Just like Manipur Cavalry vs Farimba. At least the weaker one can be researched in Castle Age in both cases.
1 Like
Some scenarios having them show up as mainland saxons and other not is not very consistent.
There should be a new topic made regarding this and saxons not being used when they are a better choice for some npcs.
1 Like
Am I the only one who think VG is so strong that even if they didnât generate gold, no one would complain that they were underpowered?
Tupi recently is ok, donât need increase the UU cost more, they are now hard for use( first time need nerf but now no)
Vietnamese did dev have some wrong about it? Cavalry archer ok , but fire lancer, it expensive and now too worst pay for that unit, ( weakest in area and no blast furnace, gambeson ? ) it is wrong Dev please reconsider it, it bad thing in this update. Should be have 20%hp for fire lancer, just nerf 1 is ok, while other area keep unchange bonus, keep it help them more diversity strategy.
Teuton need to access to ring archer armor should they?
While I sure next update vagarian will be nerf 
, this time really thank for update Byzantine they now better after long term lack special for the UU.
Viking need access to gambeson,
And cheftain need take back funtion will take gold when killing the Monk , and monastery it happen in history.
They are not that cost efficient against most units if you look into it. They lose against the Milita Line, Archer Line and Knight Line unless they have a strong bonus like Verangian Verangians (saying that sound so stupid).
Giving them the Gold generation is essentially an indirect Gold discount making them more cost efficient against Knights for example but it doesnât remove their weaknesses.
1 Like
On the other hand, Varangian Guards generate gold. I assume they removed it due to overlap with that effect, and not because they think itâs anti-fun or a bad mechanic.
1 Like
Seem like the Saxons are playable only in one mission, but there are plenty of missions for Vikings. So, we can simply say that Vikings have a campaign, but Saxons still need one.
2 Likes
IMHO a campaigns first job should be to show you the power of the civ in action. The Hun campaign sorta does by letting you raid with Tarkans and have situations where you need to get started fast without houses
2 Likes
Lol. Lmao even.
I can excuse Chronicles civs getting only a single scenario (as was the case with Puru and Thracians), but this is pathetic. Not to mention the misleading campaign icon that displays the Saxon civ emblem.
4 Likes
There are already some completed playthroughs on YouTube. Indeed, Saxons are playable only in one mission, the first mission of the third chapter.
No one considers Turks having a campaign just because theyâre playable in a Dracula mission, so yeah Saxons donât have a campaign.
3 Likes
Saxons only in one mission? Thatâs disappointing. I thought it would be 3 Vikings/3 Varangians, 2 Vikings/3 Danes, 1 Vikings/3 SaxonsâŠ
EDIT: thatâs sad and weird from the team. I thought they would have learned how important civ representation is in campaigns and solo.
Looking at the Exiled prince on YouTube, itâs funny how it looks like a Viking campaign, a Varangian campaign, a Slav campaign or a Byzantine campaign all at once.
3 Likes
Why do the 3 newly arrived civs all have fully upgraded horse archers? Only the Varangians lack the thumb ring. Apart from that, everythingâincluding the blacksmith upgradesâis fully maxed out.
Interesting so a saxons campaign and celts split to two more civis might come.
They would do it only if the Saxon campaign is locked if you donât have Viking Sagas. Which makes sense, but will annoy a lot of people.
Not really, they could allow to play Saxons there without giving access to them normally (as was the case when Prithviraj became a Gurjara campaign, all DE owners were able to play it)
2 Likes
So, Vikings are now at 12 scenario total, which is more than the previous record holders, Britons and Franks who had 10 scenarios total each.
They shouldâve had us play as Harold Godwinson for the last campaign, honestly.
And they shouldâve changed Ragnar and York to Danes, and Ironside to Varangians. itâs kinda ridiculous that Ragnar, Ivar the Boneless, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, Hvitserk and Guthrum are Danish player-names, but their scenarios are still Vikings. And Bjorn Ironside is a Varangian player name, but the Ironside scenario is not Varangians.
If they did all those changes, Saxons wouldâve had a campaign, Varangians would be at 6 scenarios, Danes would be at 5 and Vikings would still be at an acceptable 6, even without the three scenarios in the last campaign.
3 Likes
Macedonians laughing in the corner
âPatheticâŠâ
4 Likes
Varangian Guard is a lot of fun. Itâs like a knight, but on foot. Have only tried Varangians, but Danes look interesting too. The strong, flexible, but expensive niche is something Iâve been missing from infantry for a long time. Canât wait to try the Danes, Varangian version of the unit is surprisingly well balanced.
1 Like
Makes sense, I guess. Even though they had to do something about Prithviraj, since they removed Indians. And they donât really have to add a Saxon campaign. They might, but donât have to.
1 Like
The Jomsviking might need a nerf to its building damage. The Varangian Guards might need a reduction in their gold generation.
1 Like