This is actually a good idea. Removing arbalester can avoid player go into the noob trap that viking playing full archer
in this video he also admits they arent fun to play anymore. If the civ becomes considerably less fun to play and everyone is saying their the most one dimensional civ in the game now then its a bad nerf
How are they less fun to play, I would rather play Vikings than Bengalis or even Dravidians which have worse options and more one dimensional style.
btw here’s another one of Viper:
Finally Berserk is seeing more action now.
Vikings are an infantry civ. Their archer timings are still very powerful. I swear AOE2 players will break down and cry every time the developers do anything to encourage people to use units other than archers and knights.
Archers are still very very good. You will be ok.
Problem is infantry with bonuses is weaker than generic archer and knight. Goths, Japanese and Malians have even stronger bonuses than Vikings but they have to go Archer because heavy infantry is really bad in this game.
Its almost like infantry is supposed to be a support unit in this game and thus can be safely given bonuses for free you couldnt dream of giving cavalry and archer civs
Not Japanese. Toughness/survivability (Armor and HP) is more important than attack for melee units. You can make an argument for spear line though.
Yes but attack is also an important value too, because it make sure to kill in less time and hits, that’s why the Konnik at release was broken when had the ROF at 1.9.
It is valuable but HP is still better. Konnik with +33% HP will be more broken.
Eh what? This is true in some circumstances (e.g. Knights prioritizing armor over attack when fighting archers), but trying to make it into some kind of blanket principle that covers all melee units just doesn’t work. The Japanese infantry bonus by itself is enough to put Japanese in the top 3-4 infantry civs; the Viking HP bonus without chieftains or Berserks would mayyybe qualify them as having 8-10th best infantry, or something like that. Even if you think that HP is more important on infantry, the Japanese bonus has a 50+% greater magnitude than the Viking bonus.
Everyone’s entitled to his opinion of course, but the Japanese bonus is demonstrably so much better than the Viking bonus that I’m surprised than anyone still thinks this. The only case where you can even begin to argue that the Viking bonus is more useful is when closing the gap vs ranged units, where it makes Vikings die slightly less horribly (while being nowhere near as useful there as the Malian bonus), but it doesn’t make infantry vs. ranged any less of a bad idea. Japanese bonus of killing units faster makes enemy units function as if they had less HP.
No vikings do not need thumb ring back
I don’t think they should get thumb ring back, and if they do, their eco needs some form of nerf. You just can’t have both. I would give them hand cannoneer and bombard cannon to help them out in mid imp really but may rmove siege engineer.
No Gunpowder for Vikings please.
i agree vikings could use help on cost for both UT, that way your only good late game options would be actually viable. so chieftains and berserkergang should be lowered a little in cost
Though I support this idea, it is very unlikely for vikings to get back thumb ring.
Before the change, vikings was already powerful in early game but level off at late game. Missing thumb ring while buffing early game infantry health seems to push vikings further in this way.
I think vikings can receive a nerf on M@A rush due to their superb eco like delaying infantry hp bonus to castle. Then, improve both UT, like chieftains giving more bonus anti-cav dmg exclusively to berserks. Bersergang gives more hp to berserks instead of faster regenerating.
I don’t like the idea of vikings getting thumb ring back.
I think they need at least 1 UT for something else than their berserks.
Tbf if infantry were slightly more meta, viking appreciation would go up
They’re still a fairly well picked civ, so small sample sizes based on biased feelings don’t mean much, when stats prove otherwise
For example if LS were easier to use and/or more effective, or siege was a better counter to archers (giving infantry better cover against their hard counter) than Vikings would be a much more.viable pick as an infantry civ
In the same way good knights or xbow civs have good pick rates even if they don’t have any special gimmick
Only your name is present in the video. Jealous