Age of Strategy Forums

I was thinking of new units to add to the game, and thought that vikings would be a good unit to add to the game. They would fit in with the medevil theme of the game. They could have high armor and high attack power, but to balance them out they could be slow moving, maybe only 2 spaces instead of the regular 3.

This idea has been posted before, although I agree vikings would be cool

Will it be different from the already suggested Housecarls or Berserkers?

Well, the vikings/berserks that have been discussed are more complex units with specials (I don't think we ever made a consensus on what they should be though). This seems like a more basic unit addition, like the maceman.

I was thinking it could be a unit in the regular game, that could be trained in barracks

Okay - that sounds promising.

But how should we make it so that it is not a repeat of the shielder?

specials

No? Anyone? Ok, maybe not

Uh yeah. What kind?

It could be effective against buildings similar to the maceman now, but be at a disadvantage against calvary units

COOLguy wrote:Uh yeah. What kind?

If I remember the special I recomended, it was: Slow move (Like CelticWarrior suggested) but he has a berserk ability, which gives him a 50 percent chance to move again. He can keep using this special until it fails or until he decides to attack. He gains a few attack that turn for each time the special works.

I'm pretty sure there were some other cool specials recommended, but I don't remember them, I would have to look back through the topic.

CelticWarrior wrote:It could be effective against buildings similar to the maceman now, but be at a disadvantage against calvary units

Yes, definitely agree, this is the standard rule that applies to most infantry units that don't have pointy sticks

Pointy sticks... except those worthless skirmishers

CelticWarrior wrote:It could be effective against buildings similar to the maceman now, but be at a disadvantage against calvary units

Perhaps less armor than the shielder but a greater attack? Was that what you were suggesting?

In honesty though, I'm kind of against a viking unit having slow move. They were KNOWN for invading/raiding incredibly quickly. They would land, hike miles, sack a town, and be gone before reinforcements could arrive. Vikings typically had small armies, and stood no chance in an open battle against superior numbers. They relied on speed and secrecy, despite what most people believe today.

What if they moved at the same speed as regular units and gained life when they killed an enemy unit?

Hmm, that is a very interesting idea...I think that would definitely be a special that would make sense for a berserk/viking unit.

They could regain 50% of their health. Do you think this is too much or too little?

Depends on other stats. Cost, move, attack, armor, life, etc.

If he had a decent amount of life/decent attack, I would say he would be a good 3-4 turn cost unit.

I like this idea too!

Maybe the viking could have;
- Poor armour against Pikes and Skirmishers.
- A strong melee attack.
- Pretty swift with a speed of 4.

- Also could have a weak short ranged attack (maybe 2 range), as well as melee. Could this be even done?

Well, weakness against pikes and skirmies just means no armour

Although, I think he should actually have bonuses against those units.... But yes, special attacks can be done.

DoomCarrot wrote:Well, weakness against pikes and skirmies just means no armour

Although, I think he should actually have bonuses against those units.... But yes, special attacks can be done.

Exactly! When did vikings run around in anything other than leathers anyways

I agree, vikings should have very little/no armor. Maybe 1 pierce armor if they are too weak (shields).

DoomCarrot wrote:I agree, vikings should have very little/no armor. Maybe 1 pierce armor if they are too weak (shields).

Bang on about the shields mate! I agree totally.
But what I mean about the pikes an spears is..theyre a little different than arrows. Its like comparing a toothpick to a snooker cue.

From what I can gather..they were ace at defending from arrows (shield wall), but had no chain mail for close quarters.

Leathers were great against blades (slashing), but against a full thrown javelin that hit..well inpaled is the only outcome I can think of.

So I guess what i see as a viking is:
Fast and moblie, strong and light. Great against villagers and tin-hats..but can be picked off rather easily by skirmishers. Yep..thats ludicrous

Well yes, the shield wall was near impregnable to any type of force of the same size at that time period, besides cavalry. I think they should be great against most footmen, archers, and buildings (they raided a lot of them ) but I agree that skirmies should be pretty decent against them. Javelins were actually meant to fight infantry with shields originally, because a 3 foot javelin stuck in your shield made it practically unusable.

But I think they MUST have a big weakness to cavalry to balance them. And its accurate.

Some very good points there Carrot. I agree with them all