I Have Been Observing Posts About Vikings Recently
- This topic has 14 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m not necessarily in agreement with taking away the Thumb Ring and I’m not necessarily against it either.
The Vikings are still a very powerful civilization and I don’t always use their archer line much anymore.
I think that instead of making changes to them, there should be improvements made to their infantry and some way to address their late game weaknesses.
I’ve been a fan of the Vikings since the beginning and I believe the developers know what they’re doing.
They may not be an S or A tier civ (who even pays attention to tier lists anymore?), but you won’t regret picking them.
Leave them as they are, the Vikings are just fine.
I think with all the super infantry units lately being a thing, I wouldn’t mind Berserkers being buffed.
You just have to be super careful, though, since the last thing you want is goths but if they had great eco, since even with FC into one-TC UU, Vikings are still very strong…….
You know what though?
Considering that they said “fuck it” when it comes to chakram throwers and ghulams being given to two of the strongest ecos in the game, you know what, fuck balance, give us super-zerks.
Now that Vikings lost Thumb Ring I think Chieftains cost should be reverted to truly motivate people go infantry because is stupidly too expensive.
On the other side Szlachta Privileges cost must be raised lol
the civ itself seems fine, but it has the same problems as all the other civs that are supposed to play infantry: their main unit bonus is basically not used.
Once infantry is made more viable, the civ will rise some more again.
I do think though that their UTs are overpriced.
I don’t agree i think the devs should split the Vikings into norse Denmark and maybe the swedes and the friese with an regional axe unit
They are alright and removal of thumb ring was understandable I agree.
But they don’t have a setting where they shine now, and they are one of the AoK civs so I would like to have a point in picking them.
To me the only real problem is berserks (and Berserkergang being a now redundant upgrade).
You would expect more of an infantry civ’s infantry UU if you spend those resources.
It’s just that they’re not given much love, or even thought upon bc of the new civs flying around.
I keep randoming into Vikings and absolutely dominating games with full Berserks so I think they’re fine.
Chieftains cost could maybe be reduced a bit to make their infantry an easier switch.
They have a good eco, but don’t want to get into the lategame.
Thats a bit contradictory.
Their strenght in Arabia is still to get fast castle and imp uptimes and kill opponent fast with powerspikes.
This subreddit has always been a place for people to go complaining about the civ they just lost with
As someone who recently randomed into Vikings vs Berbers, yeah it does feel bad.
MAA+Archers into Eskirm + Berzerks and it just felt so bad.
Have berserkergang give zerks +1 PA maybe?
Chieftain should be civ bonus, and their unique tech back to their original cost
The question I ask myself is, why would I want vikings when you have a civ like Teutons around, who’s eco bonus is similar in strenght, having overall better infantry, Siege, defenses and gunpowder, as well as better monks and a slow but viable knightline?
There are just better performing infantry civs that have good eco’s with more options and better infantry than vikings.
Giving vikings halbs seems like a good move to me.
Only change I’d make is rework Beserkergang because it’s boring.
Build it into Elite Beserk upgrade and give them something more interesting or that covers a weakness.
They are top 10 in Arabia win rate with over 51.5%.
Maybe in pro play it’s dead but for normal and elite players it’s still pretty good.
People complain because now they have less flexibility in the mid/late game but all their bonuses together compensate that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
