Discussion on the Vikings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think the Vikings are historically overpowered. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to them as "The Force." Any acount usually begins, "And they met The Force at..." and ends, "And the King was driven from the field with (insert horrifice casualties here."

So the Saxons saw the Vikings as unstoppable supermen, until Alfred and he almost lost. The Huscarles were the elite, the problem is that in VI you usually only meet the king and his son, so all you see are the Huscarles. As to the Saxons and Angles having them, well the Vikings get them straight away. Over all its probably the most accurate TW set up.

Gameplay is a different matter.

Oh, and the Saxons weren't the majoriety in England until quite late, in 600 AD 35 men was considered an army. The Majoriety of the population were Romano-British in pretty much the same state as the Saxons were when the Normans took over.

[caravel]

The moderators have already requested of myself and Sensei Warrior that this topic not go off topic from "Viking Units overpowered" to "Anglo-Saxon and Viking History" which is where it's going. So in view of this, this will have to be my last few comments as regard the historical aspects. I have placed these comments in smaller type so that they can be easily avoided by patrons not wanting to read historical comments.

I don't think the Vikings are historically overpowered. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to them as "The Force." Any acount usually begins, "And they met The Force at..." and ends, "And the King was driven from the field with (insert horrifice casualties here."

Hmmm... well Bede's accounts have since been proven as rather 'poetic'. It is pretty normal for a defeated faction to record their downfall in such a manner as their enemies were "supermen" and they had no hope of defeating them. There is absolutely no doubt however from both bede's and other accounts that the Vikings were hardy and highly competent fighters and raiders.

So the Saxons saw the Vikings as unstoppable supermen, until Alfred and he almost lost. The Huscarles were the elite, the problem is that in VI you usually only meet the king and his son, so all you see are the Huscarles. As to the Saxons and Angles having them, well the Vikings get them straight away.

Exactly, there is a glut of royal Huscarles one after the other which are gained for free. The player/AI need train nothing else for the first 30 years, because he has this ready supply of killers that just need to be supported!

Over all its probably the most accurate TW set up.

Gameplay is a different matter.

Well I'm not sure I agree. There is alot of obvious innacuracy in the VI campaign, the Huscarles are only part of it. The Picts, Scots and others are all inbalanced and innacurate, this is why the VI campaign never really took off and is not that popular. The Scots have 16-17th century clansmen, the picts have the 'berserker' units and the crossbows which are a bit exaggerated. The pictish crossbows were wooden weapons, not the much more powerful crossbows and arbalests that were commonplace a few hundred years later. The selection of units for all the celtic factions apart from the Irish is otherwise very generic.

Oh, and the Saxons weren't the majoriety in England until quite late, in 600 AD 35 men was considered an army. The Majoriety of the population were Romano-British in pretty much the same state as the Saxons were when the Normans took over.

Anglo Saxons kept the Roman british as serfs, so the British never really went away.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The moderators have already requested of myself and Sensei Warrior that this topic not go off topic from "Viking Units overpowered" to "Anglo-Saxon and Viking History" which is where it's going. So in view of this, this will have to be my last few comments as regard the historical aspects. I have placed these comments in smaller type so that they can be easily avoided by patrons not wanting to read historical comments.



Hmmm... well Bede's accounts have since been proven as rather 'poetic'. It is pretty normal for a defeated faction to record their downfall in such a manner as their enemies were "supermen" and they had no hope of defeating them. There is absolutely no doubt however from both bede's and other accounts that the Vikings were hardy and highly competent fighters and raiders.



Exactly, there is a glut of royal Huscarles one after the other which are gained for free. The player/AI need train nothing else for the first 30 years, because he has this ready supply of killers that just need to be supported!



Well I'm not sure I agree. There is alot of obvious innacuracy in the VI campaign, the Huscarles are only part of it. The Picts, Scots and others are all inbalanced and innacurate, this is why the VI campaign never really took off and is not that popular. The Scots have 16-17th century clansmen, the picts have the 'berserker' units and the crossbows which are a bit exaggerated. The pictish crossbows were wooden weapons, not the much more powerful crossbows and arbalests that were commonplace a few hundred years later. The selection of units for all the celtic factions apart from the Irish is otherwise very generic.



Anglo Saxons kept the Roman british as serfs, so the British never really went away.

I basically said they were serfs, there was study of graveyards and they realised that only Saxons were buried with weapons.

I said it was the most accurate, which is to say still very generalised.

I was thinking of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which IIRC wasn't written by Bede. Yes your point is taken but the Vikings did steamroller the Saxons a bit.

The Huscarls in VI are a bit of a glut for the Vikings but I think its more of a engine thing, you certainly have to build troops if you want to hold on to anything and then you usually have to leave half the Huscarls behind to fight the thousands of peasents that pop up every turn.