Why don't you play viking era games?

[Cheetah]

Why don't you play viking era games?

I think that viking era games have many nice propeties, yet it seems that no one plays them. There is a quite strong archery part (mainly due to welsh bandits and pictish xbow, mounted xbow); cavalry are weaker than in any other era (you can hardly see cav heavy armies, not to mention cav rush armies); there are some fun units like welsh bandits, irish bonnatchs, kerns, dartsmen; spears are quite useful, I have seen more spears in viking games than in high or even in early era games; it is true that axe units are dominating, but this seems to be historicaly correct, so even the nit-picking history buffs should be happy with this era http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif.
Yet, despite all the above reasons, no one plays viking era (while in the meantime everyone complains about the unbalanced high era). Why?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I play some viking games.

I play pretty much whatever get hosted; as I can't host, I got to take whatever is available Viking or Late

Faction balance and fl level is a real concern for Viking era.

I find it very tough to play a non carl faction at low fl level. At higher fl level, you can pump up Celtic and then everything kind of equalize...

We see somehow more spears, but cav is weaker... Don't you find it odd?

Or is it just because for many factions, well beside celtic warriors, there is no good sword available?

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

Louis,

I play viking era. I think you see balanced armies in viking era due to limited unit availability as you say. I do always play the Scots because it is claimed that they are a weak faction, but most of my experience in viking era is at higher florins. In my last viking game, I lost badly with my balanced army to a player who had many shock inf and waited in the woods. Since there were two wooded areas and I guessed wrongly about which one he was in due to his clever placement of cav which I could see, I exposed the flank of my army to his main force, and he charged out of the woods and defeated me. He used the Picts.

[t1master]

i too like vikings, but similar to loius, i play what ever is hosted. i think the irish field a really fun army even at low florins though their morale is a tad bit dodgey. pumped up peasants that throw sticks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif i don't know about the stats, but v3 and 4 bonnacts are really fun, and counter the celtic warriors, if only in numbers.

[Shahed]

I think people don't play Viking era because:

A: Viking era units on steppeinland01, arid, summer look absurd
B: Viking Era has no Pavs

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Orda Khan]

Hehehe yep I think Sinan has the answer

......Orda

[Tempiic]

What Sinan said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Plus the seemingly faction imbalance (no clue if there is one nor how huge it issince I rarely play viking invasion) as well as the lack of diversity in the units itself

[Dionysus9]

Vikings is fun and the truth be told it is probably my 2nd favorite era (after High).

There are really only three viable factions:
1) Picts (celts&xbows)
2) Mercia (sergeants)
3) Vikings (strong foot)

Irish is an option but they can't stand up to the top 3.

Agincourt is a good map for vikings, carcano, etc.... some maps with rolling hills are fun.

I think people dont play Vikings because they are scared of the unkown. They dont know the factions or units so they just avoid it. If you want to give it a try take the Mercians as they are closest to a standard MTW faction.

Try some fun 10k viking games, you will be suprised at how fun they are.

V4 Celtic Warriors backed up with xbows and pict cav--- FUN

[Kongamato]

Back when VI first came out, I would play in Elmo games at his 20k level. It felt too much like a Byz contest, so I suggested 10 or 12k. We played a few, but I think I remember that Elmo said the low florins made Mounted Sarges too strong. Maybe the removal of the swipe calls for revisiting the low florin Viking era.

[Mithrandir]

Mercians are all-powerfull, with thei mil sergs, mounted sergs&saxon huscarles they pretty much dominate the field.

[Dionysus9]

Whatever dude-- I'll shoot your Mercs to pieces with my Picts, and then dismember your little housecarls with my Celtic warriors.

Bring it

[Alrowan]

i love the welsh, they truly are the strongest faction IMO

you have to play them properly however. Many people underestimate the ability of the welsh bandits, i use welsh for defence, stick my bandtis out quite in front of my army and then TAKE OFF fire at will and skirmish. The enemy now has no real way of knowing where your archers are, and so they usually advance too close. Here is the trick with wales, you then let your archers loose, firing on the enemy infantry, and shoot them to nothing because its already too late for them. Then you sweep out with your v4 w1 celtic warriors, and smash open the enemy ranks, using sprears to protect them from cav. Then last of all in the wave comes the cavalry, thundering down and delivering the final blow, routing your enemies off the feild. If you celtic warriors seem to struggle, send in the welsh bandits to add extra punch, its a gem.

As for the increased number of spears in Viking games, that can be attributed to the general lack in maa, and the low armour of most core assault infantry. Only the mercians and vikings really have no need for spear units, and the saxons and northumbrians hold some need.


I really miss viking games, they were always fast paced and a lot of fun, i think its time to head back http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[tootee]

naaah... the viks are the BEST http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

pump up 10 good foot vik to 1.25k each, and you even have spare florins for 6 good valor archers in 15k games... missile adv + foot adv + good overall army morale + lousy cav in vik era.. naah.. other eras are more fun to me.

[Brutal DLX]

I think every faction is different to play in VI era. They all can win if played properly.Personally I find the Welsh pretty strong too.
And yes, I think it should get hosted more often, but steppe map is of course a no-no.

[Dionysus9]

I've frequently heard this complaint about Militia Sergeants and Mounted Sergeants being overpowered in Viking Era, making the Mercians superpowered. I think its time to debunk this defamatory myth.

v4 Celtic, Cost: 1044, Att: 9, Def: 2, Morale:8, Charge: 4 SIZE: 100

v4 Mil.Sgt., Cost: 1253, Att: 6, Def: 7, Morale:8, Charge:4 SIZE: 60 Armor piercing

Stats include shield bonuses.

Now how much value are you getting for your florin?

Each man in the Celtic unit has 11 Combat Ability (9+2) for a total of 1,100 combat ability at a total cost of 1,044. So you are getting 1.05 combat points per florin.

Each man in the Mil.Sgt. unit has 13 Combat Ability (CA) (6+7) for a total of 780 combat ability at a cost of 1253. So you are only getting .62 combat points per florin. Is the extra cost really worth it to have armor piercing ability? It certainly wont help you against the Celtic Warriors.

Difference in Cost per CA between Celts and Milits: .43

v4 Pict Cav, Cost: 1253, Att: 6, Def: 5, Morale:10, Charge: 4, Size: 40, RUN SPEED:24
v3 Mounted Sgt., Cost: 860, Att: 5, Def: 6, Morale:8, Charge: 8, Size: 40, RUN SPEED:20

These two cavalry units are tougher to compare because there are the "intangible" benefits of Speed and Morale and Charge. I value speed and morale greatly, and charge less so, but it is hard to figure into the math.

v4 Pict Cav--Total CA: 440, Cost per CA: .35
v3 Mtd. Sgt.-- Total CA: 440, Cost per CA: .51

Difference in Cost per CA between Pict and Mtd. Sgt.: .16

If you consider that Pict cav is faster and has better morale, I feel these two units are close to even-- perhaps with a slight edge to the Mtd. Sgt in combat but a slight edge to the Pict cav in utility & flexibility.

So, I hope this idea that the Mercian's are a uber-faction does not keep people from playing Viking games, because I don't think it is true. I think the Viking Era has a few "useless" factions (such as northumbria) but the primary factions of Viking, Pict, Mercia, and Welsh are fairly well balanced.

Interesting 4v4's occur when each player takes a differnt faction. 1 player takes 8 Welsh bandits, one takes 8 Mtd. Sgts., on takes 16 Viking foot, and the other takes 8 Pict xbows, 4mtd. xpows, and 4pict cav. ..... if the 4 armies fight as one they have an incredible advantage over the "one dimensional" armies of the opponent.

Anyway, maybe this will convince some people to play more Vikings games.

[Kongamato]

Northumbria useless?

I have a hunch that at low florins you might be able to use pumped-up Woodsmen to do serious damage to Joms and Huscarles. However, this all depends on how much the enemy chooses to spend on their infantry.

[Aelwyn]

There are also Mounted Nobles that hold up pretty well and can win vs Mounted Sergs. Don't remember their stats offhand. Pictish Cav seem the most worthless cav unit to me, Horsemen not being considered...since I don't remember their stats either. I like the Viking era, and will probably host a few more games in that era, as it seems pretty overlooked imo. It is somewhat of a disappointment when you take a more balanced army and you face maybe 9-10 pumped up attacking inf units. But that happens even more in Early/High/Late, so its a nice change in Viking era. Each faction has its own strengths and weaknesses, so I like that more.

[Mithrandir]

The weakest cav IIRC is the viking raider (?) Viking cav unit.
It was truly useles.

I just dont like units with low defenc bonus, so that's maybe why I prefer MS, I dont play it enough though.

The reason why I dont like Vik era must be the huge differences in army possibilities I think, thus making army selection even more important. At least it seemed to me the few games I had in VE.

Enough with the rambling, I'll go check it out again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

[Dionysus9]

Viking Raider-- Cost:150, Size: 40, Charge: 4, Attack: -1, Defend: 3, Armor:3, Honor:0, Runspeed: 20

Mtd. Nobles-- Cost:425, Size: 40, Charge: 6, Attack: 3, Defense: 6, Armor:7, Honor:4, Runspeed: 20

The problem with Woodsmen is they are Honor: -2, so even at v4 they have only a morale of 6. That makes them too dodgy for a first line unit and even too sketchy as a second-line/flanking unit (in my opinion). If any first-line unit routs, it will take the woodsies with it, and if they get shot at while trying to flank they will most likely run.

Woodsmen--Cost:75, Size: 60, Charge: 8, Attack: 1 [armor piercing], Defense: -1, Armor:2, Honor:-2

V4W3 Woodsmen cost 1474 florins and have Attack: 8, Defense: 3, and Honor: 6. Compared to the V4 Celts they aren't really a viable option imho.

[ElmarkOFear]

I have played many viking games since the swipe was eliminated. Mounted sgts are not as overpowering at low florin levels as they were. I find the viking era to be a lot of fun and there is no overpowering faction. The problem is that nobody seems to like playing this era. I think it is because of the same reasons I find it fun . . . better missile effectiveness and slightly less effective cav. It feels more like the old STW game than any of the other eras in MTW/VI. Give it a try and you will grow to like it. That is of course, if you can play without cav swiping http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Kongamato]

I was talking about lower florins. In a Custom Battle, I put V4W1 Woodsmen against V1 Huscarles and V0 Joms Vikings. The Woodsmen won, but cost more(833 to 725, 833 to 723). I imagine that you might have a bit of success using them in an anti-Viking 8k army, outspending the Vikings on infantry and using the superior Mounted Nobles to win cavalry battles for a lesser cost.

[ElmarkOFear]

My viking games have been from 7k to 10k mostly. Works nicely, since cav are strong vs. viking units.

[Mithrandir]

Viking Era is F.U.N.

Just had a few games, I love how the factions are entirely different, something MTW can use imho. This may ofcourse just be my inexperience in the era, but it seems that the factions are much more different from one another...

And I've started to like the Picts now as well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.

[Kraxis]

Perhaps I should try it out...

[tgi01]

There is nothing in viking era that ya cannot do in early ... and early has fun but still strong factions like hungary , almos etc....

TGI

[ichi]

Good stuff, everybody. In terms of the speed of battle, Viking Era reminds me of STW, faster than MTW. Sometimes the only Vike games I can find are filled with "less experienced" players (who like to play at high florin levels) so it gets pretty wild. I have been playing the Saxons, but I might give the Welsh a try.

Two observations: 1) Viking Raider Cav are weak. Never had a problem dispatching these units. 2) Militia Sargeants are not as badass as everyone says (as Bachus plainly shows above).

Viking games are fun at ALL florin levels. If only the Irish had a decent front line troop.

ichi

[Puzz3D]

Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Oct. 29 2003,14:05)]I've frequently heard this complaint about Militia Sergeants and Mounted Sergeants being overpowered in Viking Era, making the Mercians superpowered. I think its time to debunk this defamatory myth.

v4 Celtic, Cost: 1044, Att: 9, Def: 2, Morale:8, Charge: 4 SIZE: 100

v4 Mil.Sgt., Cost: 1253, Att: 6, Def: 7, Morale:8, Charge:4 SIZE: 60 Armor piercing

Stats include shield bonuses.

Now how much value are you getting for your florin?

Each man in the Celtic unit has 11 Combat Ability (9+2) for a total of 1,100 combat ability at a total cost of 1,044. So you are getting 1.05 combat points per florin.

Each man in the Mil.Sgt. unit has 13 Combat Ability (CA) (6+7) for a total of 780 combat ability at a cost of 1253. So you are only getting .62 combat points per florin. Is the extra cost really worth it to have armor piercing ability? It certainly wont help you against the Celtic Warriors.

Difference in Cost per CA between Celts and Milits: .43
I don't think this comparison is correct because chance to kill is not linearly related to combat points. I would compute the relative chance to kill, multiply that by the unit size and divide by the unit cost to roughly determine the cost effectiveness of the units.

chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ (attack - defend)

V4 celtic chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ (9-7) = 2.7%
V4 mil sgt chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ (6-2) = 3.9%

Scaling by the number of men in the unit in the unit gives:

celtic 2.7 * 100 = 270
mil sgt 3.9 * 60 = 234

This is a 15% combat advantage to the celtic unit, and is considerably less than the 1100 to 780 ratio of 41% you get by directly scaling the combat points. The raw chance to kill is also enough to cause the mil sgt to pass though the 50% casualty point before the celtic unit. On average, the celtic unit would loose 43 men at point the mil sgt looses 30 men.

Relative cost effectiveness:

celtic 270/1044 = 0.26
mil sgt 234/1253 = 0.19

Which gives the celtic unit a 37% cost benefit advantage over the mil sgt when matched against each other. In practice, this advantage would actually be larger because the 100 man unit can get multiple attacks on the 60 man unit within a combat cycle.

[Kas]

No problems with Viking era games.

Kas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Marco]

Please vote yuuki for statician of the year http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Puzz3D]

Thx Marco, but there is actually something missing from the analysis because, if you match these units against each other, I think you'll find that the mil sgt consistently beats the celtic warrior with a kill ratio of about 2 to 1. That means the celtic warrior would loose, and it would also pass through the 50% casualty point before the mil sgt. The missing effect is the pushback which gives a +6 attack bonus on the next combat cycle. That increases chance to kill of the man who caused the pushback by 300% on the next strike. If you watch these units fight, I think you can see the celtic warriors being pushed back more often than the mil sgts.

I tested this in custom battle several times from both sides, and the mil sgt won every time by about a 2 to 1 kill ratio. Also, when the ai had the mil sgt, it acted as though it had the weaker unit, so it doesn't seem to know about the pushback when it does it's strength evaluation, but it does take the unit sizes into consideration. One other observation is that the mil sgt suffered fewer casualties in the charge than the celti warrior. I also didn't see many multiple attacks by the celti unit because most of the men stayed back behind the men in the front rank waiting their turn to fight even though the unit was in engage-at-will. This matchup should be checked in online tests just to be sure. Possibly something can be done with wide line, hold formation or wedge to improve it's chances.

[Puzz3D]

I tested the v4 mil sgt vs v4 celtic warrior online with RTKGawain, and the results are different than in custom. Out of 4 fights, each unit won 2 and lost 2. The mil sgt did not have as high a kill ratio as it does in the same test in SP custom battle. I traced the reason for this to the battlefield upgrades that men can get during the fighting. I used v3 units in the SP custom battle testing because they were the general's unit which gets +2 morale. However, this allows men who get around 4 kills to go up to v4. Anywhere from 4 to 10 mil sgt men were getting valor upgrade in the SP custom battle tests while 0 to 2 celtic men were getting them. Actually, out of 8 fights the celtic men had no upgrades in 6 of them. Also, there were some mil sgt men who got a double upgrade to v5.

The online test results were:

v4 mil sgt in 20x3 vs v4 celtic warrior in 20x5, flat, arid, head-to-head charge.
men left:
1) 25 03 (mil sgt won)
2) 02 16 (celtic won)
3) 12 00 (mil sgt won)
4) 00 26 (celtic won)

total left 39 mil sgt and 45 celtic
total lost 210 mil sgt 355 celtic
kill ratio is 1.77 in favor of the mil sgt
on average the celtic will have 53 men when the mil sgt has 30
in every case the celtic unit was pushed back more than the mil sgt

These two units are actually closely matched in combat vs each otherin online play. The mil sgt is 20% more expensive, and has armor piercing. It will pick up 1 attack combat point (20% increase in chance to kill) against any unit with armor 3.

[Bezalel]

I've found that I enjoy viking battles over the others. I'm more effective, and I kinda suck it up on the high floriin high age battles that everyone else plays on.

[Dionysus9]

Thanks for reporting your results Puzz/Yuuki. I've always felt the Viking era had better balance than people first thought. I really enjoy it....hope to see more Vik games.

[t1master]

viks are my favorite era, the boys in green pack quite a punch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif