The file is: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/Vikings1.zip


Civilization: Vikings
Noun:Vikings
Adjective: Viking
Colors: Red
Starts with: Fishing and Hunting
UU: Berserker (Axeman, 1+ power and allows amphibious attack)


http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/7610/vikings019cs.jpg


Title and leader 1: King Canute
Leader 1 bonuses: Expansive and Organized
Leader 1 favourite civic: Hereditary Rule


Title and leader 2: King Ragnar
Leader 2 bonuses: Aggressive and Financial
Leader 2 favourite civic: Hereditary Rule


Cities:
Trondheim
Birka
Hedeby
Uppsala
Ribe
TO BE CONTINUED...


http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/9531/vikings024oc.jpg


http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/884/vikings038oy.jpg


http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/933/vikings040xx.jpg


http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/595/vikings056si.jpg


http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/2976/vikings064dn.jpg

Niiice work!!

Must try this one as im from Sweden , it will feel like home :crazyeye:

Keep up the good work :goodjob:

so i don't need to do them, good...
less work for me!!

i would have rather give the leader aggressive and expansive than organized....after all, they were great warrior
Else, give them another leader (ragnar lodbrock, erik the red) wich is aggressive
i think the +1 mov is not enough for the UU, maybe give it a promotion (withdraw, +50% against galley)...i would have prefer a berserker with amphibious, but well, it's a matter of choice...

Anyway, great Job again...

I'd say aggressive/financial would be appropriate for a viking leader.

There are too many aggressive leaders. I don't think we need to make *every* Civ leader aggressive. :)
My suggestion is to save the aggressive trait for Ragnar -- if you're up for making a second leader CivArmy.
[EDIT]
Note: I know nothing about King Canute -- so you don't need to take that literally.
[/EDIT

what? financial? how?

agressive and spiritual or agressive and expansive make the most sense to me.

a viking civ must have a amphibious berserker unit :)

I'll second the Berserker unit! But I can see why the longboat is needed in conjunction with the berserker. Personally I think they all need 2 UUs or as many as possible.

for balanced gameplay only one UU ("Unique" Unit) is required.

Since boat can be less important on Pangea map and really really important on archipelago, i'm not so sure it would be a good idea to have a naval UU (that's why i think all vanilla UU are land units.)

the problem would be the same with an amphibious berserker (depend of the map) i would rather prefer a movement 2 or city raider berserker (replacement of the axeman)

I wasnt aware that there was such a thing as Viking civilization. I can understand Scandinavian or Norse civ, but Viking? I know that civ series are not the most historically accurate games, but I still think Viking civ is bit of a stretch...

Just check out the history of the word "Viking"...

Hi, first post from a long time lurker on Civfanatics...

My suggestion concerning the Viking UU is that a galley with the Caravels ability (to enter territory without Open Borders-deals) would be ideal to represent the longboat raids in Western Europe. Remember that it can also be used for more peaceful purposes like sneaking in missionaries, settlers and explorers, just as the Vikings did in eastern Europe. (well, perhaps not missionaries but since there are no traders or merchants that can travel we´ll have to settle with missionaries)
This would make razing and plundering improvements a viable strategy to get gold. You won´t have to attack the big cities, just cause some general mayhem like the Vikings did :)

If that seems like a crappy UU, combine it with the +1move to get in my opinion, a fair representation of the Viking Longboat.

What do you think?

I wasnt aware that there was such a thing as Viking civilization. I can understand Scandinavian or Norse civ, but Viking? I know that civ series are not the most historically accurate games, but I still think Viking civ is bit of a stretch...

Just check out the history of the word "Viking"...

the Celts were more of a culture than ever being a civilization, but it can still be fun to play.. just look at who the leaders usually are for proof of that :p

I certainly agree that Vikings as a civ aren't any more historically accurate, but I suppose it is more romantic than other names.. though I think Norse carries the same visions of greatness..

most importantly, it is civarmys mod, and we should respect his decisions.. don't have to play it if we don't want.. I highly recommend it though, most excellent work once again, Civarmy!

vikings are these kind of civs which are historical in civilization game history. Such as the Celts, Carthage and some others....

Vikings don't really compare to "civs" such as Celts or Carthaginians and Im not really sure what you mean by them being "historical in civilization game history".

Vikings were merely a unique warrior class in Nordic society, but they did not really have a distinctly enough separate identity from other Scandinavians (in terms of culture, mythology, or even language). They were Norsemen who specialized in seafaring and raiding and outside of Jomsvikings, VERY rarely referred to themselves as Vikings. In Old Norse viking simply means "a person from the bay". On the other side, many other nations when subjected to these raids either simply referred to them as Norsemen pirates or simply called every raid of that sort a viking raid (regardless of whether the attackers were Danes, Scots, Slavs, or even Africans).

The term Viking only became popular in the 18th century, and the time period involving these raids simpy (and somewhat incorrectly) became known as the Viking age.

Plus there is not actual evidence that ever was a unique type of a "Viking" longship. They were just ordinary longships that were popular with both Scandinavian and Germanic peoples.

some historians interpit thr word viking as raider, because the term at the time was "to go a viking" meaning to raid. bu regarding viking as a civ, i suppourt it, as the communities relied on the funding or these raids, and would brobably not have developed without the plunder.the viking were known to have construted specialized hulls which sucked water under them, thus increasing speed and decreacing noise, but was not used as commonly with germanic tribes, bar a few of the northern ones, who were more norse than germanic, previding you mean germanic regarding clothing, culture, mythology and language.

No I meant Nordic. That's why I think it should be a Norse or Scandinavian civ (like it was in Conquests) and maybe have some type of amphibious raider UU. Although Im not try to tell you or the originl poster how to make mods as I have made none myself... ;)

I don't know why Im being anal about this, I guess because Im part Scandinavian myself (Norwegian). In Scandinavia the question of Vikings often causes a lot of controversy especially among historians. I simply believe that their existence as a separate culture has been greatly exaggerated...

I'm exciting with the comments, thanks for all friends!!! :D Its good to learn more about the Viking and/or the Scandinavian and/or Norse culture :)
Well, we have many suggestions of leaders and UUs, so, why not do all them? The solution could be the solution used by myself at the Civ3 time when I did civis for 3 "Vikings" countries: Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Then I could put different leaders and different UUs of this region of Europe. But let's use this solution in some weeks or mounths, not now, what I could do is create a second leader for the Vikings, people can use this thread for a poll, debate, election of this 2nd leader... its my pleasure produce a second leader for Vikings, maybe it could take weeks to be done since I have more LHs on my to do list, but it could be done and would be useful to many players :)
Oh, why did I choice Viking Boat as UU: cos it just uses texture works and it was "easy" change the Galley texture for create my Viking UU, create the Berserker would be harder. But if someone was able to create it I could add it on this civ, or make a poll to choice what UU Vikings should have. And off course, I can change easily the power of my Viking Boat if most people agree with it ;)

thanks for enjoy and I'm waiting for suggestions, I'm not just meaning suggestions for the 2nd leader, but for every else, as city list, UU power... good posts :)

Being Danish I'm glad the vikings are back in the game, although I kinda miss the Berserker... As Funkin said, "scandinavia" would have been more fidding, but what the hell... Now I'm just waiting for the Norse Mythology modpack, so we finally can spread the words of Odin to the world... (actually since the Norse mythology is a "warrior" religion, a possible UU could be a fighting missionary) :D I like the idea of a Viking looting and pillaging while spreading the good word... :D :D :D

they dont give you a choice: worship my gods or i'll lop yer head off :evil:

So it would be more like: atack city kill most, rape some, convert the rest... :D

A possible UU would be a longboat/galley that gives the amphibious promotion, temporarily, to units it carries... I'm not certain how possible this is, but someone else has developed forts that give promotions, in another thread.

Hm - isn't the galley a bit to late for the vikings ? Wouldn't a trireme that can cross ocean and is a bit stronger and/or faster a better sea UU for the vikings ? AFAIK galley came with the late medivial era, the viking era was already over at this time ...

Just a suggestion CivArmy, why don't you use Seafaring as a trait for the vikings. I made a mod for it, link in my sig under added traits.

First of all, I do appreciate the effort put in to making mods in the first place. However, I do have som historical facts regarding Scandinavia that I would like to share. First of all, the only time in history when there was something resembling a united Scandinavia was the Kalmar Union with Denmark as the dominant power, between 1397 and 1520, ie long after the Viking era.

Second, during the Viking era there was only the nations of Norway and Denmark, while the Swedes were only a bunch of different tribes. Sweden was however a superpower during the 17th century.

So my suggestion is to fashion the different Scandinavian nations after the eras when they were most influential and powerful (when selecting leaders and UUs), thus Denmark could be a Viking civ and/or a late medieval civ, Norway a Viking civ and Sweden as a 17th century civ. (However, Denmark and Norway were united for part of the Viking era, so they could be made into a single civ with Harold Bluetooth or Canute as leader.)

Actually, the whole term "Scandinavia" is ambiguous. Nevertheless, that doesn't have to keep somebody from making a mod out of it.

Dennis_Moore, since you are pointing out who was nations and not nations... Well, in fact there were no scandinavian nations at all during the period of 800AD to 1050AD which is the time the Vikings were Exploring and plundering. Also, from the list of towns that is meantioned in the MOD pack, I don't know if any of them existed in the Viking era. Norway become some kind of nation in 1035AD when all the kings in Norway united under "Magnus I the Kind". But at that time the Viking era was really about to end.

A few examples of Viking towns was, Birka, Sigtuna (Swea/Sweden), Oslo (Norway) & Ribe (Danmark). The biggest town from this era was Birka. The main difference between "Danish, Norwegian and Swedish" Vikings, were the way they were exploring. Danish and Norwegian vikings traveled west (Iceland, England) and south, were the swedish traveled east (Russia) and south. One famous Russian leader "Rurik" was in fact a Swedish Viking called "Helge".

Anyway, I think it's great that there is work made to get a working Viking MOD! It certainly is an important part of european history.

I think you're confusing Rurik with his brother-in-law Oleg (Helge in Old Norse) who became the ruler of Novgorod after Rurik. He wasn't really a Russian leader since Russia didn't even exist back then and his actual origin has never really been established (Although most agree that if he did exist, then he was most likely at least partially Nordic. Some speculate that he was from Jutland). In fact the whole existence of Rurik is considered somewhat legendary...

a possible UU could be a fighting missionary

I *really* like this concept, but it seems more appropriate to Templars/Crusaders/Conquistadors than Vikings.

Along the same lines, I've come to dislike the Horse Archer unit for European cultures. I'd rather see a pre-knight mounted melee unit or something (same stats, different attributes).

---

Back to the Vikings, any ability that support marauding seems viable. Amphibious, First Strike, and Ability to Retreat/reduced terrain cost strike me as valid. Negates First Strike is also reasonable, but having First Strike partially offers this benefit. I like the Axeman best as a template

If you decide upon a naval UU, there's no real evidence that there's any combat value so +1 movement and caravel abiltiy seem fine.

However, I'd consider stealth. The ability to drop 2 ordinary land units in the early game upon an unaware enemy totally captures the essence of vikings to me. That alone conjures up the "spirit of the times".

If you decide upon a naval UU, there's no real evidence that there's any combat value so +1 movement and caravel abiltiy seem fine.

However, I'd consider stealth. The ability to drop 2 ordinary land units in the early game upon an unaware enemy totally captures the essence of vikings to me. That alone conjures up the "spirit of the times".

Exactly my thoughts. Anything that can simulate fast raids is appropriate, especially when combined with landing forces only to raze and plunder. I like the idea of making cash by just going about plundering. It is a welcome tactical alternative to always go for the cities themselves.

many topics about the "Viking" history, well, I'll just rad and learn, I don't know so much about this history and will be a pleasure learn more :)

thanks for the suggestions of UUs and them powers BTW :)

Well, in fact there were no scandinavian nations at all during the period of 800AD to 1050AD which is the time the Vikings were Exploring and plundering.

Well.. My national history is a bit hazy (at best) but... Denmark "Dans Mark" means The field of Dan. Dan was according to the legend the first danish "king". As an infant, he arrived in a boat filled with treasures and grew up to become the leader of "the Danes" I have no idea when this is supposed to have been...

The first know danish king is Gorm den Gamle (Gorm the Elder) who ruled in appx. 900 AD. but according to a net-dictionary the danish-nation predates him...

Interesting discussion. As a Danish historian, I feel I should come with some facts here.

I have never heard the legend about king Dan. But the name Denmark is origined form "the field of the Danes" (Mark is the danish word for field). It was used for the first time around 900 AD, but at this time Denmark was not a country.

Gorm the Elder (officially the first Danish king) were king of Jutland (approximately half of todays Denmark). It was his son, Harald Bluetooth, who in 958 AD united Denmark.

Harald Bluetooth's son, Sven Forkbeard, gained control of Danmark, Norway and half of todays Sweden. In 1013 AD he conquered England, but died same year. His son Knud (Canute in English) the Great contolled an empire consisting of Danmark, Norway, England and half of todays Sweden. England were lost 1043 AD.

To use the name Viking for game purpose is ok, but there were never a Viking empire. It was Danish. The viking is just a name for the explorers/conquerors, who came from North Europe. And they were more explorers than conquerors.

For a mod, I think the leader should be expansive/organized (or seafaring), and the UU should be a longboat, which can cross ocean (the vikings did cross the Atlantic Ocean in longboats).

kroshnix, well I suppose the term "nation" is somewhat ambigous, just like the term "scandinavia". But enough with the Rudbeckian revisionism here, there are so many false statements in your post that I'm not even going to point them all out. I'll give you some examples though, Norway was unified in 872 by Harald Hårfager (Fairhair) and as Dane pointed out Denmark was unified in 958. So just because there was no Swedish nation, doesn't mean there was no scandinavian nation (Do I detect a hint of nationalist pride there kroshnix?).

Dane, even though I'm not Danish myself, I still agree with you that the Danes are the most qualified to represent the Vikings as a civ. They are also the scandinavians (in the wider sense), with most historical continuity as an independent nation.

i would really like to object to the idea of a "viking civilization" being purely danish. i would call it scandinavian or danish/norwegian. for example, the norwegian Eirik Blodøks, at one time ruler of Jorvik(York) was son of Harald Hårfagre (albeit with his danish queen). i would say that any viking civ should be represented by both danish and norwegians, as their role in conquest of england is completely intertwined. norwegians ruled in denmark, and danes in norway during the whole period. there is also some merit to the swedish argument, seeing as they were a major power during the 16 and 17 hundreds.

anyway, i'm currently working on a norwegian civ, to be followed by a swedish and danish civ. this to enable a truly scandinavian scenario. also i'm thinking of a purely norwegian scenario set in the 10th century with the unifying of norway under harald hårfagre as the theme. any thoughts and ideas would be most welcome.

i have to add that there are some serious misconceptions about vikings in this thread, and alot of facts that are just ridiculous. when i get the time i'll try to put together a viking/scandinavian FAQ :)

it's a great misunderstanding that the vikings were barbaric or uncivilkised. They were amazing warriors for the time, and semi-nomadic at times but wandering marauders is far from the truth.


Canute isn't a great choice. Sone of a descendent of vikings, and a pole, and after the invasion of england and the declaration at sea of his being king he ceased to be viking, but anglo saxon as he wasn't king of any viking tribe or kingdom in the truest sense, more a descendent of nobility - but he was a king of England (or as such, Angle Land)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_the_Great might help clarify this a bit.

A better option for a viking leader may be Erik the Red, Guthrum, Ivar the Boneless, Ragnar Lodbrok, Rollo, or possibly best of all Skagul Toste.

they were expansionist and mystical too, that's for sure as well as incredibly commercial. There's goods from all over the known world found in their villages including exotic seeds, materials, dyes and so on.


Other cities for them (mostly the slightly anglicised versions to avoid the need for special characters).

Major settlements in the English Danelaw
Jorvik,
Selby,
Whitby,
Grimsby,
Gainsborough,
Skipton,
Keswick,
Eastoft,
Axeholme,
Jarlshof

Minor settlements in the English and Scots Danelaw
Felthorpe,
Lound,
Sandvik
Stenhus
Ravndal
Hulgade
Kirkeby
Thurso
Wick
Sutherland
Kirkwall
Lerwick
Dingwall

Minor settlements in the Normandy Danelaw (Bear in mind it was Rollo who founded much of Normandy).
Miquetuit
Dieppedale
Nez de Jobourg


Other settlements and towns including the Civ3 pack cities

Birka
Trondheim
Bergen
Copenhagen
Reykjavik
Oslo
Stockholm
Birka
Aarhus
Stavanger
Odense
Hareid
Molde
Alesund
Bodo
Karasjok
Tromso
Vadso
Farsund
Risor
Fauske
Karistad
Batsfjord
Hammerfest
Honningsvag
Svolvaer
Haugesund
Sarpsborg
Lillehammer
Elverurn
Falun
Helsinki
Keflavik
Thunderfall



The last bit is a rather simplistic list though historically speaking, For example, Copenhagen wasn't founded by "The Vikings" - it was established by a bishop as a safe haven, and built around and traded from by norse traders and settlers. Similar is true of other names on the list, i.e. not viking settlemnts but viking names for other people's settlements and ones they annexed.


But for the purposes of the game, it'd do I suppose.



Best of luck getting the pack where you want it to be though, with or without busy-bodies like me poking their noses in :D Have fun!

i would really like to object to the idea of a "viking civilization" being purely danish. i would call it scandinavian or danish/norwegian. for example, the norwegian Eirik Blodøks, at one time ruler of Jorvik(York) was son of Harald Hårfagre (albeit with his danish queen). i would say that any viking civ should be represented by both danish and norwegians, as their role in conquest of england is completely intertwined. norwegians ruled in denmark, and danes in norway during the whole period. there is also some merit to the swedish argument, seeing as they were a major power during the 16 and 17 hundreds.

anyway, i'm currently working on a norwegian civ, to be followed by a swedish and danish civ. this to enable a truly scandinavian scenario. also i'm thinking of a purely norwegian scenario set in the 10th century with the unifying of norway under harald hårfagre as the theme. any thoughts and ideas would be most welcome.

i have to add that there are some serious misconceptions about vikings in this thread, and alot of facts that are just ridiculous. when i get the time i'll try to put together a viking/scandinavian FAQ :)


And of course not to forget the vikings of single and mixed descent who rarely went to the old homelands, and lived in exile or were born in exile. Lief Eriksson for example iirc was raised mainly in the Faroes and Iceland due to his father's (Erik the Red) 3 year exile and resulting determination to settle away from Norway, and settlement of Iceland (or Snowland as was named), and of course the subsequent moving on to Greenland undeer Lief, Greenland so named to make it sound all nice and lovely and try to encourage others to follow.

again, rather simplistic of me but hey, I'm short on time before work ;)

I totally agree that Norway paid as big as part as Danmark during the age of the Vikings. It was Norweigens, who discovered Island and Greenland. And by the time Norway became part of Denmark, the age of the Vikings were coming to its end.

don't forget their major presence across Northern Russia across to Kiev in the Ukraine, as well as mixing with the Slavik tribes all the way down to the byzantine lands.

A truly far-reaching civilisation, if not an imperical one.

the "viking age" was over long before the union between Norway and Denmark began. the kalmar union didn't come before 1397. the viking age ends with Harald Hardrådes defeat at Stanford Bridge in 1066, following which the middle ages begin, in norway at least. we operate with different definition of middle ages. whereas in the rest of europe the middle ages is said to be from ca. 500 AD onwards, in Norway they don't start until after the vikings.

though the vikings lived on in the 'new world' until the 15th century, when taking into consideration the settlements on the "wrong side" of the atlantic.

Simply not in the commonly recognised sense, but vikings none the less.

Here you go - the proof that Odin was swedish, making us the Vikingest of all civs - :worship: All mighty Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythological_kings_of_Sweden) :worship:



edit: on a more serious note: some theories, early sources of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suiones) and a bit of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Swedish_History), semi-legendary kings of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-legendary_kings_of_Sweden), runestones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Runestones) (uppland, östergötland and medelpad are swedish).

General Viking age-wikipedia links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Viking_Age).

I'm not saying that the swedish tribes were as powerful as the danish but from what I understand the Norse culture - Viking civilisation - existed in Sweden also. And I know that wikipedia isn't all true, but it's handy and provide some info on a subject where the sources are few and not always believable.

True/False? - provide links.

Maybe I have the solution, let's see: I can use the same leaderhead artwork and UU one's to create two different civis, one for Vikings and another for Denmark. I think it is just necessary change the city list and civilopedia entry for both.

what do u think?

of course, I can add the second leader too ;)

Sweden had the same culture as Danmark and Norway. So in that way they were of course part of the Vikings. And most of the vikings travelling east, were probably from the swedish areas.

I think it's a good idea to make one Viking Empire, and then seperate also for Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

I think the Viking should have to leaders, one Danish and one Norweigen. The Danish leader could be Sven Forkbeard. He were the most conquering. Could be aggressive.

The Norweigen could be Leif Erikson. But maybe someone has and better choice.

Most of the Danish cities, in the postet city list, were not even citys 1000 years ago.

Here are my suggestions to Danish viking cities.

Hedeby
Ribe
Odense
Roskilde
Lund (Danish at the time)
Viborg
Århus
Malmø (Danish at the time)

Mix those with a list of Norweigen.

I honestly don't see what the big deal over having seperate civs is. I always saw the viking civ as representing all of the scandinavian nations, and their history, kinda like england does for britain, or india for all of the various indian empires, or how Civarmy's tupi mod represents all of Brazil, or any other example. I always thought It was unnecesary to make a bunch of different civs for what basicaly amounts to the same culture(in the wider view of things). That view was developed mostly due to the hardcoded limit number of civs in CIV3, and the limited amount of space in on a world map, especially europe. I guess at least half of that view is archaic now with civ4, so I guess, the more the merrier.

as for a norwegian leader i would suggest harald hårfagre or olav kvite. harald was the first king of norway, uniting the country ca. 900 AD. olav kvite ruled a kingdom in ireland, man and south wales 852-870 AD.

here's a short list of cities in norway founded before 1700.
871: Tønsberg
997: Trondheim (Nidaros)
1000: Oslo
1000: Skien
1070: Bergen
1125: Stavanger
1624: Kongsberg
1630: Risør
1641: Kristiansand
1650: Åsgårdstrand
1657: Fredrikstad
1665: Halden
1666: Kragerø
1671: Larvik

I'm going to do the same on this Viking Civ thread, I mean, a ellection. I did the same on the Canadian civ one. People can vote once:

1) Unique Unit:
- Viking Boat:
- Berserker:
- Other? Which one?

2) Second Viking leader:
- Which one?


It doesn't have a death line, but I expect add the new soon, so, vote if u want :)

I'm going to do the same on this Viking Civ thread, I mean, a ellection. I did the same on the Canadian civ one. People can vote once:

1) Unique Unit:
- Viking Boat:
- Berserker:
- Other? Which one?

2) Second Viking leader:
- Which one?


It doesn't have a death line, but I expect add the new soon, so, vote if u want :)


Since we´re focusing on the Vikings now, and not a danish/swedish/norwegian specific civ, i´d suggest:

1) UU: A trireme with +1 move and Caravel ability to move through borders. If we´re sticking with land units I´d suggest an Axeman with city raider ability and amphibious attack from start.

2) Second leader: Check this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking for suggestions. Most of them would either be aggressive/financial or aggressive/expansionist.

May I also suggest taking Scandinavian citynames in general rather than Danish. Order them by founding year...

I still vote for Berserker. An extra move longboat simply isn't useful enough the way that Firaxis has naval units set up. Maybe if the att was upped to 3, but still....how many naval wars are fought each game by galleys or caravels?

Or you could make the naval unit the UU for one leader and the berserker the UU for the other, if possible.

How about a longboat with the ability to move through borders, while carrying troops! (wait, no... that wouldnt work, as you'd be kicked out as soon as you landed and declaired war).

How about an Axeman, with the river crossing/water landing ability by default, and less cost or an extra movement? (enabling a horde type capability or rapid quick-attacks), or does not require any metals.

I vote Ragnar Lodbrok, Eric the Red, or his son Leif Erikson

Also, for city names, ... I'd like to suggest:

Sjaelberg
Jammer
Vakker
Aekel
Nedgaa
Drage
Geaver
Angrep
Torden
Frykt
Luftig
Fugloy (fugløy)
Walkure (walküre)

I tried searching but was unable to find good lists on the oldest danish cities, so I have to reconstruct it from cities I know are more than 1000 years old (I've expanded on Dane's list):

Ribe(C)
Hedeby
Roskilde(C)
Odense(C)
Viborg
Jelling(C)
Lund (Danish at the time)
Århus (also know as Arus in the Viking age)
Malmø (Danish at the time)
Køge

Other interesting names:
Jorvik (aka York later, but danish founded)
Christiania (aka Oslo later, but danish founded)
Dublin

* The ones marked with C has been capitals at one point

Sjaelberg
Jammer
Vakker
Aekel
Nedgaa
Drage
Geaver
Angrep
Torden
Frykt
Luftig
Fugloy (fugløy)
Walkure (walküre)

:lol: Are you serious? Did you just make those up? Worst city names ever, no offense.

you think those are bad? there are 3 places in France called Silly! and 2 called Pissy!

I think there are more than enough cities to choose from when you think about it:

Birka
Hedeby
Kaupang
Skiringssal
Skara
Lund
Trondheim
Oslo
Visby
Reykjavik
Eskilstuna
Västra Aros
etc...

Then I suppose it could be possible to also use viking cities situated outside Scandinavia, such as Jorvik (York), Dublin and Cork and such.

And finally, I don't see the point with the whole "exclusively danish/norwegian" thing going on. I'd just like to have a nice viking civilization to play with, just like in Civ3. But then also without those damned misspelled city names like Karistad. Or the finnish cities too for that matter. :D

I'll wait more few days, so, I can check the result of the pools and make the alterations ;)

:lol: Are you serious? Did you just make those up? Worst city names ever, no offense.

Nah, didn't make them up. Actually its from a VERY VERY old computer game (pre-color) 'Voyage of the Valkyrie', 1980 by Leo Christopherson. MAN, those were the days! Anyway... those were the names of the Castles owned by the enemy airforce, giant birds (eagles, condors, etc.) who you would attack from your spaceship, as you flew around their foggy island, and tried to avoid running into the mountains in the mist.

A fantastic game in its day, and although the names' meanings don't exactly fit for Civ, their not harmful, and it would be a fitting tribute. :p

*shrugs and smiles*

just to clear up some misinformation here.

1. Jorvik was not founded by vikings, they merely controlled it as their capital in their small kingdom in England. It was later given to the norwegian king Eirik Blodøks by the english king Athelstan along with the rest of Nordimbraland (Northumberland). He was driven away in 941. Jorvik was later taken by William the conqueror.

2. Kristiania, or modernday Oslo, was not founded by the danish. I really don't understand where you got that from. Oslo was founded ca. 1048 by the norwegian king Harald Hardråde, but archeological findings indicate settlements here from before 1000. The city was then called Ásló or Ósló until 1624 when the danish king Christian IV changed its name to Christiania. It was changed back to Oslo in 1925. But it was NEVER founded by danish. (I got a bit annoyed by this one.)

3. Dublin was not founded by the danish either. It's first mentioned by the geographer Claudios Ptolemaios in 140 AD. It is said that St.Patrick was there in 448 and spread christianity. In 840 norwegian vikings built a fortification here, and created a small kingdom. The danes came twelve years later in 852;the next 150 years saw fighting between irish and danes/norwegians. The irish won in the end in 1014 at the battle of Clontarf.

I vote for an axeman with city raider and ambhibious bonus. The boat doesn't do it for me. Also, I think Eirik Blodøks is a great choice for a second leader. (His name means blood-axe. aggressive expansive of course.)

Nice mod :)

I miss the oldest town in Sweden Skara, which is over 1000 years.

I was also thinking on spec.units.
What bout AntiAirCraft Unit "40mm Bofors gun"?
Ok, Bofors is a Swedish company, but the Bofors gun is in armies around the world. I know that both Norway and Denmark has got it.

cheers/
niklas

The term founded is always a bit loose. Before Absolon came their was also settlements in what is now Copenhagen, they just wasn't all that important or called Copenhagen.

Christiania, which should always be spelled with royal Ch, was made the capital of Norway it is today by Christian IV (It is funny how swedish politicians tries to rename old danish cities to Kristian..., in Scania the people of Kristianstad has tried for decades to be allowed to spell their city name correctly, but have been denied it by the govenment in Stokholm)

As for Dublin, there was an important fortress there, by some name I've forgotten, but not a major city.

So when we come right down to it. No city outside the US has ever been truely settled in historic time. Who founded it is a vague term, and usually associate with whoever put the city on the map.

Nice mod :)

I miss the oldest town in Sweden Skara, which is over 1000 years.

Oh, I thought it was Birka. I've seen a lot of references to Birka together with Kaupang and Ribe.


I was also thinking on spec.units.
What bout AntiAirCraft Unit "40mm Bofors gun"?
Ok, Bofors is a Swedish company, but the Bofors gun is in armies around the world. I know that both Norway and Denmark has got it.

I don't think Denmark or Norway has it. We are the NATO countries that share most military technology with the US. In Denmark swedish equipment was sometimed used for political reasons until the 70's, but was dropped because of poor quality and most importantly, because by supporting american military production, danish companies could become subcontractors.

Ummm, the US military uses the Bofors 40mm...

Follow this link about the 40mm Bofors AA-gun:

http://www.phraya.net/articles/Bofors_40_mm_gun



About the oldest City in Sweden:

I do believe that Birka is the oldest, but it was abandon. Skara how ever was not abandon.

cheers/
niklas

It looks like Carewolfs only care around here is to claim Norway for Denmark's account while having a piss on Sweden! :D

Ragnar Lodbrok looks like the most popular leader to be added... and also change the UU for Berserker... So, I'll do that :D


Some questions:
- what sould the Ragnar bonuses and favourite civic be?
- is 2+ power a good power to Berserker?


new city list (any more suggestions for changes?):
LIMIT OF 50 NAMES ;)
Jorvik
Selby
Whitby
Grimsby
Gainsborough
Skipton
Keswick
Eastoft
Axeholme
Jarlshof
Felthorpe
Lound
Sandvik
Stenhus
Ravndal
Hulgade
Kirkeby
Thurso
Wick
Sutherland
Kirkwall
Lerwick
Dingwall
Miquetuit
Dieppedale
Nez de Jobourg
Birka
Trondheim
Bergen
Copenhagen
Reykjavik
Oslo
Stockholm
Birka
Aarhus
Stavanger
Odense
Hareid
Molde
Alesund
Bodo
Karasjok
Tromso
Vadso
Farsund
Risor
Fauske
Karistad
Batsfjord
Hammerfest

I'm not to happy with the LH. Doesn't look very "viking" and looks like he has breasts. Is it just me?

Those citynames aren´t what I´d stick with. Sorry, but they are not very representative, I think. The english ones you have in the list shouldn´t have english names, like Gainsborough. Thats not very Viking at all, even if it was founded by them. (if that was the case Constantinople is just as "right")
Same with Dieppedale and Miquetuit, those names have no connection to the Vikings today, even if they were founded by them.

Another problem is the use of both Birka and Stockholm. Sure, you can use both but then I suggest adding Göteborg as well (Gothenburg) and Malmö (Malmoe). My suggestion is to use the list from Civ3.

I vote for the Bloodaxe as the leader. No longer will the heathen Spanish she-dog dare to demand tribute from me if she is facing a name like that!

mmmm.. heathen Spanish she-dog

Ragnar Lodbrok looks like the most popular leader to be added... and also change the UU for Berserker... So, I'll do that :D


Some questions:
- what sould the Ragnar bonuses and favourite civic be?
- is 2+ power a good power to Berserker?


new city list (any more suggestions for changes?):
LIMIT OF 50 NAMES ;)
Jorvik
Selby
Whitby
Grimsby
Gainsborough
Skipton
Keswick
Eastoft
Axeholme
Jarlshof
Felthorpe
Lound
Sandvik
Stenhus
Ravndal
Hulgade
Kirkeby
Thurso
Wick
Sutherland
Kirkwall
Lerwick
Dingwall
Miquetuit
Dieppedale
Nez de Jobourg
Birka
Trondheim
Bergen
Copenhagen
Reykjavik
Oslo
Stockholm
Birka
Aarhus
Stavanger
Odense
Hareid
Molde
Alesund
Bodo
Karasjok
Tromso
Vadso
Farsund
Risor
Fauske
Karistad
Batsfjord
Hammerfest


You can remove Karasjok. Sure, it's in Norway, but it's a finnish or sami name. Not so viking in other words.
And if you could also change the misspelled "Karistad" into the correct "Karlstad" it would be even better!

heres what the scenario should be: Europe: Battle for the north.
scandinavian kingdoms arise - Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and so do tensions not only do they battle eachother but vikings (replace barbarians) are a menace. Not to mention the imposing threat from the south as Germanic hordes fight for land in the cold north.

Copenhagen shouldn't be in the list. Founded after the viking age. But the list miss the important Danish based viking cities

Hedeby
Ribe
Viborg

and the swedish based

Malmö
Lund

Have you ever checked my Missing Civilizations Database? There's a link in my signature and there's a lot of city names and other suggestions made by many Viking fans. Hope it gets useful.

I have another city list by Tunch Khan, what do u think people?

Trondheim
Birka
Hedeby
Uppsala
Ribe
Eketorp
Roskilde
Trondenes
Aarhus
Uppåkra
Sigtuna
Lindholm Høje
Skara
Visby
Tønsberg
Jelling
Lade
Helgö
Steigen
Aggersborg
Paviken
Slesvik
Odense
Reykjavik
Brattahlid
Viborg
Tunafors
Oslo
Bjørgvin
Jorvik
Nicopia
Alesund
Harstad
Örebro
Lejre
Aldeigjuborg
Nylösa
Ronneby
Westness
Jarlshof
Holmgård
Kvivik
Herjolfsnes
Lund
Askrigg
Sebbersund
Helsingborg
Nyborg
Lahammer
Tune
Seeburg
Ringerike
Fyrkat
Trelleborg
Bytoften
Brumunddal
Kramfors
Vinland
Köping
Västerås
Jomsborg
Könugård
Aker
Truso
Wolin
Aldeigjuborg
Straumfjörðr
Hóp

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8008/berserker0nc.jpg

THE BERSERKER!!111one

Freshly wrapped in wolf hide and ready for combat.

And if for some reason the skin doesn't show up -- please notify me immediately. Apparently there are two actual skin files -- but I think one of them may be unused.

The last citylist looks fine to me

It looks like Carewolfs only care around here is to claim Norway for Denmark's account while having a piss on Sweden! :D

Pissing on swedes is always fun, they are quite capable of defending themselves :D (hey, if a 500 years of war in the last 1000 years is not reason to muck eachother I don't know what is)
I am sorry about not checking up on Bofors guns, they seem quite cool. The poor quality is only a reference to fighter airplanes in the 70s that was direct reason for atleast Denmark to join the development of the F-16. If the Saab fighter back then had been of the same quality as todays seems to be, we would probably still be using Swedish fighters.
I should add here though that the swedish airforce didn't have near the same number of recorded problems with the airplanes that we did.

So, Berseker will be included in the next version, check some posts above the artwork done be Jecrell and I'll use the last city list posted... and I expect crate the artworks of the second leader this weekend :D

don't forget their major presence across Northern Russia across to Kiev in the Ukraine, as well as mixing with the Slavik tribes all the way down to the byzantine lands.

A truly far-reaching civilisation, if not an imperical one.

The Danish vikings occupied the british isles, and spread a lot of influence to the anglo/saxon world at the time. The norweigan vikings discovered island, greenland and north america. The swedish vikings, finally, travelled in their longships down the russian rivers as far down as Constantinople and Bagdhad, trading with the turkish/ottoman empire, and many even claim that they were instrumental in founding the russian nation.

In my opinion, these are all great and fairly equal accomplishments by three tribes of the same culture. History and circumstances drove us apart, but I see no reason why there could not be a viking/scandinavian civ. Look at PTW for example.

Christiania, which should always be spelled with royal Ch, was made the capital of Norway it is today by Christian IV (It is funny how swedish politicians tries to rename old danish cities to Kristian..., in Scania the people of Kristianstad has tried for decades to be allowed to spell their city name correctly, but have been denied it by the govenment in Stokholm)

Really? I didn't know that! That's really funny :lol: Haha, serves them right, that's so typical of us swedes, but then again you have to "de-danify" the region right? Man, 350 years since the Roskilde treaty and it's still not done! :rolleyes:

I think you need to make "Cult of The Cave Bear" a Religion to have Berzerkers.
So are the Anglos, Jutes, and Saxons considered Vikings as they behaved the same as Vikings proper however several hundred years earlier?

the 1st preview of King Ragnar, suggestions for changes r welcome :D

EDITED: OLD PREVIEW REMOVED

enjoy :)

I like how you have a kind of blue helmet, but it seems to be practically the only object of significant color in the picture. So maybe try a blue cape over some leather (a similar color to the beard -- so maybe some bear skin?).

I would prefer:

Civ name: Scandinavians or Norse
UU: Viking (amphibious Swordsman with +1 to combat)


(Oh, Birka isn't the oldest town of Sweden since it has been gone for a looong time. Skara still exists.)

on ragnar, i would say that his shoulders are not "wide" enough...
He's a Viking, and we all can imagine him very strong, but it only seems a little...weak (and his head look very big compared to the rest of his body)

I agree about the helmet, there is something wrong here, but i don't know what.

on ragnar, i would say that his shoulders are not "wide" enough...
He's a Viking, and we all can imagine him very strong, but it only seems a little...weak (and his head look very big compared to the rest of his body)

I agree about the helmet, there is something wrong here, but i don't know what.

I tried give Athletic style to some LHs, but they turn too big to be in front of the camera, stay strange :(
U r right about the head, it is 10% higher the model size, I did that cos some of the Firaxis LHs look like use this too, mainly Ganghi. They r a bit cartoonish.

As I said on other thread, I've founded several Internet problems today, so, I will try post the new preview of this LH today, if these problems allow me to do that...

add some braiding in his beard

Jorvik (aka York later, but danish founded)


just to be pedantic, york was roman founded and prior to that there were settlements - much like any major city of significance in the olde world, it came and went on the same location many times over under different leaderships with little or no relation other than local peoples :D


aint history a beautiful but nightmarish thing ;)

Those citynames aren´t what I´d stick with. Sorry, but they are not very representative, I think. The english ones you have in the list shouldn´t have english names, like Gainsborough. Thats not very Viking at all, even if it was founded by them. (if that was the case Constantinople is just as "right")
Same with Dieppedale and Miquetuit, those names have no connection to the Vikings today, even if they were founded by them.

Another problem is the use of both Birka and Stockholm. Sure, you can use both but then I suggest adding Göteborg as well (Gothenburg) and Malmö (Malmoe). My suggestion is to use the list from Civ3.


to be fair, as a history fan, yorkshireman, living just off the isle of axholme and surrounded by norse founded towns and settlements, I can guarantee that despite not having various accents on letters that they are indeed viking names for the places or at worst viking-ised versions due to language differences.

Some names on the list are indeed anglicised in order to make them more readily acceptable in the game and more friendly to the eye when playing so Burghs ar Boroughs (but then if we had English in the game as it was during the time of Chaucer or Shakespeare or during Regency or Victorian times it'd go from totally unrecognisable to more palatable to nearly modern. it's just how languages evolve.

If we're to be completely accurate in Civ4 then we should be making vast slashes across the whole game removing anglicisms from city names (Munich, Bombay etc) and changing scripts for various cultures to display VERY westernised names like Baghdad, and so on. :p

A point in sample - Dieppedale - in the vale or valley of dieppe, at the end of which is now founded dieppe and not far from rouen, the ancient city of french kings. dieppedale came before dieppe though. the name was repeated in England as Deepdale. There are no other local civilisations or cultures that generated similar names in either area.
In fact you can almost immediately identify a viking settlement in the old Danelaw purely by the name.
some are so specific it's unreal. As a rule of thumb, if it ends "by" or "thorpe" then it's viking, and then there's so many more.
I purposely left out the Grimston hybrids to make sure it was less controversial ;) .
They're not exclusive rules and of course there's more traditional names seen but to exclude Gainsborough because it doesn't sound much like Trondheim or Oslo is a false reckoning. Caerdyff (Cardiff) sounds nothing like Llantrisant, but both are Welsh. Always bear in mind that in the areas on the fringes of a civilisations' influence there will be a less traditional sounding name too, in order to assimmilate with the local population. The occurence of burgs and bourgs on the franco-german border is a good demonstration of this - but local identities would have been fiercely different at times, while eerily similar to outsiders.



What I WOULD say in agreement though is that the placing of them near the top of the list is wrong since they came several hundred years into the Viking story, around 60% through their story, though some are significant enough in merit or significance to be up amongst the more recognisable nordic settlements. For example, Jorvik and Whitby. :)

Taking the point of Gainsborough, it was differently named as the Burh of Gaini, and simply a fortification for the local ruling elite to live and do leader-like things. The vikings took over a nearby site 5 miles away called Torksey which was a regular town, then the fortification of the gaini followed quickly culturally not militarily.
the official rulers and kings continued to fortify it further as invasions went on elsewhere northward and despite being a point for defence it was so Danish and had been for 100 years that there was never a fight when the 'invasion' came, and it was already renamed in the viking dialect to Gainsborough.


(in more detail - Gainsborough is actually believe it or not the "viking-ised" version of the place's name, since the nordic 'guests' were unable to pronounce the full name of the burh of the gaini - or fortification of the gaini, a local tribe who'd built up the site under the Mercians (most place names were simply based on the local tribe under a regional king or warlord at the time). In fact the old castle where the church is now was one of Offa's most significant fortifications (offa is the fellow who had a huge dyke built between england and wales as a defensive barrier).
It was Britain's most inland port and although smaller than Torksey, a little further upstream was the more significant site, since it was the major fortification that had to be passed to reach the towns further up. It was around 790ish that Gainsborough was actually sailed past by the vikings, and Torksey was taken over then subsequently Gainsborough was annexed - because it was too heavily fortified to have been the initial point of attack.
The area became almost exclusively Danish and a heck of an important town and so danish in fact that when the main 'invasions' of around 865 were taking place, Gainsborough was left untouched since it was already sympathetic.
It was a significant fortification too with Alfred, who met and married his wife there, Elswitha Muchel, who was the daughter of the earl of the gaini - a significant political move since she was to all intents and purposes a Danish citizen although born and bred in the fortified settlement (still not really a town).
Its significance in Viking history in England became major at around this time when it ceased to be an annexed fortification with the local ruler housed there, and developed into a town, a trading post, and centre for local and international commerce too, since it was the norse stronghold to which Guthrum retreated after the treaty of Wedmore, following his defeat to Alfred at Edington in Somerset. Alfred the Great effectively gave an astounding peace settlement despite being in a position to crush the norse enemy at the time, and 'signed' peace terms with Guthrum the Dane, and effectively gave half of England away from the thames to the tees, to become the Danelaw on the agreement that Guthrum be baptised - and was the 2nd settlement of significance on English soil and the premier site within Danelaw because of it being so strong, so locally influential and the most inland point they could sail to and bring their trade through)



in short, don't discount a place name as a seriously major name in Viking history and worth a place in the game, because it would look out of place in a map of northern Denmark :D.

hmmm, when all said and done and considered, maybe the game needs a mod-pack to "evolve" civilisations then, and when key advances are discovered, treaties made or cities taken a civilisation should completely change, so English becomes British, Viking becomes Danish, Roman becomes Italian, Gauls become French, Mongols become the Khanate Chinese, American settlers become Americans then Hillbillies/Rednecks ;) :D

That way we can satisfy the theme-minded, the historical minded, the culturally minded and the game-minded :lol:

heres what the scenario should be: Europe: Battle for the north.
scandinavian kingdoms arise - Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and so do tensions not only do they battle eachother but vikings (replace barbarians) are a menace. Not to mention the imposing threat from the south as Germanic hordes fight for land in the cold north.

Would you include the germanic hordes as AI barbarians or playables?

and what about the north western lands of England and Scotland to go along with them, significant sources of wealth for the Vikings.

There'd need to be the introduction of Offah, Alfred, Aethelred and various other kings od wessex/mercia/anglia or a semi-fictional united 'english' to either battle with, culturally invade, or tie up with politically.


has huge scope on an enormous map to take in the whole viking era.

LH ideas - since you're adding realism but recognising the more cartoony aspects of some like the Egyptians, why not allow some of one to bleed into the other and accept a little artistic license?

A couple of broad vertical red stripes on the sail, for example, or a design in black?

Using a norse war helm on the LH that covers the eye area like a carnival mask (see the cover of "the viking art of war") would allow some area for fancy engraved design-work to reflect the shoulder pieces?


It's good as it is, but might need a splash of colour.

Are you going to change their UU from a ship to amphibious warrior? I think the way it wa done in CIV3 captures the right feel.

ya the scenario should totally include the british isles arent they considered northern europe anyway?as for the germanic hordes, i don't know, vikings would replace barbarians.... maybe 2 barbarian types, difined by their own uu. any suggestions, i would love to get his scenario up and running. input people input.

should include the germanic tribes as the beginnings of the holy roman empire, maybe...? not entirely historically accurate but a vital piece of the viking jigsaw-puzzle later on.

New preview:

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/5323/ragnar410x5120pk.png


And yes, the new UU is Berserker replacing Axeman with Amphibious Power :)

that's better!!!

for the UU, just amphibious promotion seems to be a little "light", add him another promotion (maybe city raider I)

that's better!!!

for the UU, just amphibious promotion seems to be a little "light", add him another promotion (maybe city raider I)

amphibious promotion + 1 more power point.

he really needs braids in his beard maybe a few small animal skulls too

he really needs braids in his beard maybe a few small animal skulls too


I'll try to do that, but I'm pretty sure I won't able to do that :cry: (missing free props for that).

I'll try to release the new version of this civ this weekend :D

And? When do you start making animated LH's for your new civ(s)? ;)

Btw, perhaps the skin in the link is usefull for the viking civ?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146645

And? When do you start making animated LH's for your new civ(s)? ;)

Btw, perhaps the skin in the link is usefull for the viking civ?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146645

I don't know, I'm waiting for the Civ4 *.NIF importer/exporter/editor . I expect use all these static models to create the future animated LHs.


-----------------------------

ON POST NUMER 01: THE NEW VERSION IS READY, WITH 2ND LEADERHEAD, BERSERKER AS UU, NEW CITY LIST...
enjoy :D

great work!

Very well done, CivArmy.

The flag you use is very pretty but have quite low contrast.

If you want to you can use the Gunfani (raven) banner I made for Freeciv. Attached to this post in two versions. It might need some remixing to work as a Civ4 vertical banner, but the results could be really nice loooking. :)

I played my last two (half) games with this civ, nice work civarmy.

It's true that "Viking" is a bad term, comparable with calling the Americans "cowboys". Use the term "Norsemen" instead.

The Berserker is a good unit choice, but it should have Woodsman I, so that it gets useful on inland maps too. Moreover, it should replace Maceman, to fit the chronology better.

"it should replace Maceman, to fit the chronology better."

I agree.

nice. Maybe the longship can be added as a UU, alongside the beserker, even if the unit has no bonus stats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longship)

I like an earlier UU suggestion to apply the amphibious attack capability to the ship. Maybe a longboat - replacing the galley - that give amphibious attack benefits to any unit attacking from it, along with +1 movement, and the ability to cross ocean squares. Those are significant upgrades.

I know that to suggest something other than a berzerker is going to be met with scorn, and make no mistake...I loved the berzerker in Civ 3. But the longboat seems to me to be a fair improvment, but not too overpowered. The Civ IV UUs don't seem to be that much more powerful than the units they replace (with a few exceptions).

thanks for enjoying the civ!!! :D

the UU case and the civ name case were debated weeks/mounths ago ;)

Where do I put these files so that it works?

I readme would have been an idea :goodjob:

thanks for enjoying the civ!!! :D

the UU case and the civ name case were debated weeks/mounths ago ;)We know it was debated earlier, but there isn't any good reason why not to do the distinct and unique longship, except that you don't want to. If that's the case, fine. But as you stated, the longship is an "easy change"*, so why not?

If you ever want to proceed and inlcude the longship, think about giving it the ability to cross ocean, albeit at a speed of 1. It's base movement or strength could be increased instead/also.

Oh, why did I choice Viking Boat as UU: cos it just uses texture works and it was "easy" change the Galley texture for create my Viking UU, create the Berserker would be harder. But if someone was able to create it I could add it on this civ, or make a poll to choice what UU Vikings should have. And off course, I can change easily the power of my Viking Boat if most people agree with it *

I can't recall why, but I couldn't get the civ to work.

Just a note about the leaders. King Canute wasn't actually Viking, he was Danish and he ruled England. He was also king at a very different time period to the Vikings. So I don't think he should be used. Instead could I suggest Erik the Red, or Leif Eriksson?

Where do I put these files so that it works?

I readme would have been an idea :goodjob:

I must add a read me with instruction how to do the civ works, its a good idea :D Many people have asked how it works on these boarders, e-mails, PMs...

Just a note about the leaders. King Canute wasn't actually Viking, he was Danish and he ruled England. He was also king at a very different time period to the Vikings. So I don't think he should be used. Instead could I suggest Erik the Red, or Leif Eriksson?

...So. Does my suggestion have merit?

...So. Does my suggestion have merit?

No, not really.

Knud (Canute) was danish king during the viking age and is therefore suitable. The others you mentioned were outcasts and never leaders.

Ofcourse since vikings was the nordic word for outcasts you could argue that so should the leaders of a viking civ, but you just getting into more and more fantasy.

Oh please, if you're going to go by that logic, why don't we just use William the Conqueror? He's Norman, and Normans are descendants of the Vikings gone Christian. Erik the Red did things, His son discovered America, what did Canute do? Drown himself trying to get the tide to do his bidding.
:rotfl:
I love that story :)

The term viking is really ok to use. Its not a name for a nation but its widely used as a term for the scandinavian culture from about 700 - 1050 ad.
This time period is called "the viking era" or "-age". Politically scandinavia was divided into numerous tiny kingdoms, almost every chieftain was called "king". Only at the very end of the viking era there was formed something which could be called an empire. But by then the distinct nations of scandinavia had already formed, the Danish being the largest. The details of that empire under "Canute the great" or as he is called in danish "Knud den Store" has lready been pointed out earlier in this thread.

There`sa lot of misinformation about the Vikings, Norsemen and Scandinavians. even most of the stuff I learned at scool here in Norway has showed up to be myths or plain misinformation. They shure didn`t wear Celtic helmets (w.horns) and was not just local pirates located around the North sea. They dominated Europe for centuryes, with territory from Moscov to Rome. (Russian means "blonde" btw.)They also had "ten cityes"in Africa astrade-stations. When I see Civ.IV w.out any Norsemen I..:rolleyes:
Theyr leaders were well known by the Romans, Cesar used Vikings
as life-guards, his elite-soldiers were trained by Vikings, known for unmatched performance, exspecially unarmed. The island Cicily is named after a Viking-kings daughter, and was ruled by Vikings for cenurys. They also were known as fearful fighters as late as the year of 1400; see "Valdemar Sejr" - tale about famous Danish king. When he sometimes couldn`t handle the larger German army he called for the wild Norwegians. And when/if they arrived, the Germans just run fortheyr lives.

And Viking cityes? Viken, Tunsberg, Hamar, Bjørgvin, Nidaros, Tvedestrand, Kaupang, Farsund, Langesund, Seljord and Nordagutu are good old Viking cityes. The king should definetly be Harald Haarfagre, the one that wouldn`t cut hishair until Norway was under one king. He was known for his beautiful long hair..:lol:

Btw; Sweden (Svearige) was founded by Vikings that were sendt away because of shoving covardness in fight, cold hard facts:eek: :mischief:

But beside all this I`m looking forwardto uppgrade my Civ.III:king:

There`sa lot of misinformation about the Vikings, Norsemen and Scandinavians. even most of the stuff I learned at scool here in Norway has showed up to be myths or plain misinformation.

Your post definitely has a lot of misinformation as well.

They dominated Europe for centuryes, with territory from Moscov to Rome. (Russian means "blonde" btw.)They also had "ten cityes"in Africa astrade-stations. When I see Civ.IV w.out any Norsemen I..:rolleyes:
Theyr leaders were well known by the Romans, Cesar used Vikings
as life-guards, his elite-soldiers were trained by Vikings, known for unmatched performance, exspecially unarmed.

The Viking era took place several centuries after Caesar died. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Vikings had or founded cities in neither Africa or stretched their territory to Rome. However, the general belief does seem to indicate that they indeed did explore these areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vikings-Voyages.png

I can't get this mod to work, i extracted the files to the custom assets file in Civ 4, but when i load up the game, nothing happens. Somebody please help!! What do I do to get this to work?!

There`sa lot of misinformation about the Vikings, Norsemen and Scandinavians. even most of the stuff I learned at scool here in Norway has showed up to be myths or plain misinformation. They shure didn`t wear Celtic helmets (w.horns) and was not just local pirates located around the North sea. They dominated Europe for centuryes, with territory from Moscov to Rome. (Russian means "blonde" btw.)They also had "ten cityes"in Africa astrade-stations. When I see Civ.IV w.out any Norsemen I..:rolleyes:
Theyr leaders were well known by the Romans, Cesar used Vikings
as life-guards, his elite-soldiers were trained by Vikings, known for unmatched performance, exspecially unarmed. The island Cicily is named after a Viking-kings daughter, and was ruled by Vikings for cenurys. They also were known as fearful fighters as late as the year of 1400; see "Valdemar Sejr" - tale about famous Danish king. When he sometimes couldn`t handle the larger German army he called for the wild Norwegians. And when/if they arrived, the Germans just run fortheyr lives.

And Viking cityes? Viken, Tunsberg, Hamar, Bjørgvin, Nidaros, Tvedestrand, Kaupang, Farsund, Langesund, Seljord and Nordagutu are good old Viking cityes. The king should definetly be Harald Haarfagre, the one that wouldn`t cut hishair until Norway was under one king. He was known for his beautiful long hair..:lol:

Btw; Sweden (Svearige) was founded by Vikings that were sendt away because of shoving covardness in fight, cold hard facts:eek: :mischief:

But beside all this I`m looking forwardto uppgrade my Civ.III:king:

Oh my god... Talking about misinformation. This is probably the best example one can find! Too much for me to find the energy to comment on.

There`sa lot of misinformation about the Vikings, Norsemen and Scandinavians. even most of the stuff I learned at scool here in Norway has showed up to be myths or plain misinformation. They shure didn`t wear Celtic helmets (w.horns) and was not just local pirates located around the North sea. They dominated Europe for centuryes, with territory from Moscov to Rome. (Russian means "blonde" btw.)They also had "ten cityes"in Africa astrade-stations. When I see Civ.IV w.out any Norsemen I..:rolleyes:
Theyr leaders were well known by the Romans, Cesar used Vikings
as life-guards, his elite-soldiers were trained by Vikings, known for unmatched performance, exspecially unarmed. The island Cicily is named after a Viking-kings daughter, and was ruled by Vikings for cenurys. They also were known as fearful fighters as late as the year of 1400; see "Valdemar Sejr" - tale about famous Danish king. When he sometimes couldn`t handle the larger German army he called for the wild Norwegians. And when/if they arrived, the Germans just run fortheyr lives.

And Viking cityes? Viken, Tunsberg, Hamar, Bjørgvin, Nidaros, Tvedestrand, Kaupang, Farsund, Langesund, Seljord and Nordagutu are good old Viking cityes. The king should definetly be Harald Haarfagre, the one that wouldn`t cut hishair until Norway was under one king. He was known for his beautiful long hair..:lol:

Btw; Sweden (Svearige) was founded by Vikings that were sendt away because of shoving covardness in fight, cold hard facts:eek: :mischief:

But beside all this I`m looking forwardto uppgrade my Civ.III:king:



There's hardly even a single word of truth in above statement.
...i'm not gonna mention the spelling.
What's wrong with you?

My viking flag is white....

http://web.telia.com/~u33117345/Vit.JPG

In regards to Unique Units:

The berserker axeman is a natural for amphibious assult promotion it would seem, but not very historically correct and a bit upsetting to the game, I think. Sure, they sailed off and the longboats were easy to beach \ unbeach, but that was basically it. An amphibious assult entails carrying equipment for defeating obstacles in the landing area, and in those days, such obstacles rarely, if ever, existed. Natural obstacles in the landing area is another thing, but the longboats were not equpiied to handle anything of that sort either. Amphibious berserkers are thus not historical. The berserkars are a bit of a mythical creature in the history of the norsemen, but were said to be individuals who were clad in bear-skin in lieu of armor and drank mead with poisonous\hallusinogenic mushrooms in it before they went into battle. These and many other stories are attached to them, few of these stories are more than just that, stories. But for unique unit, I an hard pressed to come up with a better idea myself, so here is my dream berserker:

Axeman +1 (6) strength
Immune to first strikes (they would rush in and not hang about waiting to be shot up)
+ 50 % strength vs. spearmen\pikemen (chopping through the spears with reckless abandon)
-10 to 30 HP (they were said to not wear armor)
+25% city attack on cities without city walls (the vikings did not give a s**t about foreign cultures)


The longboats. They were fast, the norse sailors were brave and skilled and were thus able to cross the North Atlantic to America before anyone else in documented history. The longboat UU, if portrayd as it should be, would ensure that picking vikings give you the circumnavigation bonus automatically. It would be fun to give the longboats the ability to sail up a river and unload amphibious berserker units, and it would also be historically accurate, the swedish vikings had loads of fun in russia in this manner. I think that the longboat might be over-powered by it's mere existence if given the proper specs. The viking "civ" as it was, was neithr strong enough or motivated enough to exploit the huge edge these vessels might have gained them. So, they are not fit to be in the game.

Russian meant land of the Rus, or land ruled by the Rus. Rus was the "russian" word for viking, not blonde. The orignal Czars were swedes.
Ceaser did not use Vikings, but they were used in Constantinople quite a few years later. There is still viking graffiti carved into the backs of several ancient churches and such were they stationed them. They were refered to as the Varangian guard.
I've no idea who or what Sicily was named after, but it was not ruled by Vikings, but their decendents the Normans. Normans were vikings that were granted the very large western dutchy of "france" by the King of the Franks in exchange for not attacking them any more and swearing loyalty to him. By the time they got around to conquering the southern parts of Italy they were hardly vikings any more. They certainly were viking decendents, cousins if you wish.
The Norwegians were typically the largest of the Vikings, which was helpful since they were also the least numerous. But I know of nothing to suggest that the Germans ran from any Norwegians in the employ of Valdemar.
And while the Swedish actions during WW2 were shameful, there is nothing to suggest that they were founded by "Norwegian rejects". I rather suspect it would have gone the other way (not that there is any truth to that either), but in general the swedish lands are easier and the Norwegians ones more rugged.... Why would the easier lands be considered 2nd best? Yes I know Norway has a slightly milder winter if you happen to live on the coast. I also know Norway has a little better fishing. But since both nations can trace habitation back 1000's of years, I think it safe to say that neither one was 2nd choice to the other. I think it is fairly clear that all the scandinavian people are closely related. I don't know the current social-anthropological theory, but I'd bet they all came as a single tribe or series of tribes from a common location. Consider that even today Dane's Swedes and Norwegians look very similar far more alike then different.

Ragnar's looking nice. I'm DLing this as I type.

A "historical fact" is a guess, not yet proved wrong! But in this thread there are some of the worst abuses of "historical facts" that I have ever seen!:spank: We all have to be more careful with our statements.
Having said this, here are mine...:mischief: There are a lot of names for different germanic tribes and subtribes. Sometimes they merge under one (new or old) name, and sometimes there are several names for the same tribe. These names seems to have to do with were they lived, but sometimes small cultural differences can be noticed. During late iron age (wich includes the viking age in some countries) I have found five names for major tribes in what is now Den/Nor/Swe (please fill in if I have missed any). Danes, Jutes, Swedes, Geats (Götar), and northmen (norweigans). There were several small kingdoms and even more chiefdoms, but three major kingdoms formed during this era. The borders between these kingdoms shifted constantly and sometimes one king ruled over more than one of them. The struggle for power was personal and not so much a fight between different nations. In my opinion, there was (and is) less differences between scandinavians than it is between some german provinces, and definitly among the people on the british isles (Welshmen, Englishmen, Scots and Irishmen. In conclusion; calling the Civ Scandinavian is not only practical but also somewhat historical accurate.:thumbsup:
A Scandinavian UU (if not any of the different boats) could be the viking:viking: , an amphibious, fast and strong cityattacker.
The meaning of the word viking is debated. I have studied this at the university, and most people agree that it's connected to the word vig, wich means fight or battle. (The rune for K and G is the same during the viking age). Viking would then simply mean fighter or warrior.

About the citylist. Uppsala was "founded" around the year 0, the king of Uppsala ruled over all the other Swedish (and later also Geatish) kings and chiefs. It was also the place for the great golden temple with statues of Odin, Thor and Frey, later replaced with the doomchurch and the archbishopry. Somewhere at the top of the list I would say...:thanx:

wow this idea rocks :p

What music site do you go to get that song for the diplomancy screen? I love that celtic-like song.

In regards to Unique Units:

The berserker axeman is a natural for amphibious assult promotion it would seem, but not very historically correct and a bit upsetting to the game, I think. Sure, they sailed off and the longboats were easy to beach \ unbeach, but that was basically it. An amphibious assult entails carrying equipment for defeating obstacles in the landing area, and in those days, such obstacles rarely, if ever, existed. Natural obstacles in the landing area is another thing, but the longboats were not equpiied to handle anything of that sort either. Amphibious berserkers are thus not historical. The berserkars are a bit of a mythical creature in the history of the norsemen, but were said to be individuals who were clad in bear-skin in lieu of armor and drank mead with poisonous\hallusinogenic mushrooms in it before they went into battle. These and many other stories are attached to them, few of these stories are more than just that, stories. But for unique unit, I an hard pressed to come up with a better idea myself, so here is my dream berserker:

Axeman +1 (6) strength
Immune to first strikes (they would rush in and not hang about waiting to be shot up)
+ 50 % strength vs. spearmen\pikemen (chopping through the spears with reckless abandon)
-10 to 30 HP (they were said to not wear armor)
+25% city attack on cities without city walls (the vikings did not give a s**t about foreign cultures)


The longboats. They were fast, the norse sailors were brave and skilled and were thus able to cross the North Atlantic to America before anyone else in documented history. The longboat UU, if portrayd as it should be, would ensure that picking vikings give you the circumnavigation bonus automatically. It would be fun to give the longboats the ability to sail up a river and unload amphibious berserker units, and it would also be historically accurate, the swedish vikings had loads of fun in russia in this manner. I think that the longboat might be over-powered by it's mere existence if given the proper specs. The viking "civ" as it was, was neithr strong enough or motivated enough to exploit the huge edge these vessels might have gained them. So, they are not fit to be in the game.


There is strong documentary evidence to suggest Berserkr did exist, but as more of a mystical class of fighter, sort of like an Odhinn-worshipping "Knight Templar", secret society type of order. Hallucinogenics, ritual, and rigorous traditional training would make these fighters akin to Samurai in some aspects. And similar to some of their analogous warrior-monks in other cultures, some cities had a bit of a problem with their presence and actually outlawed them. I think it would be exceedingly unrealistic to have a scenario where "Vikings" have gigantic stacks of Berserkr. Their presence would normally be about 20 in an army of about 2000.

Longboats that could navigate rivers and open ocean would be a more realistic UU, because those were ubiquitous throughout the Nordic world, and a king wasn't a king without a FLEET. Even a jarl wasn't considered worth much if he didn't have longboats. In military parlance, when making war plans, military strength was given in terms of how many ships a jarl could field, rather than how many men. That should give an idea of the significance the longboat had for "Viking" wars and warriors.

I think the way to portray Nordic prowess with axe-fighting or melee fighting in general is to make all the leaders *aggressive* so they get the +1 promotion and quickly build barracks, rather than invent a "Berserkr" unit which ends up more prevalent in the game than it ever was in real life.

On the subject of the Rus, Rus comes from the Finnish name for Sweden, Ruotsi. The name Ruosti, it is argued, arose from roosmenn, men of the rowing-way, the people of today's Roslagen, the Rowing-Law, the coastal area of Swedish Uppland. Those were the people known to the Finnish, whether the Vikings came from Denmark, Sweden or Norway. As the Swedes extended their vikingr raids from the Baltic southward to Slavic lands, the Slavs increasingly heard tales of them via Baltic peoples who generally used a common permutation of the Finnish term: Rus.

On the subject of the Rus, Rus comes from the Finnish name for Sweden, Ruotsi. The name Ruosti, it is argued, arose from roosmenn, men of the rowing-way, the people of today's Roslagen, the Rowing-Law, the coastal area of Swedish Uppland. Those were the people known to the Finnish, whether the Vikings came from Denmark, Sweden or Norway. As the Swedes extended their vikingr raids from the Baltic southward to Slavic lands, the Slavs increasingly heard tales of them via Baltic peoples who generally used a common permutation of the Finnish term: Rus.
:goodjob:This is all very accurate, especially the fact that it's a subject of great debate. Personally I strongly argue against the suggestion that the Finnish word Ruotsi (Estonian Rootsi) comes from the name of the area Roslagen. Rodhzlagen (old Swedish spelling) is mentioned in writing for the first time in the1400s. Rodhen is mentioned in the 1200s. Contact between Swedes and the Baltics and Finns must have been made at least a thousand years earlier, maybe more. At that time the area of modern Roslagen was largely under water (ie:didn't exist). The names Roslagen and Roden derives from the word for rowing (just as you said) and that word could very well be what influenced the Finns when nameing the Swedes, especially considering the fact that scandinavians belonged to a seafaring culture, while the Finnish people belong to a typical forrest-culture. If anyone would like to do some research on this issue, I would suggest that you start by asking a finnish linguist if the word Ruotsi derives from a foreign word or if its a finno-ugric word. It could mean something completely different... :confused:

The struggle for power was personal and not so much a fight between different nations. In my opinion, there was (and is) less differences between scandinavians than it is between some german provinces, and definitly among the people on the british isles (Welshmen, Englishmen, Scots and Irishmen. In conclusion; calling the Civ Scandinavian is not only practical but also somewhat historical accurate.:thumbsup:


This is normally the case of medieval war, but it's slightly different in Scandinavia. There are many tales from the Viking age where swedes and danes meet somewhere in Europe and doing battle. It is even more pronounced in old Norwegian tales, that all claim danes and swedes to be weak cowards. The story about swedes being Norwegian outcasts is actually a typical Norwegian folktale from the viking-age. So while the peasants and fishers probably didn't care who ruled them, there was certainly a level of nationalism among warriors and story-tellers.

I haven't found any evidence that suggests that Swedes, Danes and Norwegians fought each other just because they were Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. A warrior would pledge allegiance to the one lord that best could provide him with what he needed (money, power, fame, glory etc), and the lord and his hird would certainly go to war against other Scandinavian chieftains or kings to increase their power. The rest of the people (95% of the population?) wouldn't move around, but could instead overthrow any ruler that didn't provide them with what they needed (protection, religious practice etc).

The entire iron age seems to me like a long process towards unification of Scandinavia, a project that eventually succeded in the middle-ages with the Kalmarunion.

"We're so good, and they're so bad"-stories are to be found just about everywhere and on all levels. I bet you, being from Copenhagen, have a few about the provincial people of Jutland.:lol: