Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Vikings have a large shield, which has a +1 modifier for defense. Gallowglasses don't. Thus, vikings tend to survive longer, better, and withstand more damage before they route, enabling them to do more damage in the long run, though for pure, unit shredding attack, gallows are better if they can catch a flank or rear.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Having said that, I have witnessed vikings who were pinned on a spear wall not only withstand attacks from two troops of RKs on their flanks, but shred both of the RK's AND the armoured spears....I went from that moment of thinking "Okay, I've got these guys now" to hearing an awful clatter as my archers dropped their bows and quivers and ran away shouting "We're not with him!" as the fearsome horde swept down upon us....
Yep, vikings can be tryly terrifying on the field - they survive pretty well, and when they cut loose, boy do they cut loose!
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Yes, Vikings are overpowered. I think that the VI campaign needs a balance revamping, to make Viking units effectiveness proportional to their cost (It´s ridiculous to be able to beat a l500 combined arms force with 200 viking axemen)
PD: making units desert when you go into red would be a nice (but unworkable) addition.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Hey Unknown Guy! Good to see you 'round these parts again. ~:wave:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Yes, Vikings are overpowered. I think that the VI campaign needs a balance revamping, to make Viking units effectiveness proportional to their cost (It´s ridiculous to be able to beat a l500 combined arms force with 200 viking axemen)
I don't think anyone will dispute that quite a few units (particularly Viking units) could/should be better balanced in VI. I believe that's one of the issues -- among many other things -- that Rythmic is working on in his Britannia Divided mod for Viking Invasion. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
PD: making units desert when you go into red would be a nice (but unworkable) addition.
Well I know that AI stacks can go rebel if the faction that owns them is short of funds. No idea if that can happen to the player though -- at the very least, I know it's never happened to me. :shrug:
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Shield or no shield (and valour notwithstanding), I find Gallows superior to Vikings due to their massive charge + attack. They're just better at breaking units, whch is what my gaming style revolves around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamff
Having said that, I have witnessed vikings who were pinned on a spear wall not only withstand attacks from two troops of RKs on their flanks, but shred both of the RK's AND the armoured spears....I went from that moment of thinking "Okay, I've got these guys now" to hearing an awful clatter as my archers dropped their bows and quivers and ran away shouting "We're not with him!" as the fearsome horde swept down upon us....
If you're talking about plain old 60 Viking units (as opposed to VI units like Huscarles), then it would have been due to an extraordinary valour, bro.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
I don't see how the viking units are as overpowered as many make them out to be. Stat-wise, clearly, huscarles are outmatched by VG's. Karls are weaker versions of FMAA's. Vanilla Vikings are, overall, I'd say, comparable to FMAA's as their higher morale and that they are AP offsets their weaker defense.
I guess most people mean that they are overpowered for the VI campaign, but I get the feeling that at least Huscarles are widely considered as overpowered for the ME campaign as well. I agree to a certain extent, namely in that they are easy to reach. Other than that I think they're fine. Quite expensive with high upkeep makes sure they don't get spammed.
Personally I've never found them unbeatable. What's the fuzz!? :inquisitive:
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
I don't think Vikings are overpowered, but they are solid, dependable units capable of many roles. They can hold the line, flank, or even take on cavalry if supported properly. Their high morale and elite status is the key. This just lets them stick around longer and dish out the pain.
One key factor about Vikings vs Gallowglasses. GGs must be trained in Ireland, which means you actually have to expend the time and effort to take the island and build it up from scratch. Vikings can be trained anywhere with a Fort. This also means they can get the attack bonus from a metalsmith (I'm looking at you, Sweden), whereas the GGs are stuck since Ireland doesn't have Iron. Ireland is best left without an armourer as well, if you want to use GGs as your desert troops.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Ireland is best left without an armourer as well, if you want to use GGs as your desert troops.
sorry bit off the topic here... Armour upgrades effect fatgiue ?! i always thought the armour was just better qaulity whilst weighing the same, started an egypt campaign recently as well been building all the armourers...
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Ireland is best left without an armourer as well, if you want to use GGs as your desert troops.
sorry bit off the topic here... Armour upgrades effect fatgiue ?! i always thought the armour was just better qaulity whilst weighing the same, started an egypt campaign recently as well been building all the armourers...
Yes, they do. I myself edit the upgrade effect of the armourer line out of the game. This means that the AI and yourself will be on more of an equal footing.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Quote:
Well I know that AI stacks can go rebel if the faction that owns them is short of funds. No idea if that can happen to the player though -- at the very least, I know it's never happened to me.
never saw that happen myself. Are you sure it wasn´t a civil war?
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
never saw that happen myself. Are you sure it wasn´t a civil war?
I'm sure. Every now and then, I'll get a message (from a spy, maybe? I forget) stating that Faction X cannot pay full wages to their army, and that some of their troops have rebelled as a result, etc.
I've seen this happen to the Almoravids all the time, particularly if I'm playing as Castille-Leon -- I'd drive the Almos out of Iberia and across the desert all the way to Cyrenacia, where I'd leave them to rot. Cyrenacia's income is so poor that the Almos would quickly deplete what money reserves they have; soldiers defecting due to lack of pay was nearly always inevitable.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Wow, I have never seen that message in all my years of playing!
Likewise, I've never once had one of my army stacks bribed by an opponent.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roark
Wow, I have never seen that message in all my years of playing!
Well I can't claim I've received the message very often -- maybe a few dozen times (at most) in the 5+ years I've been playing MTW -- but it has happened. Perhaps I had a spy in the province where the troops were defecting/rebelling? Gah! I can't remember now. :wall:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roark
Likewise, I've never once had one of my army stacks bribed by an opponent.
I've been a victim of that as well, but it's *extremely* rare in my experience -- I don't think it's happened to me more than 4-5 times the entire time I've been playing. From what little I recall, I believe it usually happened when I'd sent the general's unit back for retraining/re-equipping, and accidentally left the main army stack under the command of a low-loyalty general. :oops:
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roark
Wow, I have never seen that message in all my years of playing!
Me neither, so I suspect that it's the spies that catches this. Would explain some odd small "civil wars" though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roark
Likewise, I've never once had one of my army stacks bribed by an opponent.
That's easy, give the AI your massive 1-3 million florin empire through -ian. They'll burn through this pretty fast due to bribes. Fighting that behemoth can be quite a challenge as well and far from easy to win.
Seen it occationally otherwise as well, but the comp is rarely good enough with money to be able to bribe your stacks
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Quote:
I'm sure. Every now and then, I'll get a message (from a spy, maybe? I forget) stating that Faction X cannot pay full wages to their army, and that some of their troops have rebelled as a result, etc.
I'll add myself to the list of players who've never seen this -- so much so that I've often thought "this really ought to happen". I've seen factions with negative coffers in the hundreds of thousands (using -ian) and never seen this occur. Maybe the presence of a spy encourages such mutinies? I shall have to update my complaint from "this doesn't happen" to "this doesn't happen enough" :laugh4:
However, I have lost a few stacks to bribery, but likewise no more than 4 or 5 over all the years I've been playing MTW.
Re: Vikings = Supertroop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
I'll add myself to the list of players who've never seen this -- so much so that I've often thought "this really ought to happen". I've seen factions with negative coffers in the hundreds of thousands (using -ian) and never seen this occur. Maybe the presence of a spy encourages such mutinies? I shall have to update my complaint from "this doesn't happen" to "this doesn't happen enough" :laugh4:
It's as as good an explanation as any, but I still wish I knew for sure.
The Unknown Guy PM'ed me a few days ago and said he didn't see any message like that in the game files, so now I'm wondering how it was that I knew that troops were defecting because of low/no pay. The only other thing I can think of is perhaps when you right-click on a rebel army stack, it says it's gone rebel because its faction is short of funds? Or did I just hallucinate the whole thing, after all? (And unfortunately I've been too busy the last few weeks to really play MTW at all, so I can't even check it out for myself.)
I don't know. Argh! :wall:
