So the deal with Vikings was always that you get the (supposedly) best eco in the game for open maps, in return for having one of the worst tech trees in terms of military options. The main way to win was always to reach Imp before opponent and kill him with Arbalest timing, if that didn’t work, you’d hope to have him weakened so that some Siege Ram/Berserk switch would clean him up. Those are, pretty much, the only 3 army compositions Vikings can do late game (Siege + Pike, Berserks + Siege + Pike, and Arbalest).
However, now we have Poles, which on closed maps, but especially on open maps, can give RECORD Imp timings with their Folwark bonus. Their economy is arguably as strong ad the Viking one, however their tech tree is also one of the best in the game. To go through what Vikings can do, Poles can generally do it also:
-
full Arbalest play → Poles and Vikings here are equivalent since last armor doesn’t rly matter and, without Thumb Ring, you’d generally skip it.
-
Skirms → Vikings win due to having last armor
-
Pikeman → Vikings win. Their Pikeman is actually not bad, having 6 more HP than a generic Halberdier and comparable bonus after Chieftains is researched (iirc you miss 6 damage overall, 4 on the bonus and 2 on the base)
-
Cav Archer → Vikings one is UNUSABLE, while Poles one is actually quite good, missing last armor and PT but having everything else. Usable in some matchups.
-
Champion → Vikings one wins due to +20% HP.
-
UU → Poles win hard
-
Stable → Poles win hard not only in that they can play full Knights in Castle age, but they have THREE flavors of Stable play, full cheap Knights in Castle age, full Cavalier in early Imp (generally this is the go-to strat that Mr. Yo and others abuse so much), and Hussar with or without Lechitic Legacy. Meanwhile Vikings not only miss Bloodlines but also lack Husbandry…
-
Siege Workshop (I don’t recall Scorpion line, but, both have SR, both have regular Onager, notably Poles get BBC which is a huge selling point) → Poles win hard
-
Monastery → another hard Poles win where Vikings miss Redemption, Sanctity and Herbal Medicine (and a few other less important ones) while Poles have all those. Meanwhile Poles get all the key ones like Fervor, Sanctity, Herbal Medicine and Redemption and miss some negligible ones like Heresy and Illumination. Vikings Monastery is one of the WORST in the game, while Poles one is nearly Lithuanians-tier.
-
Defense: slight Vikings win, Poles miss Architecture (I rarely see Castles go all the way to 7k HP in 1v1 so I’d even skip this one personally, generally even in super grinded games, you see Masonry and that’s it).
CONCLUSION
In other words, Vikings and Poles eco are comparable, but Poles get a better UU, a FAR better Stable, a better Siege Workshop, a better Cav Archer, and Vikings get only a better Skirm (one of those units that you nearly never go for in 1v1 in late games for reasons that should be apparent to veterans) and better Champion (never used unit).
Is this fair? The deal with Vikings was always, amazing eco in return for trash army. Now we got a civ with comparable (if not better) eco, but insane army options (I won’t even go into stuff like Lechitic Legacy Hussars being monsters in trash wars late game, let’s just ignore UTs for a sec).
Poles need some form of nerf, for example, losing Redemption, last Infantry armor (would be a good way to nerf Obuch incidentally, a unit that 100% needs a nerf), losing Champion, losing SR are all possibilities. Clearly they should not be overnerfed either but I feel they could lose 1-2 from this list no problem.