Hi, as the DEVS made the indians into a few different civs. I was kind of hoping they could do this with the “vikings” as the word Viking translates to basically pirate it was a trade or skill rather than a civilization. The civilizations that were " Vikings" were Swedish , Norwegian, Denmark, Finland , Anglo Saxons and the Celts I believe. I think it would be more fun to have these countries represented as their own civs.
4 Likes
please no. if the name is an issue just change it to ‘Northmen’ with a mod. Vikings is a totally acceptable modern name for these people. Lots of the in-game names are exonyms: eg Japanese, Saracens, Hindustanis
and some are totally made up words: Mayans
18 Likes
I’m not against the idea of splitting up Vikings if you can provide a compelling answer as to their differences in terms of combat and economic style. Did Vikings from each country have any military units unique to them vs. the other Viking tribes? If not, then I don’t see the point of splitting them, aside from appealing to the nationalism of people from those modern day countries.
4 Likes
As per some youtube videos they are different people.
Norway raiders seems more like the ingame vikings.
Denmark settlers
Sweden traders the video calles them rus
Do we need to split the viking umbrella is up for debate.
1 Like
that, but I also think more importantly is there still space for new civs? I think we are already at the limit and the game is really starting to feel bloated with feature and power creep getting bad
5 Likes
I think considering how low popukation was and how close they are in history and language, they are fine
Comparing Scandinavia to India is dumb
6 Likes
You’re getting a little repetitive with this. Not sure if this can be considered spam in fact it likely isnt but repetitiveness can be obnoxious. We get it you dont want civs… we heard you the first 50 times
Sure I dont want more vikings but surely we only have 3 Eagle based civs and thats not enough!
5 Likes
You can also try making your own scenario in the Scenario Editor, and then in the scenario revamp players through triggers. Like adding and removing technologies and units.
Since one of the most recent updates there are more triggers added in the Scenario Editor.
That’s a way to create what you want and promote it 
1 Like
and you people are getting repetitive with the same or similar badly thought out civ designs that add nothing to the game. I think it’s important that the other voice is heard so there is no false picture of ‘everyone wants more civs’, when that is very much not the case.
3 Likes
8 Likes
lmaoooooooooo best coment ever
1 Like
I’d like more civs as well, although I think these should be added judiciously and mainly to popular areas that can’t be approximated well by existing civs and have good campaign potential.
I also very strongly agree with this. Where possible I like to promote players making their own dreams come true instead of waiting for the devs to do it for them. I would question the need to differentiate Danes and Swedes in Multiplayer, but if you want to do so in a campaign or scenario, there are decent tools for that. There are a number of Editor units that lend themselves to this purposes as well (Norse Warrior, Jarl, the Welsh and Norman campaign heroes, as well as civ UUs that are plausibly Norse or Norse adjacent like the Throwing Axeman, Huskarl, Boyar, and Serjeant).
5 Likes
Too many civs will make balance a nightmare. And I don’t think Rework = Splitting civ.
1 Like
I wasn’t going to post in this thread, but you’ve persuaded me otherwise. I have new civ fatigue. At this stage, a new civ proposal would have to be spectacular for me to think it should be added to the game. It would have to bring something genuinely new without being gimmicky or out-of-place, and it would have to represent a culture not currently represented by existing civs. Otherwise, I don’t see the point.
3 Likes
To be Fair, it’s not the players’ job to make well developer civs, Is the DEV’s job. Players can give their opinioni on what would be fun, but the “add nothing to the game” is no more then an opinion
People were talking about armenians and georgians for a lot of time and many people sayd they where not be needed and they would not have added to the game. Then they happened, and even pros are happy with their design
So maybe not all things new are bad
On the main topic, i think the differences are so limited there is not much to do with those civs. There are other civs that could use this treatment much better and that could offer different playstyles and bonuses, like slavs, saracens, and italians imho
Agree with that point.
If a random guy from internet could do it I’m fairly sure it’s possible, as always it just needs some historical research and a will to do so.
3 Likes
How can people get even more boring?
Splitting up Italians?
Only viking split I want to see personally is the finns.They are not even viking to begin with.
1 Like
This Robby guy. Did you notice the regional tech that decreases in stat gain as a civ goes through thr ages?
Did you notice the Althing tech? The trch that LOSES VALUE as you age up until it gives zero stats in Imp age?! did ANYONE actually Watch or go through the tech tree!? Man, no wonder he’s mad at me for trying to explain to his sheep about good design philosophy… what a joke!
In short his biggest issue is complexity for complexity snd muh history but does anyone ask or remember keep it simple stupid philosophy
As for if they’re balanced… doesnt matter since clearly they’re balanced around this tech that betrays one of the most fundamental aspects if this game: dont punish players for aging up!
Even aspects of the Swedes civ just piss me off.
Even at half price needing to research Heresy AND Faith (this was pre devotion) just to get access to the Halberd and Hussar tech. Not get the upgrade for free… get ACCESS is not a bonus. Its an insult because this civ’s halb access depends entirely on spending 500g on a trch you might not even need! Improving all bonus damages by one admittedly can be useful, especially for lower bonus damage but useful counter units but not locked behind Heresy.
And Faith!? For access to the Hussar tech for a civ lacking both bloodlines and the final armor? Do I really want those Hussars that badly?
And the UU is just… read this. Does this look like a fun unit you want in your army? One that increases in price the more you make? Is that fun?
"25-75 Food, 30-90 Gold (spcl)
• 70 HP, 1/1 Armor, 0.9 Spd, 4 LoS, 12 Atk,
2.25 RoF, 14sec train
• +3 Atk vs Buildings; +4 Atk & +2/+2
Armor vs NON-UNIQUE Units
• Weak to UNIQUE Units (+5 dmg) &
Regional Units (+2 dmg)
• Available to ALL teammates at Castle;
upgraded by each player individually
• Cost (PER player) gradually increases for
each one a player has in play at any
given time: 40+ total = max cost"
Sure doing better vs standard units does actually sound like a good aspect. If that was its only attribute itd be fine IMHO as a hnique attribute without all those other convolutions that only exist to make it bad.
Also their scout is garbage. If the enemy scout finds you you have three options: hope you’re near your TC and run away to safety, accept death while hitting the enemy to weaken their scout HP while sacrificing all of yours, or run away to reveal a little more fog while slowly getting picked off because EVERY OTHER SCOUT IS FASTER!
Look civ design is hard. Even 20 years ago when I would still crank them out aokheaven had the nerve to call that “spam” and the respectability of the craft has only nosedived. When I tried to revive it a decade ago they went for Cysion and his 5 civs when my library was still plentiful.
Im hard on design because I want things good enough to not make people secretly wish we would become invisible,
6 Likes