View Full Version : New Civ - Vikings!!!
Nov 14, 2001, 12:47 PM
I've added in the Viking civilization in a mod. The Vikings get the Longboat (2-1-4). The Vikings are militaristic and commercial and therefore start off with Warrior Code and the Alphabet (more information in included readme file).
I've also edited the civilopedia to add the Viking and Longboat entries.
Note that I've added the Vikings to the game - I didn't replace any other civ.
Nov 14, 2001, 01:07 PM
crashes on the foreign advisor screen. That's the problem with adding a civ, rather than replacing one.
well thought out mod though, just replace a civ. everybody loves the vikings.
also, when renaming or adding a unit, the folder with that units name must be in art/units.
create a folder called longboat in art/units and copy all the galley files there, then rename /art/units/longboat/galley.ini to longboat.ini and you're home free.
then it'll work.
Nov 14, 2001, 02:25 PM
i´m thinking about making a viking mod that will quit different. the vikinkings won´t be able to create chariots, horsemen nor knights, but will have some powerfull swordsmen and another unit foot unit instead of the horse based units. unfortunatly that would mean that i must add units, which seems to be hard to do.
Nov 14, 2001, 02:30 PM
Man, I took a long time making that mod! Anyway, if anybody can fix it, download it, fix it and make it available for download. You can do whatever you want to my mod, just mention my name somewhere in the credits list.
Nov 16, 2001, 05:20 PM
I liked the idea to use the longship as the civ-specific unit and not the berserker as I expected.
On animepornstars post:
The vikings used horses, maybe not the chariot but they used horses. But I still agree that they should have some swordman bonus, but maybe this is allready included in the bonus that a miletarisic civ have a greater chance of becoming veteran...
Nov 16, 2001, 06:06 PM
I moved this thread to the main creation forum since this modpack is not complete. :p
Nov 19, 2001, 12:59 AM
hell yeah. i was ready to get a refund on the game when i found out it didnt have vikings!
yeah i was thinking making a viking civ, and was also thinking commercial and militaristic, but was having problems thinking about whether a longship or berserker would be the special unit
anyway, yeah im gonna d/l and play with this...
too bad foreign screen crashes out - will this be fixed in a patch? cuz alot of people are making new civs to be added - which is good cuz i think thats one place where civ3 fell short on
Desk With Ants
Nov 19, 2001, 04:05 AM
Hmm... Viking civilization? That's a bit like having a American pioneer civilization or a communist China civ. It focuses too much on one single period (just the 9:th-12:th century really, and that's rather liberal as well), and what's more, just one single activity of that period.
The people of Scandinavia in the 11:th century hardly considered themselves the Viking people. Going on a viking trip was something you did, rather than something you were.
The appropriate name for the civ should really be Scandinavian, shouldn't it?
And Militaristic doesn't seem really right, does it, neither for Vikings or Scandinavians? Expansionist seems like a better choice, and maybe Commercial or Industrious to go with that.
Longboats is a good special army. A workable alternative would be the dragoon cavalry of the Thirty Year's War of the 17:th and 18:th century.
Hmm... Maybe I should do this? I'll have to learn how to use the editor though...
Nov 19, 2001, 11:08 AM
to Desk With Ants:
the viking period lasted from around 700-1100 AD so you might say its a singleperiod civ...But aren't most of the civs in Civilization? Americans 1500+? Romans 400BC-500AD? English 1066+?
The nordic people never considered themselves vikings, single persons might have...a viking i a person who goes on viking raid som infact maybe the civ should be called norse...but i'll perfer Vikings
I believe the vikings should be militaristic...Most of their life was based on it...Every free man had to carry a weapon with him. if you had a problem with another man you could challange him to a duel (holmgang) to settle it. You even had some warriors calling themselfs Berserkers who were alllowed to take everything a man had if he din't dare to face the Berserker in combat..:goodjob:
If they should be comercial or expansionist i find harder to choose...on one hand they did trade alot...but they also settled in many other continents..England...Island...Greenland...America ...
personally I would prefer expansionist
The Longboat should be the special unit, as the golden age is during that period. So the dragonn will have to be represented by cavalry :(
Nov 20, 2001, 03:33 PM
yeah, the vikings are too specific :rolleyes:
what about the babylonians? one city-state empire during a period and region of many diverse ethnic groups; with that already in the game i dont see why vikings (or norsemen) - whose cultural legacy is a part of much of europe shouldnt be in as well.
as far as their characteristics, commercial would have to be in there - trading was the most important thing; a misconception was that vikings did nothing but raid and fight - most of the time they were looking for goods to trade (and money - norsemen were even hired as guards in constantinople), if they werent humble valley farmers.
yeah though the labeling, 'viking' is pretty specific - but like said its jsut as good as 'norse' or 'scandinavian'
oh btw civ3 doesnt load up when i have your civilopedia in place; but it works ok with the default
Nov 20, 2001, 04:21 PM
I did say it's hard to choose between those two. But even though the vikings traded alot you can not hide the fact that they were militaristic...So in my humble opinion this one is safe.
On the subject of the second civ ability:
The vikings traded alot.
They established trading colonies all over europe.
The cities (i don't know the english names but) Hedeby, Kaupang and Sveagard were all imortaint trading cities, but neither existed after 1000AD
The vikings colonized Iceland, England, Greenland, all the islands in the north sea.
They had significant trading colonies all over europe.
But you should not only look at the words when it comes to Civ Ability whats the effect?
Com: less corruption, extra comerce in Citycenter
Exp: Free scout, Better stuff from barbaian villages.
In my opinion Comercial actually looks most suited. A free scout seem a bit out of character and that extra trade and less could encourage people to build trading colonies even far abroad...
:king: <-----But who shall be the leader/great generals?
Nov 20, 2001, 05:33 PM
Don't forget - the Vikings also landed in mainland North America long before any other Europeans...remember Leif Erikkson et al?
Nov 21, 2001, 04:24 AM
Called myself Desk With Ants a few posts ago, but I can't seem to get that account working again (well cover me in flour and call me a lamer :-).
I still don't get the militaristic part, even if we focus on the Viking era.
By Bjorn Bjronsson:
But you should not only look at the words when it comes to Civ Ability whats the effect?
Exactly! Militaristic gives a bonus to building barracks and gaining military experience, implying that a militaristic society has a willingness to support a large standing army and organizing it well.
The vikings weren't exactly notorious for either of these things. No standing army to speak of and not very organized at all.
By Gorduz Backstabber:
Every free man had to carry a weapon with him. if you had a problem with another man you could challange him to a duel (holmgang) to settle it. You even had some warriors calling themselfs Berserkers who were alllowed to take everything a man had if he din't dare to face the Berserker in combat
I'm not a historian or anthropologist by any means, so I may be wrong, but these things are quite common in early societies, aren't they? No distinction between soldier and civilian (I don't think the Greek made this distinction, for example), trial by combat (the holmgång) and chewing on mushrooms to be a bit less afraid and more violent when you go into combat.
Well, perhaps the mushroom part, but you get my drift...
Violent? Yes. Militaristic? No
I'd go with commercial and expansionist, if I was you. But, apparently, I'm not. So I'll just advice you instead. :-)
Looking forward to your finished civilization in any case. Good luck!
Nov 21, 2001, 08:42 AM
Congratulations on the creation of a civ i was unhappy to see gone.
I will utilise it when it is fixed.
The problem when looking at the vikings is you forget the lgacy they left. They were the Normans that conqured England, they created the basis of Russia, Explored more of the globe than you would have thought possible at the time. I assume thats common knowledge BUT what is problematic is that a lot of propaganda was put about by monks and other contemperies of France and England saying they were barbarians. In actual fact the vikings had the closest thing to democracy operating in europe back home and the only culture that included women.
In conclusion the viking were obviously commercial but expansionist rather than militaristic.
Nov 21, 2001, 09:03 AM
I do not agree that the vikings should not be miletaristic. I find that free scout and better things for barbarian huts much more out of character than increased chance of making units veteran and cheaper barracks.
And remember even though they traded alot their main reason for going on "viking" were to raid english monostaries(and even cities). And so they tarded away the gold they got from there.
has a willingness to support a large standing army and organizing it well
The vikings even fought in formations (svinefylking).
Nov 21, 2001, 09:06 AM
I know only of norwegian Viking leaders but here is a few:
Olav Haraldsson (the Holy)
But who shall be the ruler of the viking civ? In the last edition it was Canute...Can someone tell me who that was 'cause I don't knoe.
Nov 21, 2001, 10:45 AM
here you can find quite a lot of intresting information about the vikings
Nov 23, 2001, 05:11 PM
I think the term "militaristic" in Civ 3 has quite a broad meaning. I think militaristic means "warlike" in this game. The Zulu are considered militaristic, and, therfore, so should the Vikings.
I wouldn't say the Vikings were expansionists. They established small settlements to get their hands on certain resources. (Some of these settlements "grew" into kingdoms unexpectedly.) The English, on the other hand, established big colonies in order to expand (in order to deal with the growing population), collect resources, and dump prisoners somewhere (Australia).
My mod lists the Viking civilization as "Scandinavia" in the civ selection menu. (I mention this cos someone brought it up.)
Nov 23, 2001, 10:05 PM
I just want to say a few things:
The Vikings WERE expansionists, they settled down in Iceland, America, Scotland, England, Russia, Greenland etc because their countries were overpopulated. (Even if they never were more than a few hundred thousand)
People with no land of their own left their home and set sails to find a place somewhere else.
And yes, they were also militaristic. Even though they never had a permanent army, small fleets sometimes joined so that they could attack bigger prey.
In the 10th century, vikings from all over scandinavia joined and invaded England. The vikings also loathed Paris, Constantinople(Miklagard) and other major cities. I would say it requires an organized army to accomplish such things.
Here is a few other viking leaders:
Canute the Great
(Yes, JRR Tolkien's Gandalf was named after a viking chief)