Viking Units overpowered?

I'm playing the Danes in Early in BKB's super mod. I have just completed my conquest of Gaul and England, with relative ease. If I was so tempted I could probably force my into Iberia or Central Europe with little difficulties. The reasons for this easy spread are the amazing early viking units.

Huscarles have sometihng along the lines of 8 attack and defense as well as fantastic morale. Add to this their relatively light tech expenses (an axesmith workshop and an armoror are that is required) and you have a fantastic unit to swarm all of Europe with. They can cut a swath through spearmen and swordsmen alike. They also have armor piercing which gives them a little bonus against all armored troops (including Royal Knights). With sufficent cavalry and ranged support Huscarles are nearly unbeatable.

I don't think there are any units available so early that pack so much punch. The only units I can think that are available so early in the early campaign are the Varagian Gaurd. But they require far more tech and cash to build. The only reason they are even around is because Byzantium is highly developed from the start.

Are there any units that can provide a suitable countermeasure against these Vikings Raiders?

Edit: Now that I think about it, the Huscarles advantages are balanced by the Danes' and Vikings' other weaknesses. They have almost no significant anti-cavalry troops as well as pathetic missile troops. The majority of my military campaigns have been supplimented by mercenary missile and anti-cav troops.

it depends, inf unit-unit i think huscarles are pretty unbeatable (although maybe varangian guard for byz than i doubt the danes would ever meet in early) but they arent very fast, so you can kill them with hoirse archers and even light cavalry if you have time... when used in groups of 4-5 and flanks well protected they are pretty much unbeatable, and i thinkm only varangian guard are a match in early...

(sorry about bvadly formatted post, but i was thinking as i typed)

Well they are powerful and not really anything in western europe will beat them, but if you push east, they will be less powerful when you meat the Cumans or Byzantines.

The only reason I can see of them losing their affect is them being flanked and surrounded and even then they'll put up a pretty decent fight. The Cumans and the Byzs might be able to do that with their superior cavalry, but a balanced army should also have its wings protected with cavalry. If their flanks are protected they can turn into a real meat grinder.

hmm, i think javelins are very effective against them, but its hard to get more than 2 or 3 volleys to shoot in one go :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sethik

The only reason I can see of them losing their affect is them being flanked and surrounded and even then they'll put up a pretty decent fight. The Cumans and the Byzs might be able to do that with their superior cavalry, but a balanced army should also have its wings protected with cavalry. If their flanks are protected they can turn into a real meat grinder.

---

True but what good cavalry do the norse have in good numbers? They wouldnt put up much of a fight against the superior horses of the Steppes :laugh4:

Also you have the Cuman Infantry and steppe infantry armed with bows that should be able to inflict some damage before they engage.

But i do love the Huscarls as well i think i have about 5 merc units of them in my cuman army :2thumbsup:

The Viking Huscarles are quite a bit overpowered in my opinion. In vanilla MTW the standard Viking units were some of the best infantry available in early. With these at your disposal there is no real need for FMAA. The Danish Huscarles added to the medieval campaign by the VI expansion seem to inbalance the game.

I was playing a VI campaign as the picts (again!) a few days ago, which I gave up on eventually. The Vikings invaded Domon with all their royals and I decided to try and isolate them there and counter attack, and began sinking as many of their longboats as possible. This took a while of course. Eventually I sent an aprox 800 strong force of pictish cavarly (+1 valour) crossbows, celtic warriors (+1 valour) and some spearmen to deal with an approx 200 strong force of huscarles and thralls. The crossbows shot the 1 complete huscarle unit down to about 70-80 men. Then they pulled back, the Celtic warriors (about 2 units) then charged at them downhill, and the Pictish cavalry flanked (2 units). It took a while for the thralls and another battered unit of huscarles to join up, but when they had done, the first unit had done it's work, and just a handful of my men were routing off the field...

All my tactics seemed fine, but these supermen don't care about tactics. I've charged huscarles at Feudal Knights uphill and won easily. The problem is that they kill so much and gain valour quite quickly, they're also elite, so routing is rarely an issue. Add a six star general to that and you've got an almost unstoppable killing machine.

The funnest thing to do with the danish is to raid. Raid all of france, hungary, germany,maybe poland, then just conquer russia and hold on to that.

(raiding requires a little bit of thought and challenge)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

True but what good cavalry do the norse have in good numbers? They wouldnt put up much of a fight against the superior horses of the Steppes :laugh4:

Also you have the Cuman Infantry and steppe infantry armed with bows that should be able to inflict some damage before they engage.

But i do love the Huscarls as well i think i have about 5 merc units of them in my cuman army :2thumbsup:

---

Yeah, that's why I mentioned in my original post that the Viking Factions are offset by their lack of any effective missile, cavalry, and anti-cav troops. This is why in order to build an effective Viking army you need to rely heavily on mercanaries for missiles and decent cavalry.

Very true. Even though you can rampage through the early period with Viking Huscarles, encountering the more horse archer based factions and their heavy cavalry will soon take the sting out of your tail. I would say the GH would be one of the best factions to take on a mainly Huscarle based Danish army or maybe the Hungarians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

Very true. Even though you can rampage through the early period with Viking Huscarles, encountering the more horse archer based factions and their heavy cavalry will soon take the sting out of your tail. I would say the GH would be one of the best factions to take on a mainly Huscarle based Danish army or maybe the Hungarians.

---

I would take on any Danish army with my Szekely's, Armored Spearmen and Jobbagy on a preferabbly not too hilly and forested terrain. It is still winable there but requires more attention.

(Nothing better to see than the foot troops running around exhausting themselves on the futile attempt of chasing horse archers...)

Indeed, but in the Viking campaign, Huscarles, both Saxon and Viking, seriously imbalance the campaign. The Northumbrians, Saxons and especially the Mercians are far easier than they should be because you can storm the Huscarles in there and take most of the map in a few years. Fyrdmen (equivalent to Feudal Sergeants) also help to tip the scales way too much in the favour of the English factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

Indeed, but in the Viking campaign, Huscarles, both Saxon and Viking, seriously imbalance the campaign. The Northumbrians, Saxons and especially the Mercians are far easier than they should be because you can storm the Huscarles in there and take most of the map in a few years. Fyrdmen (equivalent to Feudal Sergeants) also help to tip the scales way too much in the favour of the English factions.

---

So you're saying that there may be a reason the English dominated England?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

So you're saying that there may be a reason the English dominated England?

---

That's a very simplistic view. That would assume that every Saxon, Angle or Jutish colonist was armed as a "Huscarle" and fought like a berserker. They dominated because they were in very large numbers and the British, whom of which were ill prepared after the Roman withdrawal, were unready. British lords had grown lazy and had no real organised military means to defend themselves having relied for so long on the Roman garrissons. There is record of a request being sent to Rome for aid.

Saxons were originally invited into Britain as mercenaries apparently by Vortigern himself. The Anglo-Saxon Colonisation was by no means a direct military invasion, it was a slow colonisation, comprising of many battles and skirmishes, by an uncoordinated force that often fought among themselves, which eventually pushed the Britons into modern day Wales and southern Scotland. There is evidence in fact that Saxons began crossing again and returning to Europe in several phases. It is a myth of popular history that the half naked Britons were steamrollered by axe wielding super warriors, the reality is that the Romano-British were slowly ousted by a "barbarian" colonist.

We're talking about the MTW campaign, not real history.

Please continue on topic :bow:

-Mithrandir.

The Danish are in a bad situation starting off, being neighbors to THE, and their faction units are obsolete after the end of the Early period, they do have an advantage in having several territories nearby commanded by rebels. It is good that they have such units as Huscarles, Carls and Landsmen.

The Vikings in VI are pretty good representation for historical Vikings. Historical Vikings were pretty much unstoppable, with advantages in armor, arms, an advantage in the 'warrior' school and had the advantage of living in a land under constant warfare.

I know there is an ongoing debate between the historical minded school and the pure gameplay school, but the Vikings are a pretty good representation of the real deal.

No military force in Britain, Scotland or Ireland (or Western Europe) could stand up to them, hence the Byzantines used them for the famed Varangian Guard.

Of course I haven't played as the Mercians or Northumbrians or Saxons and play exclusively as Vikings (not because they kick ----, but for the simple reason that they are of the same religion as I).

Mithrandir: edited language.

Having played as every VI faction quite frequently, I do consider the Vikings overpowered. Excluding Huscarle factions once you've got lots of huscarles, the only faction truly equipped to deal with Vikings is the Picts, with their crossbows and a selection of extremely hilly battlefields (I know the Irish have javelins, but these are tricky to use effectively and vulnerable even to the rubbish the Vikings have for cavalry).
I've quit many a campaign cos of being relentlessly raided by small but elite forces of huscarles/berserks. Either you leave a huge mixed garrison in each vulnerable province (thus rendering it almost impossible to make money), or you let them stomp around your hinterlands looting and pillaging, and only defend a few key military/economic provinces, relying on rebellions to help you out. It's incredibly frustrating and challenging. Even huscarle factions have a hard time.

I think the only blessing is that the Vikings inevitably lack money after the initial orgy of raiding, and can rarely field large or tactically flexible armies. Most of their troops are heirs' huscarle units, and a decisive victory over one of these forces can keep them quiet for a long time, especially if you can get to work on achieving naval supremacy as well, something I once managed during a better-than-usual Pictish campaign.

It's just fortunate that the AI rarely manages to field Jomsvikings, cos I have done so and those legendary warriors are just unstoppable.
:viking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

The Viking Huscarles are quite a bit overpowered in my opinion. In vanilla MTW the standard Viking units were some of the best infantry available in early. With these at your disposal there is no real need for FMAA. The Danish Huscarles added to the medieval campaign by the VI expansion seem to inbalance the game.

I was playing a VI campaign as the picts (again!) a few days ago, which I gave up on eventually. The Vikings invaded Domon with all their royals and I decided to try and isolate them there and counter attack, and began sinking as many of their longboats as possible. This took a while of course. Eventually I sent an aprox 800 strong force of pictish cavarly (+1 valour) crossbows, celtic warriors (+1 valour) and some spearmen to deal with an approx 200 strong force of huscarles and thralls. The crossbows shot the 1 complete huscarle unit down to about 70-80 men. Then they pulled back, the Celtic warriors (about 2 units) then charged at them downhill, and the Pictish cavalry flanked (2 units). It took a while for the thralls and another battered unit of huscarles to join up, but when they had done, the first unit had done it's work, and just a handful of my men were routing off the field...

All my tactics seemed fine, but these supermen don't care about tactics. I've charged huscarles at Feudal Knights uphill and won easily. The problem is that they kill so much and gain valour quite quickly, they're also elite, so routing is rarely an issue. Add a six star general to that and you've got an almost unstoppable killing machine.

---

I agree with your assesment here, I have played the picts in the past and am currently enjoying a nice pict campaign where I managed to get an alliance with the vikings straight away.

I noticed in your battle you didnt mention any Berserkers. While Pict crossbows are an exceptional unit and I use them a lot, Berserkers developed in fib with some armor and a weapon upgrade can hold the line against huscarles. Enough to allow you to flank anyway. Overall, huscarles are the best unit in viking game, IMHO, as you mention a superior general can make them unstoppable, yet the picts do get those berserkers and while not superior to huscarles can certainly help tip the scale in a pict campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I agree with your assesment here, I have played the picts in the past and am currently enjoying a nice pict campaign where I managed to get an alliance with the vikings straight away.

I noticed in your battle you didnt mention any Berserkers. While Pict crossbows are an exceptional unit and I use them a lot, Berserkers developed in fib with some armor and a weapon upgrade can hold the line against huscarles. Enough to allow you to flank anyway. Overall, huscarles are the best unit in viking game, IMHO, as you mention a superior general can make them unstoppable, yet the picts do get those berserkers and while not superior to huscarles can certainly help tip the scale in a pict campaign.

---

Yes although it felt very wrong, because IMHO berskers are fantasy units, but we won't get into that here, I did train quite alot of berskerkers and they had some moderate success. On a second attempt at the campaign later I did manage to wipe the Vikings out, though not so much through direct engagments, moreso through destroying their shipping and causing their provinces to convert religion and rebel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

Yes although it felt very wrong, because IMHO berskers are fantasy units, but we won't get into that here, I did train quite alot of berskerkers and they had some moderate success. On a second attempt at the campaign later I did manage to wipe the Vikings out, though not so much through direct engagments, moreso through destroying their shipping and causing their provinces to convert religion and rebel.

---

I understand what you mean about Berserkers as a "fantasy unit", it feels that way sometimes. Your method the second time around is a very effective way of handling the matter with the vikings. It sucks when on turn 3 as the picts your being invaded and it dosent end, even with a decisive battle you must constantly war against the vikings and celtic warriors dont cut it.

Berserkers saved my butt more then once.... so did those lovely Pictish X Bow cavalry :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I understand what you mean about Berserkers as a "fantasy unit", it feels that way sometimes. Your method the second time around is a very effective way of handling the matter with the vikings. It sucks when on turn 3 as the picts your being invaded and it dosent end, even with a decisive battle you must constantly war against the vikings and celtic warriors dont cut it.

---

Well the Vikings didn't attack in the years before I had built ports, boatbuilders and curraghs. Once the ships were up to strength I staged a simultaneous attack on their shipping. My losses were pretty negligable. After this I didn't have to worry about the vikings but concentrated on the Saxons who had defeated the Mercians and Welsh and taken all of England. Still I was having the same problems however: Overpowered Saxon Huscarles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Berserkers saved my butt more then once.... so did those lovely Pictish X Bow cavalry :laugh4:

---

I used the mounted crossbows to good effect but after a while all the chasing around got boring, and began to feel like, not a tactical medieval era battle, but a ridiculous sort of AI exploit that kids would pass around at school, for those wishing to beat the last boss on level 9 they need only stay in one corner and keep shooting. I really do object to having to play the game like this. I play MTW for 'realistic' battles, not to use one type of unit in a cat and mouse fashion as a 'solution' to the Huscarle problem. Huscarles can beat almost every other unit in the VI campaign, especially when led by a general with decent command. They can even tear through royal bodyguards and mounted nobles, which they shouldn't really be able to do. This means that a player, as the Vikings, Saxons, Northumbrians or Mercians need only train a horde of these killers, and nothing else, and rampage accross the map with them.

To summarise as top why I think the Huscarles are overpowered:

The Mercian campaign for example works like this. It is so easy once the Saxons are destroyed and the viking shipping decimated, that you may as well give up. The faction has Huscarles.

The Saxon Campaign, only a little harder due to the Mercians being your neighbours. The faction has Huscarles.

The Northumbrians, also neighbours with the Saxons, but more vulnerable to the Vikings. Once the Viking Shipping is down and they're isolated however it's easy enough. The faction has Huscarles.

The Viking campaign, Raid around the Coasts and build up a big income from the abbeys and razings, then just move into the more profitable provinces on the mainland, destabilise the English factions (your Huscarle equipped enemies) then clean up and finish with the Irish. The faction has Huscarles and Joms Vikings as well as berserkers, Carls and Landsmen!

The Irish, their saving graces are the javelin units and the Gallowglasses, good charge though not the greatest morale. Without those they'd be in trouble though.

The Scots, Clansmen are not bad, but not Huscarle beaters by any standard. Once you've annexed the Pictish lands you can expand south.

The Welsh, have only the welsh bandits as a specialised units, but they still have archers and can train them at +1 valour in a certain province if IIRC.

The Picts, with their 'crossbows' and no bows, and berserkers?

hmm...

I wonder if the English had this debate back in the day when they were being raided by the Vikings.

Anyways, I'm not much of a history buff, but it seems like the Vikings were unstoppable machines of doom back in the day. I guess Huscarles modeled that whole killing machine thing. The trick was the Vikings didn't really try to keep the land they rolled over. They just looted and left. Well, except Ireland but thats a different story.

Us as players, playing the Vikings, use our raids to acquire more territory. Maybe thats part of the problem. We kick butt then stick around, so we can roll over and acquire more territory to win. We aren't fighting like the Vikings would.

Of course when we have to fight against them we seem to have the same problems the Welsh, the Picts, ect. had. The Vikings were simply better warriors with better weapons. It took combined efforts to stop viking raids, including building watch towers, fortresses and maintaining powerful armies.

All those things we have to do to stop those pesky Huscarles from plowing through our lands, is what the british isles had to do to stop the same thing. I find it kind of funny that were complaining about the same thing a Mercian lord would complain about during the Dark Ages.

As far as the game is concerned I think they are fun to use, and fun to have the computer use against you. Nothing is more harrowing then playing as a british or irish kingdom, and seeing that the Vikings that have just attacked your provence have a core of 3-4 (or more) :help: Huscarle units squatting like wolves in the opposing force. Its scary especially when I thinned my defensive force to attack some other kingdom :oops: . It takes alot of work and sometimes alot of men to stop that sort of fighting power, and sometimes I lose that battle, but it seems realistic considering thats what happened back in the day.

Sometimes its tough to admit that brilliant tactics don't always win the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

I wonder if the English had this debate back in the day when they were being raided by the Vikings.

---

But the English factions in the VI campaign are also Huscarle equipped... this is not purely a viking issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Anyways, I'm not much of a history buff, but it seems like the Vikings were unstoppable machines of doom back in the day. I guess Huscarles modeled that whole killing machine thing. The trick was the Vikings didn't really try to keep the land they rolled over. They just looted and left. Well, except Ireland but thats a different story.

---

I disagree. Popular history portrays them as such, though I believe it was purely their raiding tactics combined with greater mobility (better ships) that made the vikings so deadly. House Carls were not the mainstay of the force, just a select elite. Most norse troop would have been Carls or thralls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Us as players, playing the Vikings, use our raids to acquire more territory. Maybe thats part of the problem. We kick butt then stick around, so we can roll over and acquire more territory to win. We aren't fighting like the Vikings would.

---

Perhaps, though the Vikings probably didn't have the military strength, the coordination, nor the will, to completely conquer England though they did conquer parts of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Of course when we have to fight against them we seem to have the same problems the Welsh, the Picts, ect. had. The Vikings were simply better warriors with better weapons. It took combined efforts to stop viking raids, including building watch towers, fortresses and maintaining powerful armies.

---

Viking tactics were very much hit and run, not prolonged military enagements, they attacked mostly unprotected outposts or monasteries with the aim of securing loot, due to the lack of good historical records at the time their fighting techniques are mostly unknown, as are those of the Anglo-Saxons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

All those things we have to do to stop those pesky Huscarles from plowing through our lands, is what the british isles had to do to stop the same thing. I find it kind of funny that were complaining about the same thing a Mercian lord would complain about during the Dark Ages.

---

True, though in the game the Mercians are a deadly Huscarle equipped force that can easily dominate the British Isles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

As far as the game is concerned I think they are fun to use, and fun to have the computer use against you. Nothing is more harrowing then playing as a british or irish kingdom, and seeing that the Vikings that have just attacked your provence have a core of 3-4 (or more) :help: Huscarle units squatting like wolves in the opposing force. Its scary especially when I thinned my defensive force to attack some other kingdom :oops: . It takes alot of work and sometimes alot of men to stop that sort of fighting power, and sometimes I lose that battle, but it seems realistic considering thats what happened back in the day.

---

They are fun to use at first, though they become predictable and boring in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Sometimes its tough to admit that brilliant tactics don't always win the day.

---

Better tactics should give a closer battle, with the Saxon/Viking Huscarle units this isn't the case. No matter what you do, you're facing an enemy that you know will decimate your units if they close with them, forcing you to use missile units to pick them off from a distance, concentrating all of your fire on the Huscarles. Once their dead you restore the balance and have an even chance against the enemy again.

Because the Huscarles are also available to the English factions, I feel that the ongoing argument that "the English lords must have been thinking the same kind of thing" is redundant.

Playing as the picts, I've always had an alliance with the vikings (usually their offer, too!) which gives enough of a breather to prepare a navy, though they never seem to break the alliance either. I've also had games (as other factions) in which I've gone to victory without ever fighting the Vikings. The VI campaigns seem to be a lot more variable and unpredictable than the main MTW map.

As for the Norse settling in Britain - over half of the villages around here have Nordic names, right on the edge of Danelaw, so settlement was extensive. They really were just light-fingered (and rather violent) farmers at the end of the day, and it was lack of farmland that drove the territorial expansion.

It probably isn't very realistic to portray Vikings as a single faction in the game, though, as power shifted between different Jarls. That would make an interesting mod, hmmmm (thinks.....) :inquisitive:

Just a friendly reminder to all who like to discuss history :

we have a special forum for that.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

But the English factions in the VI campaign are also Huscarle equipped... this is not purely a viking issue.

---

That's true. I made that statement in jest more than anything else. I apologize for the confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

I disagree. Popular history portrays them as such, though I believe it was purely their raiding tactics combined with greater mobility (better ships) that made the vikings so deadly. House Carls were not the mainstay of the force, just a select elite. Most norse troop would have been Carls or thralls.

---

I shouldn't have been so lazy when I wrote the section you responded to. I forget that exacting language is always the best course of action. I meant that perhaps CA modelled the Huscarles to be so powerful to help emulate those particular tactics. With reference to the Saxon Huscarles they were given land to stop previous raiding and had similar units so they would also get Huscarles. I'm unsure of why the Mercians would have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

Perhaps, though the Vikings probably didn't have the military strength, the coordination, nor the will, to completely conquer England though they did conquer parts of it.

---

True enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

Viking tactics were very much hit and run, not prolonged military enagements, they attacked mostly unprotected outposts or monasteries with the aim of securing loot, due to the lack of good historical records at the time their fighting techniques are mostly unknown, as are those of the Anglo-Saxons.

---

Our lack of knowledge of Viking tactics suggest that it is still possible that they had superior fighting techniques. As for weaponry, the Vikings did have superior weapons and armor, and thus were realistically emulated with the Huscarle unit. Which would further explain why at least the Saxons would have kept with tradition, it worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

True, though in the game the Mercians are a deadly Huscarle equipped force that can easily dominate the British Isles.

---

Mercians were a bad example. Insert Welsh, Pict, or what have you in their place. Although in the end weren't the Mercians (or maybe it was the Saxons) the ones that came closest to uniting Britian. And the game has given the Mercians and the Saxons access to a unit that could very well achieve those ends. Coincidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

They are fun to use at first, though they become predictable and boring in time.

---

True which is why the majority of that statement was about me defending against attacks by Huscarle units. Call me a glutton for punishment but I like it when the comp uses them against you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

Better tactics should give a closer battle, with the Saxon/Viking Huscarle units this isn't the case. No matter what you do, you're facing an enemy that you know will decimate your units if they close with them, forcing you to use missile units to pick them off from a distance, concentrating all of your fire on the Huscarles. Once their dead you restore the balance and have an even chance against the enemy again.

---

Then the tactic is, to dispose of the Huscarles first. Everything else is an afterthought. If you saw 1000 modern troops and 10 tanks in an enemy's army your first thought should be to disable the tanks. If your a technologically inferior force than it should be hard, maybe impossible to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

Because the Huscarles are also available to the English factions, I feel that the ongoing argument that "the English lords must have been thinking the same kind of thing" is redundant.

---

Considering how badly I botched this post when I first wrote it then hopefully you'll excuse me of this infraction as well.

To Mithrandir: I sincerely apologize for initiating the references to history. From the look of my post I managed not only to screw up my whole point, but then managed to open a door, turning it into a historical debate, which definitely was not my intention. I hope you'll allow the response as my vain attempt to clear the whole matter up, and I will desperately try to refrain from historical postings in the Main Hall.

I'm also going to apologize for the length of this post as well.

I suppose to at least do my best to tie all of this back to the initial thread I will say this. I do not think the Huscarles are overpowered units. As players playing any of the other factions they are difficult to defeat, and sometimes impossible for the resources we have at hand.

Typically when I play VI I play as the Welsh, and I will admit it is sometimes terribly difficult to stop Huscarles. Sometimes I must throw unit after unit to stop them and sometimes I don't succeed. I consider that part of the challenge of the game. It does sometimes mean I will lose the game, or that my end of battle tally won't look pretty, but I don't think every battle I wage should be won at overwhelming odds. On occasion, time proves that winning a particular battle is what caused me to lose the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

I shouldn't have been so lazy when I wrote the section you responded to. I forget that exacting language is always the best course of action. I meant that perhaps CA modelled the Huscarles to be so powerful to help emulate those particular tactics. With reference to the Saxon Huscarles they were given land to stop previous raiding and had similar units so they would also get Huscarles. I'm unsure of why the Mercians would have them.

---

The problem is that the English factions can train Huscarles as the Vikings and they are not a raiding faction. The Vikings get the raiding bonus, wheras the English don't. The other issue is that though you say that the huscarles are as they are to simulate those particular tactics, they can also be used effectively to simply destroy and conquer. So in simulated one thing, the developer has created another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Mercians were a bad example. Insert Welsh, Pict, or what have you in their place. Although in the end weren't the Mercians (or maybe it was the Saxons) the ones that came closest to uniting Britian. And the game has given the Mercians and the Saxons access to a unit that could very well achieve those ends. Coincidence?

---

The Mercians were apparently the closest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Then the tactic is, to dispose of the Huscarles first. Everything else is an afterthought. If you saw 1000 modern troops and 10 tanks in an enemy's army your first thought should be to disable the tanks. If your a technologically inferior force than it should be hard, maybe impossible to do.

---

Modern warfare doesn't relate to medieval warfare. It is just not the same thing, but of course archers would prioritise as to who was going to get shot down first, i.e. the general and the elite cavalry/infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Considering how badly I botched this post when I first wrote it then hopefully you'll excuse me of this infraction as well.

---

No worries, I'm not sure why you're apologising as I don't see where you've done anything wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

To Mithrandir: I sincerely apologize for initiating the references to history. From the look of my post I managed not only to screw up my whole point, but then managed to open a door, turning it into a historical debate, which definitely was not my intention. I hope you'll allow the response as my vain attempt to clear the whole matter up, and I will desperately try to refrain from historical postings in the Main Hall.

---

This is another point. This thread is about the game, not history. There are some points as to where the game relates to history, which it will do because MTW is a game based on the history of medieval europe, but it's not a purely historical thread. Creating another topic within the historical discussion forum and linking back and forth from this thread to the other whenever a reference to history is made would be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

I suppose to at least do my best to tie all of this back to the initial thread I will say this. I do not think the Huscarles are overpowered units. As players playing any of the other factions they are difficult to defeat, and sometimes impossible for the resources we have at hand.

---

So we disagree, which is not a problem. Funnily enough I usually found myself at the .com arguing for greater difficulty within MTW and not what appears to be less, though I do feel that the Huscarles make it too easy for me as the player to conquer the map. This isn't too much of a problem as I don't overuse them anyway, but also when facing them, I despise using those sort of tactics mentioned previously against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Typically when I play VI I play as the Welsh, and I will admit it is sometimes terribly difficult to stop Huscarles. Sometimes I must throw unit after unit to stop them and sometimes I don't succeed. I consider that part of the challenge of the game. It does sometimes mean I will lose the game, or that my end of battle tally won't look pretty, but I don't think every battle I wage should be won at overwhelming odds. On occasion, time proves that winning a particular battle is what caused me to lose the war.

---

I've conquered the whole map as the welsh several times on expert. Each time I've found that archers were of vital importance when shooting the huscarles to pieces combined with royal bodyguards and mounted nobles (one faction doesn't get mounted nobles at all, and I can't remember if it's the Irish or the Welsh?) to run them down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

This is another point. This thread is about the game, not history. There are some points as to where the game relates to history, which it will do because MTW is a game based on the history of medieval europe, but it's not a purely historical thread. Creating another topic within the historical discussion forum and linking back and forth from this thread to the other whenever a reference to history is made would be ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FORUMRULES

Several separate forums exists for the purpose of grouping the messages by their primary topic. Care should be taken to post messages only in the forum meant for that type of content. The staff makes every attempt to keep topics in their correct forums. Topics posted in an inappropriate forum will usually be closed shortly, with a final message explaining the transfer to another forum and a link to that forum, where the discussion can continue. Please note that the supposed inactivity of some forums compared to others is not an excuse to post messages in the wrong place.

---

It's not that hard at all, use this thread to discuss the original topic "are viking units overpowered", which could have excellent posts in it like the first 12 posts (some of even written by you).

Then if you want to discuss the historical aspects of vikings, you can turn to the monastery. forumrules are there fore a reason, as am I, to enforce them.
If you have further questions or things you'd like to discuss about this issue, please send me a Private Message (found in the upper right corner of your screen).


-Mithrandir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

So we disagree, which is not a problem. Funnily enough I usually found myself at the .com arguing for greater difficulty within MTW and not what appears to be less, though I do feel that the Huscarles make it too easy for me as the player to conquer the map. This isn't too much of a problem as I don't overuse them anyway, but also when facing them, I despise using those sort of tactics mentioned previously against them.

---

I feel that conquering the game through the overuse of Huscarles is boring as well. I suppose if I started a VI game w/ the Saxons or Mercians I would definately entertain limiting their use. I know I use Huscarles sparingly in the Early game when playing the Danish or after I've conquered Norway, Sweden, or Denmark. A little self-restraint can go a long way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

I've conquered the whole map as the welsh several times on expert. Each time I've found that archers were of vital importance when shooting the huscarles to pieces combined with royal bodyguards and mounted nobles (one faction doesn't get mounted nobles at all, and I can't remember if it's the Irish or the Welsh?) to run them down.

---

I am almost positive the Welsh get Mounted Nobles, so by default the Irish don't have Mounted Nobles, although I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by FORUMRULES
Several separate forums exists for the purpose of grouping the messages by their primary topic. Care should be taken to post messages only in the forum meant for that type of content. The staff makes every attempt to keep topics in their correct forums. Topics posted in an inappropriate forum will usually be closed shortly, with a final message explaining the transfer to another forum and a link to that forum, where the discussion can continue. Please note that the supposed inactivity of some forums compared to others is not an excuse to post messages in the wrong place.

I agree with Mithrandir. I definately made an error in judgement with my initial post, thus the apology to Mithrandir. I could have made my point very easily without the historical references, and should have.

I never mind when the moderators call me to task, they seem to be very fair when enforcing the rules and often give a little leeway to boot.

No apology needed ~:pat:.

The reason I enforce this rule a little tight is that I've seen many a thread drift completely off topic, leaving the original contence of the thread undebated. This is an MTW forum ,while I understand that historical references can be made and it sometimes overlaps, it should not be the main portion of a thread.

All is well.

As for the original topic:
I've only bought VI to enable me to keep playing online, I've only had a few games in that era, but it struck me as the most unbalanced era of the 4....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

I am almost positive the Welsh get Mounted Nobles, so by default the Irish don't have Mounted Nobles, although I could be wrong.

---

The Welsh get Royal Bodyguards and Medium Cavalry, but not Mounted Nobles. Other than the Vikings (who don't get any cavalry other than Viking Raider Cav [puny melee stats]), the Welsh are the only ones that can't build MN's. Once they've teched up to be able to build Royal Bodyguards, they don't really miss the MN's, given proper use of the RB's. RB's are a smaller unit, so shouldn'd be thrown willy-nilly into melee - on the other hand, the valor up more quickly. It all balances out...

I really should start a VI game to give me a refresher course in this stuff. I don't even remember the Med. Cavalry.

Uhh, yeah...

"Medium Cavalry"???

I fought my first unit of AI-produced Joms Vikings last night after a year of playing VI. Nasty. Very nasty. They made my Pictish berserkers look like bedwetting mama's boys...

Vikings are easy to fight if you're Irish. 2 Kerns to each Huscarle unit does the job nicely. Much cheaper too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

As for the original topic:
I've only bought VI to enable me to keep playing online, I've only had a few games in that era, but it struck me as the most unbalanced era of the 4....

---

Yup, gotta agree with you there. Not that the Viking campaign isn't still fun. ~D It *is* the era with the biggest disparities among factions, however.

It's not like the main campaign, where the difference among factions (in terms of difficulties and playing styles) are often a matter of degrees. The Mercians, Saxons, and Vikings are far and away the easiest factions in the VI campaign; while the Northumbrians and Welsh (some would also argue the Picts and/or the Scots) are easily the hardest. And the unbalanced factor is further magnified by the fact that the VI map has far fewer factions crammed into a much smaller area. On the larger map of the main campaign, the increased number of both factions and provinces helps cover for the various imbalances that exist; VI does not have this same double buffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer57

The Welsh get Royal Bodyguards and Medium Cavalry, but not Mounted Nobles.

---

By medium cavalry do you mean the Horsemen? These are light cavalry IIRC, but are they available to the Welsh? I can't remember...

I've always considered working on a mod for a more balanced VI campaign, though never found the time for it.

I think the best way to balance the Huscarles is to reduce their unit size. Instead of the usual 80 man (on medium size setting) cut that number in half. This would put Huscarles on a more equal footing with Foot Knights and would make them more vulnerable to missile and cavalry tactics.

note as a service to some patrons, I've opened a new thread here :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65864

for discussion on the historical aspect of vikings.

Further disobeying of the Forum Rules will be result in a warning.

-Mithrandir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sethik

Huscarles have sometihng along the lines of 8 attack and defense as well as fantastic morale. Add to this their relatively light tech expenses (an axesmith workshop and an armoror are that is required) and you have a fantastic unit to swarm all of Europe with. They can cut a swath through spearmen and swordsmen alike. They also have armor piercing which gives them a little bonus against all armored troops (including Royal Knights). With sufficent cavalry and ranged support Huscarles are nearly unbeatable.

---

Actually, its a 4 armour piercing attack and 4 defence. SiculoNorman Footknights have a 5 attack and a 4 defence plus large shield - that is comparable. Klibonophori have a way better attack and defence and are mobile. Balkan Warband have a reasonable attack (2 plus supporting ranks), and have a good defence - 3 plus large shield plus supporting ranks, and have a large frontage. Balkans will hold up a danish axe army, while hurting it, long enough for cavalry to sweep around the rear.

The beauty of MTW is there is no uber unit. The right tactics and troop mix will expose each unit's weakness.

I guess it's because I was reading the stats when they were under one of my better generals. Even so, SiccloNorman Knights only have 40 men per unit so the Huscarles can easily surround them. Also arn't Balkans Infantry armoured? The Huscarles would get a bonus in that case.

I don't play that many eastern factions in early so what are Klibonophori?

A cavalry of the Byzantines, you have to play either the Super mod or the XL mod to get them, though. They're quite powerful, with katank-like heavy armour, bows and an armour piercing attack....which makes them one of the most formidable units for the Byz. Their only setback is that they're only available in Early and High (in XL, that is).

Two stacks of huscarles rumbling through Europe is IMHO vastly overpowered!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

Two stacks of huscarles rumbling through Europe is IMHO vastly overpowered!

---

Aye; they'll also eat up half your military budget, however. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer57

The Welsh get Royal Bodyguards and Medium Cavalry, but not Mounted Nobles. Other than the Vikings (who don't get any cavalry other than Viking Raider Cav [puny melee stats]), the Welsh are the only ones that can't build MN's. Once they've teched up to be able to build Royal Bodyguards, they don't really miss the MN's, given proper use of the RB's. RB's are a smaller unit, so shouldn'd be thrown willy-nilly into melee - on the other hand, the valor up more quickly. It all balances out...

---

By 'Medium Cavalry' I assume you mean Horsemen? I have just finished a Welsh Campaign and I never missed the mounted nobles. Why? Because you can get +2 valour Horsemen with Horse Breeder and there is a +1 valour province close by the Welsh homelands (owned by the Saxons). At +3 valour they are much better than 0 valour Mounted Nobles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggus Diccus

By 'Medium Cavalry' I assume you mean Horsemen? I have just finished a Welsh Campaign and I never missed the mounted nobles. Why? Because you can get +2 valour Horsemen with Horse Breeder and there is a +1 valour province close by the Welsh homelands (owned by the Saxons). At +3 valour they are much better than 0 valour Mounted Nobles.

---

I often use the Yas Units Master Tool to refresh my memory, especially when I'm away from home and using a computer other than my own. It's usually quite accurate, but a few (mostly niggling) errors have crept in, and the name of this cavalry unit is one of them. In-game they're Horsemen, in the UMT they're Medium Cavalry - that's how the discrepancy came about, apologies to all that were confused by it. :oops:

With base charge of 6, Attack 3, Defense 0, Armor 2, and Morale 4, these units are emminently suitable for the proper role of cavalry: harrassing/flanking/pursuit. So used correctly, they do just fine - don't expect them to work out ideally in sustained melee against strong opponents. Their defense is too low for that. At valor +3 though, their stats go up to 6/6/3/2/10, and they make base Mounted Nobles look fairly punk (6/4/2/3/8). Plus their purchase/support costs are much lower. I like your thinking, Biggus! :laugh4: