the Native American Mounted Warrior came was around in the 1600s doesn't mean it should replace Cavalry.

As for the leader, Firaxis uses the most known leaders, & not neccisarily the most historicly acurate, just look at Cleopatra or Abe Lincon.

History Guy · July 10, 2002, 09:49

The Huscarl is an excellent suggestion. These were the boys who would be in the front lines swinging the huge battle-axes around. Simon Schama writes of them in his A History of Britain, Pt. 1, and he writes that a well aimed blow from a huscarl's axe could cut through horse and rider.

The only problem is that they were more of a Saxon or an Anglo-Saxon unit than a Viking unit.

Incan_Warrior · July 10, 2002, 11:09

In response to Gangerolf, I hope for Erik the Red because he's got notoriety - like Mikhail has already mentioned. Furthermore, while Canute is definitely known as the foremost leader of the Vikings 'era', I don't think he captures the true barbaric and marauding spirit that the Vikings are known for (whereas Erik the Red does). Canute led an organized rule and I always think of the Vikings as an unorganized band of brutes. I'm no expert on the facts, this is just my generalization. For a cool, brief timeline of Viking events, check this out:

http://viking.no/e/etimeline.htm

Robber Baron · July 10, 2002, 11:10

Nice to see the Schama reference, History Guy. Great stuff!

Papa Chubby · July 10, 2002, 11:54

I personally believe that the infamous dragon-ship of the Vikings would be more appropiate as their UU. Because as History guy said the Huskarl´s were very much a design of the Angle-Saxons. Besides, what made the Vikings what they were, were not fighting abilities, but their ships and seafaring abilities. I think the Longship should replace the Trireme and have 1+ Attack.

snuggs · July 10, 2002, 12:12

Re Huskarls - Canute introduced these to the English OB, they were a Scandinavian creation. You could call them Hersirs instead I suppose. I partly wanted Huskarls so I could create a custom Anglo-Saxon civ

I would support Expansionist/Commercial for the Vikings, Militaristic would go against the much-noted individualist character of the Vikings. Besides tehy were traders before soldiers.

Re the leader. It was Canute in Civ 2, surely it'll be him again in this expansion. Erik Bloodaxe otherwise, last and greatest of the psycho-Nords.

zulu9812 · July 10, 2002, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Papa Chubby
I personally believe that the infamous dragon-ship of the Vikings would be more appropiate as their UU. Because as History guy said the Huskarl´s were very much a design of the Angle-Saxons. Besides, what made the Vikings what they were, were not fighting abilities, but their ships and seafaring abilities. I think the Longship should replace the Trireme and have 1+ Attack.

Absolutely. The Vikings were a great seafaring nation who made it all the way to the Americas long before Columbus ever did. The dragon-ship should be a replacement for the galley, but should be able to traverse sea & ocean tiles. Perhaps it should have superior stats as well.

btw - there is no Trireme in CivIII

HazieDaVampire · July 10, 2002, 14:58

How about a Viking, the word viking means somthing about attacking towns from the sea! So it should be like a marine from that time!

HazieDaVampire · July 10, 2002, 15:02

oh and Zulu, at the time the Viking were better fighters than saxons, but their ships were crap at fighting. The Saxons used to try to kill the ships, and not kill the vikings on land! I'f you were to make a Dragon-ship, it should have 1 2 or maby even 3 more move points than everybody else, and be able to traverse sea squares or somthing like that, but it shouldn't be better at fighting.

GoodFella · July 10, 2002, 17:28

Longboat should be UU. Mabee carries more units and can travel one square farther.

This would be a big stretch, but the ability too travel up and down rivers would be good for the longboat.

And it should also replace Caravel.

zulu9812 · July 10, 2002, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
oh and Zulu, at the time the Viking were better fighters than saxons, but their ships were crap at fighting. The Saxons used to try to kill the ships, and not kill the vikings on land! I'f you were to make a Dragon-ship, it should have 1 2 or maby even 3 more move points than everybody else, and be able to traverse sea squares or somthing like that, but it shouldn't be better at fighting.

Perhaps the ship design was inferior, but surely the Vikings were better at boarding tactics...

btw it was Trip

HazieDaVampire · July 10, 2002, 18:43

Boarding tactics, the Saxons boats at the time were twice the size, and look like early medievil boats!

I still think a Viking would be best, thats what the vikings are! Viking means attacking towns from the sea!
It should act like an Early Marine, attacking from the sea.

snuggs · July 10, 2002, 19:11

Viking doesn't have anything to do with towns - it's a troublesome participle-like word which came to take in the entire range of Norse activity overseas - basically 'going a-viking' describes every Scandinavian who left his valley with adventure in mind, no matter whether he sought fame by piracy, trade or mercenary service.

My conception of the longship unit would be it was exactly like a trireme but could move into sea - not ocean - move one space faster, and have a nominal bombarding value. Not sure about increasing the carrying capacity, as longships were not that big and 'galleys' seem to represent every pre-modern ship type including huge Levantine / Roman / Chinese craft. Longships should be small, hardy and nippy but not Sea Behemoths.

Darkworld Ark · July 10, 2002, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by snuggs
I would support Expansionist/Commercial for the Vikings, Militaristic would go against the much-noted individualist character of the Vikings. Besides tehy were traders before soldiers.

They should DEFFINITLY be Militaristic, their religion was based around war, & for most people, whenever you think about Vikings, you think about destruction. I'm guessing that the other trait will be Commercial, since they were (sort of) able to keep a far stretching empire. Expantionist just doesn't fit, since they Vikings really aren't well known for their land-based scouts or their friendly relations with 'barbarians'.

snuggs · July 10, 2002, 21:00

No way. What people think when they think of Vikings may be ravished maidens and burning monasteries but only Commercial - Expansionist describes the people that shipped silver from Turkestan to Ireland, walrus ivory from the White Sea to North Africa, opened up the North Sea and the trade route round the North Cape, penetrated the Russian rivers, introduced currency and urbanism to Ireland, Scotland, Russia and the Baltic lands... and so on ad nauseam. Militaristic implies a heavily-regimented society geared towards all-engulfing war, not the classic Viking culture of independent mercenary bands and locally-mounted raiding expeditions.

Metaliturtle · July 10, 2002, 22:16

Quote:

They should DEFFINITLY be Militaristic, their religion was based around war, & for most people, whenever you think about Vikings, you think about destruction. I'm guessing that the other trait will be Commercial, since they were (sort of) able to keep a far stretching empire. Expantionist just doesn't fit, since they Vikings really aren't well known for their land-based scouts or their friendly relations with 'barbarians'.

NO, for most inteligent people, you do not think of destruction when you think of Vikings. They just used tactics of rapid EXPANSION and felt that the other nations weren't worth saving. Certainly they had no major organized military hirearchy or other such staples of truly militaristic societies, they may have fought on arrival, but fighting was never their main goal.

zulu9812 · July 11, 2002, 03:13

nonetheless, a militaristic & expansionist combination best simulates this rapid expansion. Their religion was based around dying to get into Valhalla. But more than that, giving the Vikings Expansionist and Commercial gives them the two worst traits!

btw - anyone think that the expansionist-specific unit should be another settler, just as a short term fix?

DrFell · July 11, 2002, 12:14

They should be expansionist and militaristic IMHO, although that would leave us with three such civs. As for UUs I think they should have some Longboat unit, a galley replacement with an extra move. This is much more powerful than you might think, as you can:

1 - Out-manouvre the other ships around in that period,

2 - Move 2 squares from coast tiles then two squares back, with no risk of suicide unlike standard galleys, or move 4 squares out if you're willing to risk your galley's lives. This is a great boon to sea exploration.

In other words, you have a powerful UU capable of ruling the seas on island maps. Taking a peaceful route your island would be almost immune to invasion in the ancient age, taking the aggressive route you are capable of quickly transporting large attack forces over to your opponent to raid or conquer, taking the expansionist route you can find remote islands and resources and take control of them before your opponents even get close to them.

Expansionist isn't that bad a trait, and will be much better in MP. And remember, expansionist and commercial leave you two techs from mapmaking, a great tech on an island map, and the route to the longboat UU if it is in the game.

Incan_Warrior · July 11, 2002, 14:49

I think Dr Fell summed it up. Although I agree with some other posters - perhaps the longboat can have +1 movement AND can carry an additional unit. I don't agree with providing the longboat a bombardment feature.

I also think that because the Vikings were, in reality, expansionists, commercialist and militaristic - any 2 of these 3 would be appropriate.

Leo826 · July 11, 2002, 16:12

yes, I agree that the longboat should have +1 movement and +1 transport capacity.

Robber Baron · July 12, 2002, 18:42

I'd go with a longboat too -- but I'd call it a drakkar. I'd give it extra movement, 3 unit holding capacity ... and I'd let land-based units unload directly from the vessel to attack coastal cities (like marines in the later age). No mounted units, though, just warriors and swordsmen. And city walls would negate this capability.
That's a lot of rules, but it would aproximate our historical stereotype nicely, and it would be cool.

And though it might seem like too big an advantage, remember it would only be effective against coastal cities.

snuggs · July 13, 2002, 09:44

As I said before, though; longboats, compared to contemporary Mediterranean/Arab/Chinese craft, were tiny. Their strength was in their toughness, speed and flexibility. So whatever they're given, no increased attack and no bigger hold capacity, I'd say.