Scandinavian Expansion for VD - Brainstorm

Sweet, this is giving me a whole host of ideas. Thanks guys!

Next question. Should these civs replace the Vikings, or go alongside? Are the Vikings considered distinct enough to warrant their own civ alongside? Discuss. :)

Quite frankly a Viking Civilisation is as meaningless as the Native American Civilisation. I'd scrap it and give Ragnar to Sweden.
 
I say the opposite. Vikings represent a different time, and a different culture - although the same people. For example, the Vikings were pagans and spoke Norse. Not to mention modern day nationalities of Scandinavia were not present in the Viking Age. So I would say yes, they are distinct enough to warrant their own civilization. It would be like Adding both Ancient Egypt and the Mameluks or Ancient Greece and the Kingdom of Greece. I say worth including.

Actually, if I were you, I'd rename Vikings as Norse or something and add Canute as leader.

I disagree with Ragnar being together with Sweden, as if we want to make a good Sweden, than the leaders are already chosen - Gustavus Adolphus, Gustav Vasa, and Karl XII*.

* -Only Karl XII needs a leaderhead.
 
I say the opposite. Vikings represent a different time, and a different culture - although the same people. For example, the Vikings were pagans and spoke Norse. Not to mention modern day nationalities of Scandinavia were not present in the Viking Age. So I would say yes, they are distinct enough to warrant their own civilization. It would be like Adding both Ancient Egypt and the Mameluks or Ancient Greece and the Kingdom of Greece. I say worth including.

But the Civs in the game tend to represent multiple time periods. India has both Asoka and Gandhi, China has Qin Shi Hang an Mao Zedong. Heck, England has a couple of people who were both in power over 100 years after the Kingdom of England ceased to exist. And Varietas Delectat uses all these unique art files to make it possible for Civs to represent multiple time periods.
 
There are also plenty of counter examples nutnut.

Rome - Byzantine
HRE - Germany
Sumeria - Babylon
Babylon/Assyria - Arabia

If what you say is true, than Fireaxis is inconsistent.
 
Same as with Native America, definitely replace!

The Vikings, as far as the game is concerned, represent primarily the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, but also the Faeroese, Icelanders, Greenlanders, Normans, and Varangians, indeed their civilopedia entry says they primarily consisted of Danes, Norwegians and Swedes.
Spoiler :
this can be seen from the city names, (some of these will have changed hands over the years though, especially those in Scania, southern Sweden, formerly part of Denmark. I'm going with their modern location
Spoiler :

Nidaros = Norway
Uppsala = Sweden
Haithabu = Denmark
Birka = Sweden
Bjorgvin = Norway
Jelling = Denmark
Roskilde = Denmark
Tonsberg = Norway
Sigtuna = Sweden
Lodose = Sweden
Odense = Denmark
Oslo = Norway
Ribe = Denmark
Lindholm = Denmark
Vasteras = Sweden
Aarhus = Denmark
Lund = Sweden
Kaupang = Norway
Reykjavik = Iceland
Thingvellir = Iceland
Jorvik = England
Lincoln = England
Deoraby = England
Stamford = England
Dyflin = Ireland
Vadrefjord = Ireland
Limerick = Ireland
Rowane = Normandy
Konugard = Ukraine
Holmgard = Russia
Aldeigjuborg = Russia
Kirkjuvagr = Orkney
Tynwald = Isle of Man
Leirvik = Shetland
Tinganes = Faeroe
Kirkjubour = Faeroe
Brattahlid = Greenland
Vinland = Newfoundland
Thunderfall = Easter egg!



Having Vikings alongside Denmark, Norway and Sweden makes as much sense as having Sioux and Iroquois alongside Native America imo.
 
No, that would be different.

Sioux and Iroquois are Native American which is why replacing them was a good idea.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway are NOT Vikings, which is why replacing them would be a bad idea.

If instead of Vikings, it was Germanics, or Scandinavians, then i would agree. But Vikings are different entirely.

I mean, ask a Dane or a Swede if they are Vikings. They would say no. Ask a Sioux or Iroquois if they are Native American, They would say yes. Ask a Dane of Swede if they are Scandinavian or Germanic, than they would say yes.

Besides the Vikings have left a legacy in Europe that none of the modern day Scandinavian countries have been able to replicate.

Although the Viking city list will most likely need to be updated.
 
There are also plenty of counter examples nutnut.

Rome - Byzantine
HRE - Germany
Sumeria - Babylon
Babylon/Assyria - Arabia

If what you say is true, than Fireaxis is inconsistent.

The Byzantines were culturally and religiously different from the West Romans. Seperating them is somewhat justifiable.

Sumeria and Babylon were also quite different culturally (and I recall the Babylonians actually being further north in Iraq, whereas Sumeria was near the sea).

Babylon - Arabia. No. Arabia represents the Islamic Culture and most, if not all, of its cities are on the Arabian Peninsula. It would be ridiculous to include both.

HRE - Germany. The HRE is a bit different. Germany more or less represents Brandenburg/Prussia. The HRE is meant to represent the Franks.

I understand why you feel that the Vikings ought to be included as a seperate Civ but when you consider that the Vking-Era was just a period of aggression and expansion in Scandinavian history. It's a bit like having a Medieval European State and then the same one as a Colonial Power as different Civs. Bear in mind the Medieval Units for Norway, Denmark and Sweden will look like 'Vikings'. It makes sense to keep them together.
 
The Byzantines were culturally and religiously different from the West Romans. Seperating them is somewhat justifiable.

Sumeria and Babylon were also quite different culturally (and I recall the Babylonians actually being further north in Iraq, whereas Sumeria was near the sea).

Babylon - Arabia. No. Arabia represents the Islamic Culture and most, if not all, of its cities are on the Arabian Peninsula. It would be ridiculous to include both.

HRE - Germany. The HRE is a bit different. Germany more or less represents Brandenburg/Prussia. The HRE is meant to represent the Franks.

I understand why you feel that the Vikings ought to be included as a seperate Civ but when you consider that the Vking-Era was just a period of aggression and expansion in Scandinavian history. It's a bit like having a Medieval European State and then the same one as a Colonial Power as different Civs. Bear in mind the Medieval Units for Norway, Denmark and Sweden will look like 'Vikings'. It makes sense to keep them together.

Only the population of the Byzantine's has changed, since it was centered around Constantinople rather than Rome. It is otherwise the same empire, different era. Vikings were culturally and religiously different from modern Scandinavians, not to mention they speak a different language.

Sumeria and Babylon? Yah yah, Same/Similar people, different era, different culture. Vikings as well.

Babylon - Arabia - Well, if my history of the area is correct, than what basically happened is that Persia invaded Babylon and Assyria, and then Alexander conquered them back not to long afterwords. The Greek's put up the Selucid empire - based on Babylon/Assyria with the same people, and than the Romans conquered it, and than Rome collapsed. All that happened within not to much time of each other.

Than Islam came to the area and drastically changed the peoples culture to something we would call Arabic. Early Arabics were probably not that different than from the Assyrians and Babylonians.

HRE - Germany - Different era. How would Germany represent Brandenburg and Prussia when it doesn't even have Prussian cities on it's citylist? How much of the Franks does HRE represent? Not much. In game it is portrayed as representing Germans. Regardless, if I believe what you say, than I'll just point out HRE - France.

My point is, Vikings speak a different language, they had a different religion, where different culturally, and made more of an impact in world history than has Sweden or Denmark. They should be included separately from the other Scandinavian countries. You can argue that the Vikings were a people, that later branched off to Normans, Saxons, Goths, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Norse etc. Besides this is Scandinavian Expansion mod, not take away. :p
 
The Byzantines were culturally and religiously different from the West Romans. Seperating them is somewhat justifiable.

Yes. But it is not justifiable that they separate from Greece, as they are basically middle-ages Greeks.

Sumeria and Babylon were also quite different culturally (and I recall the Babylonians actually being further north in Iraq, whereas Sumeria was near the sea).

Babylon - Arabia. No. Arabia represents the Islamic Culture and most, if not all, of its cities are on the Arabian Peninsula. It would be ridiculous to include both.

Well, indeed (although I disagree about Arabia necessarily representing Islamic culture).

HRE - Germany. The HRE is a bit different. Germany more or less represents Brandenburg/Prussia. The HRE is meant to represent the Franks.

The HRE was a terrible, terrible addition to Civ4. IMO the worst of Firaxis. It doesn't represent the Franks either, as can be seen from their UU.

I understand why you feel that the Vikings ought to be included as a seperate Civ but when you consider that the Vking-Era was just a period of aggression and expansion in Scandinavian history. It's a bit like having a Medieval European State and then the same one as a Colonial Power as different Civs. Bear in mind the Medieval Units for Norway, Denmark and Sweden will look like 'Vikings'. It makes sense to keep them together.

Yes, I'd prefer to have it replace the Vikings civilization as well. Actually, the ideal for me would be to have the Vikings civilization at the appropriate time split itself into Sweden, Norway and Denmark, but that would require quite some SDK (or maybe Python) programming.
 
No, that would be different.

Sioux and Iroquois are Native American which is why replacing them was a good idea.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway are NOT Vikings, which is why replacing them would be a bad idea.

If instead of Vikings, it was Germanics, or Scandinavians, then i would agree. But Vikings are different entirely.

I mean, ask a Dane or a Swede if they are Vikings. They would say no. Ask a Sioux or Iroquois if they are Native American, They would say yes. Ask a Dane of Swede if they are Scandinavian or Germanic, than they would say yes.

Besides the Vikings have left a legacy in Europe that none of the modern day Scandinavian countries have been able to replicate.

Although the Viking city list will most likely need to be updated.
That is actually quite wrong. In Denmark we almost got a doctrine from history/culture to know we are Vikings. The majority would answer a blunt 'yes', even if those days are thousands of years past. I can't imagine Sweden being that different.
 
That is actually quite wrong. In Denmark we almost got a doctrine from history/culture to know we are Vikings. The majority would answer a blunt 'yes', even if those days are thousands of years past. I can't imagine Sweden being that different.

I don't mean Viking Descendant, I mean culturally, are you Viking or Scandinavian?
 
Firaxis are simply inconsistent.
On the one hand there are civs such as Greece, Egypt and Persia, apparently representing only a specific time and culture in a people's history, Ancient Greece, Pharaonic Egypt, the Achaemenid dynasty.
On the other hand you have China, India and Ethiopia representing many different states from within one people's history.
The Vikings just slowly "grew" into the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes.
To have a Viking civ and Denmark, Norway and Sweden would be like having (to my mind) a Mauryan civ and an Indian civ (it's silly enough that Mauryan, Shangian and Zhou come up as barbarian cities I think). Same people, different time.
This way adds more variety (the whole point of Varietas Delectat!) without being superfluous. After all, the Viking Age can still be represented, with the Bezerker and Longship as UU's, the Trading Post as a UB, and Canute and Harald Hardrada as LH's.

My two pence.
 
Also You need to think of how much leaders you want each civ to have.

I can tell you straight away that If you put Ragnar in Sweden togather with Gustav Vasa, Adolphus and Karl, than I'm taking Ragnar out.

ALOT of people do not like having more than 3 leaders per civ. IIRC Capo had to come up with a tough decision regarding amount of leaders per civ to 4.
 
HRE - Germany - Different era. How would Germany represent Brandenburg and Prussia when it doesn't even have Prussian cities on it's citylist?

Magdeburg and Potsdam are prussian cities, and Prussia had annexed Hessia (with Kassel) and Hannover.

The HRE was a terrible, terrible addition to Civ4. IMO the worst of Firaxis.

Adding other norse/scandinavian civs and having the vikings in, would probably also terrible in the same way.
 
Adding other norse/scandinavian civs and having the vikings in, would probably also terrible in the same way.

I don't understand why there is such a terrible opinion of adding both in.

HRE - Spoke German (with different accents granted)
Germany - Speaks German

Vikings - Spoke Norse
Scandinavians - Speak Danish, Swedish, Norwegian

Vikings - Norse identity
Scandinavians - Danish/Swedish/Norwegian identites.

----

Well whatever, this isn't my mod, and my mod will feature both Vikings and Sweden, so I will stop arguing.
 
Basically I'll take the position I take for every other type of mod like this; if you don't like it then don't download it. I personally think the best way to go about this would simply be to make Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Normans and the Saxons. Maybe others if you want to include Finland or anyone else really. It shouldn't be that big a deal really.
 
I don't mean Viking Descendant, I mean culturally, are you Viking or Scandinavian?
Both. It is not really something that would divide a person culturally.

I am not against adding Danish, Swedish and Norwegian civilizations, but it would sort of make the Vikings obsolete, as it was merely an era in our history - like the colonial British.
 
I don't understand why there is such a terrible opinion of adding both in.

I've changed my opinion, it would not be terrible.
The biggest factor here is imho the time between two empires.
HRE and Germany are to close to each other, Vikings and the modern scandinavian nations wouldn't.

I've revised my opinion, because i've thought of the celts, and nobody complains about them and all the other european nations. The time between them is long enough.

Basically I'll take the position I take for every other type of mod like this; if you don't like it then don't download it.

But this is a discussion thread ;).
 
That is great. :)

I mean, who were the Ancient Arabs? Babylonians. ;) Same can be done for the Vikings.

And now we can have Canute in the mod. :)
 
Top Bottom