"Viking Invasion" ? ... ok ... but ...

[Pellinor]

Knight_Yellow: As far as the Vikings and Britain go:

Several Scandinavian kings in turn led large armies of their subjects into England, Scotland and Ireland. They met the local kings in pitched battle and defeated them. They then claimed the lands of those defeated kings as their own and proceeded to settle: giving land and loot to their subjects, relegating the original inhabitants to lowly status, imposing their own system of government, building residences, and calling themselves king. Their descendants used this as the basis for claiming the throne in later years, and succeeded.

How is that not conquering?

As far as the add-on goes generally, I would have thought it would be something like the MI add-on - happening 300 years earlier than the main game with different units. I don't know how the campaign would work, but I suppose they could do it several ways: redo the map to be just NW Europe, maybe adding Iceland; do an interactive "Historical campaign" series of battles, or just go the whole hog and let the Vikings loose on the whole of Europe. They did try very hard to sack Rome at one stage, and very nearly succeeded - they got the wrong town: if the road signs had been writ in runes they might have done it :-)

[Leet Eriksson]

i bet the viking invasion is a prequel,if it is i can't wait to try ommayad or abbasid dynasties and the ansar warriorsor if it is a true sequel to STW then the viking clans would be interesting......

I want viking berserkers,derived from the viking word bersark it means shirtless warrior.much like the abbysinian guard but with a more powerful charge.also jarls would be interesting(Earl is a corruption of Jarl btw),jarls were viking nobility if i'm not mistaken...

[DojoRat]

Though the Vikings were more than just raiders, (I beleive Dublin, Cork and most other Irish cities began as Norse trading centers) I see problems with them as the focus of an add on.

In STW MI you had the same Japan as Shogun (for the most part) being attacked by the new Mongol units. It brought new life to the game, especially tactically. You had to answer the question how do I stop these guys, or simply revel in the new Mongol units speed and power.

The biggest difference you'd see in a Viking era add on would be a lack of units. In the west you'd have simple spear armies with some auxillaries and some well equiped household gaurds. These factions would be more fragmented, especially at the start, and most of the rest of the map had more pressing problems.

You also would get few new tactical challenges. The challenge would be strategic and diplomatic. How do I establish and maintain a system of forts with rapid reaction forces to limit the raids impact. That isn't MTW's strength. You want something that maintains this games scope but adds something new and exciting.

Most of the scenarios I come up with are really TW 3, so I don't have any answers to the add on question.

[Teutonic Knight]

I really think this should be moved to OT because this is not a discussion about the current playable version of MTW, and quite honestly, it's only taking up space.

[Draksen]

I agree with almost all what, you all have said.
thank you for your posts and for this very interesting topic.

Although I agree that vikings were strong raiders (conquerors, sometimes) and very good for trading, do you really think that they could have "dominated" half of Europe ? was it what they really want ?

Vikings were able to fight large battle ONLY when allied with other vikings or with local inhabitants. At the beginning of the viking age, vikings were pagans and their society was a clanic one.
Later (look at the Danes in the game) they become christians and the feodalism permit their leader to build massive and more standard military forces.

But do you call a christian viking a viking, mmm?

Remember that during viking age, the word viking was almost unknown (&#33. Viking: the expedition, Vikingr: the man
Same as Scandinavia, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland or Danemark with their actual borders and names.
Viking were also often Estonian or Finn.

"The vikings" is not a nation. The vikings have never been united or in peace before unifications and arrival of the catholic religion (bad thing, but this is my personnal opinion, sorry, hehehe).
I have read a lot of texts about attacks of vikings of Gotland (swedish island on the Baltic) vs. vikings of Uppsala (north of Stockholm)... vikings vs vikings that was really common.

I hope that CA will not present the vikings as ONE nation comming from the north, conqering lands and setting it's own color (1 color) all over the map, cause THIS would be VERY unrealistic and inaccurate.

---

About my sig :
You can found good animations (gif)
here:
http://www.conquest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Leet Eriksson]

a want the map of scandinavia and several viking clansthat will be a true sequel to shogunanyone saw Highland Warriors?look pretty awesome

[Kraxis]

Well Draksen, a catholic viking might still be a viking.

The first couple hundred years as catholics, Jesus was portrayed as a warrior king, on the cross he has his head held high and he is muscular. So while the vikings might have been catholics (later periods when they stopped plundering monestaries) they retained their culture and way of life for about 200 years. But by the time of MTW this was all gone.

The first king of whole Denmark (there are older kings such as Dan but it is not certain they ruled all of Denmark) was Gorm the Old in 860, so it was very possible that he might have launched some attacks, but he didn't. And bloodfeuds were very common, so of course there were many viking vs viking fights, but should the king want to attack he certainly could do so, there would be no lack of volounteers (prospect of plunder and land).
The raids were individual enterprises, while the attacks on England were for most part commanded by Jarls and other nobles (who gained titles in the conquered lands), and the final attacks were king-commanded attacks. Attacks such as those of Knud the Great or Harald Harderåde were of the latter, while the sack of Lindisfarne was of the first. Rollo and his band was most likely of the second group.

You are right that the vikings did not want to control all of Europe, they had much more limited wishes, they wanted what they personally wanted, not as a whole. So it is impossible to think of them as conquering all of Europe.

Indeed the vikings were never united, but they came as far as there were three distinct kingdoms Denmark, Norway and Sweden and they survived. And these kingdoms have had a love/hate relationship until only 30 years ago, but when a general warming of the relationship in the late 1800s.

[solypsist]

moved to Monastary

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Vikings as Raiders stopped by the Redskins?

Hey - those are the names of NFL Teams (American Football).

[The Scourge]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Dec. 12 2002,07:19)]actualy if it was my choice i would say no to an expantion there never worth it, instead roll on Roman totalwar.

Nine times out of ten I'd agree with you on that,but imo the Mongol Invasion was the exception to the rule.
It made an already great game twice as great.
Im still not that convinced about a Viking invasion.
Personally I woudn't mind another Mongol Invasion,but can understand the devs not wanting to go over the same ground again.