yeah, nerfing their rams ain’t going to do jack because with the exception of mangudai, CKN, and Kipchaks, it still takes archers a long time to burn through even basic rams. and the berserk is actually pretty fast as far as infantry go, so it can get on the opponents archers reasonably fast.
you’d have to nerf their actual army somewhere.
2 Likes
Removal of rams would do it
removal? might as well delete the race.
2 Likes
Which unit would you nerf from them? Which unit would you remove? Perhaps we could nerf/remove the elite skirmisher, reduce their archer line to crossbows, remove an archer accuracy upgrade, etc
1 Like
I would say you may just increase a lot the elite upgrade cost. This way, berserker becomes powerful, late game only, option. The only one Vikings may have.
Still, arbs, SR, and current Viking infantry are not bad. But once their top eco boost is gone, Vikings result pretty meh, especially considering there are civs like Chinese which are stronger in every section but navy.
Again, I am not against a Berserk buff, but there are other civs which need a much more urgent buff.
And also between the balanced civs, like the Ethiopians, there are some UUs needing more love than Berserks.
1 Like
those two would probably be the best options, but i don’t like messing with balanced civs just because.
arbs, siege rams, great pikes.
they still get both gold upgrades, all the wood upgrades, and all the farm upgrades. so even considering their bonus is on a timer, they still have a better overall eco then some civs out there, like Italians, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Lithuanians.
Vikings have better siege and infantry, and their eco is actually better (Chinese miss the final farm upgrade) in the long run.
and thats what im saying. if Vikings get berserk buffs, it should be because they need buffs. not just because. and we shouldn’t be changing the balance of the race just because either.
1 Like
these are not very powerful late game options, except SR. I would say that also Japanese are in a similar spot.
Paladins, ckns, longbowmen, plumes, Elephants, mangudais, letis, imp camel, special siege, some cav archers… these are powerful late game options, especially TG. However:
- are we sure that a civ with top 1 eco need to have also a powerful late imp option?
- I would say that turks need a much more urgent help than Vikings, since they are trash in comparison. Similar for Italians and Portuguese
- shotels, Karambit, and other UUs need a buff more that berserker
So yeah, fine with +1 PA, but first let us fix the most urgent issue
arbs definitely are a great late game option. especially when coupled with a meat shield.
In 1v1 yes. In TGs, paladins are too dominant imo
but you have the faster imp and the stronger economy so it’s very strong
1 Like
we don’t balance around TG though. (at least not as a priority).
1 Like
I would say that matters. People are crying for Lithuanian paladins with 4 relics, which is something almost impossible to happen in 1v1…
However it is also very dependent on the level you want the vikings stay. If you want them top pick also in TG or just top pick (or closer) in 1v1
Moreover let me just recall that Vikings are top 1 or top 2 in water
1 Like
How about we leave Vikings as is, since they are clearly a great civ, and changing stuff for the sake of change, is always a bad idea.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
7 Likes
we have seen people cry that there 60 supply worth of paladin got wrecked by a prepared opponent with Halbs.
we have seen people complain that Imperial Camels are too Strong and need nerfs.
we have seen people complain that Britons are too strong and need nerfs.
2 Likes
Italians are similar to Vikings on water. And they are a disaster on land.
People ask super small buff for Italians, like free archer armors or reduced training time for the GC (closer to a bog fix imo). How can we think that Vikings need to be buffed?
Still, I like the civ just because it was the civ of my very first game last century (which I won by cobra car btw) so if Vikings get buffed I am fine 11
i wouldn’t say a disaster. need a little love? yeah. but i wouldn’t put them at turks or koreans level.
2 Likes
Maybe disaster is too much. Little love? Yes, like the proposals I said people are asking for!
Turks are clearly the worst one.
I would put Italians in a similar level of Portuguese.
Koreans are more difficult since they have the tower option and a devastating late game. But nothing more. At least there is a reason why they are not that strong in early stages.
Still every civ of the one mentioned is pretty far from Vikings.
This is somewhat offtopic- but here’s a formation I like to use (Healing Fortress):
My favorite 3 civs to utilize it:
- Teutons
- Incas
- Vikings
Square formation, stand ground
Teuts: 29 teutonic knights, 21 hand canoneers, 10 monks.
Incas: 29 kamyuks, 21 slingers/arbs, 10 monks.
Vikings: 29 Berserkers, 21 Arbs, 10 monks
For vikings its playstyle is a little different because you’ll use the berserkers like a interchangeable shield that acts similar to a drone hive in ender’s game protecting the main ship. The monks will make the berserkers last longer in battle and provide faster hit and run tactics and you’ll have seperate groups of berserks and arbs to increase defensive/offensive firepower
Whereas the incas and teutons have more of an emphasis on ensuring each unit stays alive for as long as possible and careful tactics
Not really.
On Water, Italians strategy is to Age Up and out-Tech the opponent, hoping that you pull a significant upgrade lead and crush the opposition with better Ships, achieved faster.
Vikings strategy on Water is to Galley Rush and kill all Fishing, and then overwhelm with numbers in the Castle Age.
Italians are much better on Water than Potuguese, and have the perfext counters on Land,
Since Ports will never go for Cavalry in the Imperial Age, Italians need not even worry about missing Halberdier, or how fast they can mass Genoese Crossbowmen.
I mean, similar in terms of potential. Similar strength with very different strategies
2 Likes