Norman conquest of England

[shakadamonkey]

Mods, if there is a different topic or forum where scenario requests are more appropriate, please move this post.

What I have in mind is a scenario that will include a mod and some new civs:

Normans (led by William I):
No special units
They should have plenty of iron and horses for Knights, and obviously the Guilds tech; also sailing, and start with generous numbers of galleys and knights.
(Catholic) culture is strong
Not too skilled, though, at keeping cities happy or warlords loyal (if there is a point value to adjust for this, make it reflect that--maybe mod so that Norman churches give culture but no happy-faces?)

Angevins, Bretons, and Flemish as AI minor civs
Same as Normans generally, but not as capable of producing knights, though the Flemish have ships and generous stacks of archers. These are all in alliance with the Normans.

Saxons (led by Harald Godwinsson)
Special unit: Huscarl (replaces axeman, 8 combat, starts with March promotion)
Culture is weak
Happiness is high (extra happy face for a Saxon church maybe?)
Economy is slightly better than the Normans, in general (more stable situation in England than on the continent)

Norwegians (led by Harald Hardraada)
Special Unit: Longboat (2 cargo space, movement properties like a galleon, 6 combat at sea)
Culture is weak
Happiness is low
Unit production is high, and this civ favors axemen, axemen, and more axemen.

Norwegians are allied with the Norman alliance, but the alignment isn't as strong--mainly one of convenience, and Hardraada has his own ideas of reaching London before William does with his forces. In real history he was defeated and killed at Stamford Bridge, but in the scenario if he survives... he MIGHT just turn on William at the last moment!

Not sure where the best starting point would be in history for the scenario--maybe when forces have just landed? This puts the Norwegians in the north of England, and the Norman alliance forces at the southern coast. Saxon forces would start closer to the Norwegian army and will be likely to defeat them there, but a player might change his mind on that strategy--saving the low-tech Vikings for later perhaps?

 

[Keltic Fitz]

Why are the Vikings low-tech? They were probably more advances than the Saxons and I think the viking UU should be a Berserker or a huscarl rather than a longboat (a mace man with an axe would make a great huscarl)
Also the Norse had been living in the north of England for at least 200 years by the time of the Norman conquest so their culture would have been quite strong around york and why would the Norman churches not give any happiness, they were backed by the pope after all.
So for historical inaccuracy i give you a 6.

 

[shakadamonkey]

Why are the Vikings low-tech? They were probably more advances than the Saxons and I think the viking UU should be a Berserker or a huscarl rather than a longboat (a mace man with an axe would make a great huscarl)
Also the Norse had been living in the north of England for at least 200 years by the time of the Norman conquest so their culture would have been quite strong around york and why would the Norman churches not give any happiness, they were backed by the pope after all.
So for historical inaccuracy i give you a 6.

Norwegians did indeed have good technology, especially for sailing and agrigultural organization, but if you were to do even so much as a cursory reading of "Viking" history you'd know that the average Norseman went to battle with an axe. This wasn't due to the technical inability to make swords, but the economic challenges that made swords a very rare weapon among them, and maces tended not to be favored.

Berserkr were a much more rare phenomenon among "Vikings" than you imply. I was considering listing them as a UU but peppering large numbers of them into a Viking stack would be historically unrealistic. Longboats, by contrast were the backbone of the Norse military machine, and provided key mobility and the ability to strike along coasts and up rivers where their enemies least expected them to show up. That mobility advantage was their key strength over their European rivals in their day. They were not 20 foot tall blonde beasts who could cleave oak trees with their little finger, contrary to what you might have read in a Marvel comic book.

The Norse you cite living in Jorvik (York) were Danes. The Norwegians landing in the north of England did choose that area precisely to capitalize on close ties with their Danelaw cousins in Jorvik. However, the Dane reception of Harald Hardraada's forces was not quite so warm as expected, and some say they even tipped off Godwinsson to their landing. What IS known is that Stamford Bridge was a battle that came much sooner than the Norwegians expected, catching them completely off-guard.

If you've going to pontificate about "historical accuracy", at least endeavor to learn some.

 

[shakadamonkey]

On Norman churches and Papal backing, the problem is how to represent the tennuous nature of the loyalties and alliances William I had to hold together. There is no "loyalty" score for generals the way there is in another game I won't mention (but it's initials are MTW) which handles some factors at the campaign level more realistically than any Civ game, and actually HAS battlefield tactics, where Civ has none. One day if Civ would merge with the TW makers, a truly riveting game might come out of it.

Anyway, the closest approximation to representing loyalty challenges, in the crippled and deformed game which is Civ, is to show it in the form of "unhappiness". Papal backing DID help, but even that wasn't enough, on its own steam, to get many Norman, Angevin, and Frisian feudal chiefs to launch their armies across the English Channel with William on an adventure the likes of which had never been tried before or since the days of Julius Caesar. (The Saxons themselves did conquer, but more through the osmosis of progressive immigration and settlement.)

"Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) was William's battlecry, but the presence of most of his army was on the lure of promises of Saxon land. Generous tracts of it. And he had to keep promising, early and often every day, to keep the army together and make it arrive intact at Hastings.

I need to level check: am I boring you with big words here? Should I throw in a lot of "teh" and "pwned"?

 

[Keltic Fitz]

"teh" "pwned" oh your so witty! ¬_¬
I guess you do have a point with the Berserker and the Dane/Norwegian confusion but you don't have to be a dick about it.
At this point in history many of the boats in northern Europe were almost exact copies of the longboat any the Saxons had beat them a few times at see ruins any "they were better sailor!" argument you are likely to come up with. Also making the Norwegians main unit the axe men would unbalance the game horribly by putting the Norwegian military a whole tech tier behind.
I suggested a mace-man with an axe rather than a mace (any of the people in the unit folder could do that easily) for a huscarl because huscarls were trained to use axes and the mace man has the right look, unless the shirt had not been invented by 1066 of course, I posted mainly because you were making the Vikings look like barbarians with your "axemen, axemen and more axemen" and by describing them as low tech, so sorry for trying to help and giving constructive criticism.
Also an early night would make a good Norman UU, they threw their spears and charged with their swords (as far as i have read) at that time so a reskinned Keshik would do the job. Unless you have another sarcay comment of course.

Edit: I will admit I did not put my critisisms in the most diplomatic way, sorry.

 

[shakadamonkey]

At this point in history many of the boats in northern Europe were almost exact copies of the longboat any the Saxons had beat them a few times at see ruins any "they were better sailor!" argument you are likely to come up with.

Knut while he was ruling England, doesn't count. Also, the major advantage of the longboat over the galley was its shallow hull, allowing it to navigate up rivers. Sure they could be defeated at sea by ordinary galleys in sufficient numbers, but if they retreated upriver, the ordinary European galleys couldn't follow.

Also making the Norwegians main unit the axe men would unbalance the game horribly by putting the Norwegian military a whole tech tier behind.
I suggested a mace-man with an axe rather than a mace (any of the people in the unit folder could do that easily) for a huscarl because huscarls were trained to use axes and the mace man has the right look, unless the shirt had not been invented by 1066 of course, I posted mainly because you were making the Vikings look like barbarians with your "axemen, axemen and more axemen" and by describing them as low tech, so sorry for trying to help and giving constructive criticism.

Axemen in large numbers with very high mobility from large numbers of ships, showing up where least expected, can be (and were in history) a very formidable threat. The balance can be brought back on the battlefield with the +1 promotion a Nordic leader would get for his "aggressive" trait.

Alternatively, just replace macemen with Norse Huscarles (maybe giving them the amphibious promotion) and make all the sea squares navigable to the so-called "galleys" you leave as the generic sea unit for the Norse jarldoms.

Also an early night would make a good Norman UU, they threw their spears and charged with their swords (as far as i have read) at that time so a reskinned Keshik would do the job.

I'd though about Norman knights as a UU, but the differences between them and Civ4's concept of knights isn't wide enough, I think, to warrant making a UU out of it. Sure they threw a javelin before slashing in with their swords, but, mmmm... and generic knights are already immune to first strikes (which would be the game reflection of javelin-throwing anyway right?)

A realistic and yet balancing UU for the Normans might be the Norman archer, which at that time had gone beyond the strength of traditional archers but were not yet "longbowmen", so maybe give them 5 strength but cheap to produce in large numbers, and with no resource requirements.

Sorry about being snippy before.

 

[shakadamonkey]

Speaking of resources and archers, I always did wonder how realistic it could possibly be to create longbowmen in places where there were no yew trees?

 

[Keltic Fitz]

You don't have to apologise for being snippy, i was a jerk in my first post and their fore the one at fault.
Anyway on the subject of the Norman night, wouldn't a fist strike be appropriate? or would that over power the unit?
I guess if you did make the norse leader "agressive" that would make up for the fact his units would be a bit behind the others. Maybe the Civs could have several UUs? Longboats and Norse Huscarls for the Norwegians, Saxon Huscarls and Fyrdmen for the Saxons and Norman Archers/Slingers and Knights for the Normans.

 

[ArneHD]

From what I know, vikings in this era were rich. Very rich. They got their wealth from trade to the east and south, I think. Also, Harald Hardraada served as a mercanary in Bysantine, so his weaponry wouldn't be that outdated.