The Vikings??

[Windoze]

Hey all. I was wondering what people thought about the Viking civ.

Ragnar seems to have some favorable traits doesn't he? aggressive and financial.

I haven't really decided on a favorite civ, but i've been playing the greeks a lot.

I'm kind of debating between greeks and viking..... any suggestions?

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

For a long time Ragnar was my favorite leader as I win most of my games militarily. He is definitely a good choice if you want to win by domination or conquest. Another good option is Hannibal of Carthage. He's financial like Ragnar, but i'm finding Charismatic to be superior to aggressive. Charismatic's 2 happiness with monuments is very very handy in the early game, and the lower xp cost for promotions helps all your units, including archery, mounted, siege, navy and air force, while aggressive only benefits melee and gunpowder.

 

[Commodore Nate]

I've played Ragnar once on an archipelago map, and totally dominated. Viking UU and UB have amazing synergy, and with the aggressive trait, your berserkers can upgrade straight up to counter or city raider promos.
I haven't tried on any land-based maps yet, but I'm guessing that his UB will become either a minimal or non-factor, unless you're doing some cross-continent invading.

 

[Refar]

Without Naval Warfare the UB and UU are of limited use. Ragnar is still AGG+FIN tho, so he plays quite nice on landbased maps as well.

 

[Everest]

Refar is right. I like the Vikings. Did I just say like? Love. Just won a domination with 'em with little to none naval warfare. Financial and aggressive...nice stuff.

But of course it all depends.

 

[w00ter]

Hmm playing with Ragnar on an Archipelago map would be cool, since their UU is amphibious.

Just started as the Dutch and I really prefer the Dike and the Eastindiaman over the UU and UB of the Vikings.

 

[Mik1984]

Viking UB + proving the world is round = 2 movement bonus for all ships. That rocks on Archipelago. Furthermore your coastal cities get 3 instead of 2 from water tiles. It feels like playing a level down. This faction on archipelago map has delivered me my first Immortal difficulty victory against 12 AI's.

 

[Pitman]

I've played Ragnar once on an archipelago map, and totally dominated. Viking UU and UB have amazing synergy, and with the aggressive trait, your berserkers can upgrade straight up to counter or city raider promos.
I haven't tried on any land-based maps yet, but I'm guessing that his UB will become either a minimal or non-factor, unless you're doing some cross-continent invading.

I tried this several times, thinking it would be a good combination, but each time I'd get a few good attacks in, then the defenses would get too powerful to use the unique units. By the time you get the right naval techs in Civ4 to go places, it is fairly late in the game...

 

[bentley004]

Hmm playing with Ragnar on an Archipelago map would be cool, since their UU is amphibious.

Check out the All Leaders Challenge which did exactly that!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6201146

 

[Tronicoz]

financial + aggresive is my favourite trait combo (with aggresive + organized)
but the ub is not too good, but the UU is nice and can be used a lot

civs with naval ub / uu
1. vikings
2. carthage
3. portugal
4. dutch (think they suck, sorry )

 

[The Keeper]

I won a cultural victory with the Vikings last time I played as them.. I studied history a bit and noticed how much they revered culture, so I thought it fit.

 

[w00ter]

4. dutch (think they suck, sorry )

I take that as an offense! (I'm Dutch ) I think the Dike is one of the better UB's in the game!


Also, the UB of the vikings rocks cause +2 trade routes and an extra navigation promotion pwns on island maps.

 

[Tronicoz]

I take that as an offense! (I'm Dutch ) I think the Dike is one of the better UB's in the game!


Also, the UB of the vikings rocks cause +2 trade routes and an extra navigation promotion pwns on island maps.

when you have a town to use it in, it sounds very good, but then, it's very few cities u builf next to a river next to an ocean. so it doenst make it much more useful than the normal building.

the leader has alright traits tough
and, i just mentioned the dutch ub and uu. i have nothing against dtuchmans as you, you are cool!



EDIT:, 2+ trade routes+???

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The dikes (the ones not on bikes) are rigged. Dutch is a good civ, and their leader's traits are hardly awful. They second they get astro they have an impressive lead on everyone else until frigates show up. There might not be time to recover from that.

For example, if you have one of those stupid/backward type warmonger civs on another continent (or just one that isn't close to astro or even chemistry yet), you can widen the gap by parking 2 of your UU's here and there and blockading. Yes, this requires war, but depending on the situation it won't be that big a diplo hit. This will cripple the AI's trade routes, food if they're using seafood, and tech because they'll be spamming units like caravels rather than doing anything meaningful techwise. Not bad if you take astro from lib or something and are teching rifles or cannons, as doing this will widen the gap between you, and some of those blockaders could be turned right around to shuttle invaders (and more econically than anything but modern transports, and even then barely less so).

Somewhat situational, but these are essentially privateers at war and come much sooner. Can't really complain about them with such a powerful UB.

Of course, this all barely matters on pangaea. At least you're financial .

 

[w00ter]

Imo, the Dike can be used in alot of cities (rivers and all water tiles), and levees are only for river cities. This makes the UB of the Dutch superior to lots of other UB's in the way of that they turn a situational building into a more commonly usefull building.

PS: sorry my bad, I was wrong about the trading routes.

 

[Crowqueen]

I won a cultural victory with the Vikings last time I played as them.. I studied history a bit and noticed how much they revered culture, so I thought it fit.

So much so they burned and pillaged much of the English monasteries...

I've won with Ragnar a few times, but again, by the time I was ripping people to shreds or driving them to the wall, it was late enough that I was using muskets and rifles rather than anything else. The problem is that I seem to have got stuck at Chieftain, and a normal games goes like this: (a) wander about with warrior (b) kill first civ you come across by walking in and pillaging their city while it's still (1) and undefended (c) retreat, build Stonehenge, Great Wall and probably the Oracle too (d) found multiple religions (e) build AP (f) win in 1000-1300 AD with a diplomatic victory at 30,000-40,000 points if I can get a religious bloc going properly (usually Buddhists v Hindus with me as either of those if I can found it first). (g) if I can't found Buddhism or Hinduism, then the religious constellation is such that I have to defend and go for a space victory because try as I might, I can't get a domination or conquest victory even when I'm playing on a land map and have one end of my civ in the bottom left and the other in the top right (Asoka rules for this). I may be too timid, but...

...The Vikings aren't wonderful; it depends what kind of map I'm playing but my best victory as yet unmatched has been Isabella on lakes, but even that ended at diplo victory after I took over Babylon and had civs giving me cities left, right and centre...and also voting for me for religious leader. So I'm trying more offensive games, but with civs that get their UUs earlier than berserkers come (IMHO they should come with axemen not macemen).

 

[w00ter]

I think its fine that they replace Macemen.
Vikings were an (early) medieval civ. Axemen are pre-classical.

 

[Endure]

The problem is that I seem to have got stuck at Chieftain, and a normal games goes like this: (a) wander about with warrior (b) kill first civ you come across by walking in and pillaging their city while it's still (1) and undefended (c) retreat, build Stonehenge, Great Wall and probably the Oracle too (d) found multiple religions (e) build AP (f) win in 1000-1300 AD with a diplomatic victory at 30,000-40,000 points if I can get a religious bloc going properly (usually Buddhists v Hindus with me as either of those if I can found it first). (g) if I can't found Buddhism or Hinduism, then the religious constellation is such that I have to defend and go for a space victory because try as I might, I can't get a domination or conquest victory even when I'm playing on a land map and have one end of my civ in the bottom left and the other in the top right (Asoka rules for this). I may be too timid, but...

You'll never move beyond chieftain if you don't challenge yourself by moving up in difficulty levels. If your constantly steamrolling the AI on chieftain, then your certainly ready to move on and try a higher difficulty. Sure you might lose the first couple games you play on a higher difficulty level while you adjust, but eventually you'll adapt and learn to win on a higher difficulty. Your wins probably won't be as crushing as they were on chieftain, but you'll probably find them more satisfying.

That said, if your happy playing on Chieftain and enjoy steam rolling the AI constantly, well keep on at it Play however you enjoy best.

 

[Pe Ell]

Love the Vikings. Aggressive/financial fits me perfectly with my warmongering supported by CE. The UB is neat, but not gamebreaking in any way. 1+ move for all water units makes it possible to explore faster and find those other civs so much sooner, depends on what settings you play with obviously, on pangea it is rather limited. UU is an improved mace, which isn't bad at all. The main advantage with it is the free amphibious promotion which while not being useful for the unit as such is really neat when you upgrade to rifles/grenadiers. Amphibious CR3 rifles are nothing to frown at. And remember you also have faster ships to transport those rifles in...

 

[Crowqueen]

You'll never move beyond chieftain if you don't challenge yourself by moving up in difficulty levels. If your constantly steamrolling the AI on chieftain, then your certainly ready to move on and try a higher difficulty. Sure you might lose the first couple games you play on a higher difficulty level while you adjust, but eventually you'll adapt and learn to win on a higher difficulty. Your wins probably won't be as crushing as they were on chieftain, but you'll probably find them more satisfying.

That said, if your happy playing on Chieftain and enjoy steam rolling the AI constantly, well keep on at it Play however you enjoy best.

The trouble is I'm not. It's easy to get an AP victory but on Settler I was able to be much more aggressive and I have plenty of Domination or Conquest victories under my belt.

I might try Warlord then, though, and see what happens.

I think its fine that they replace Macemen.
Vikings were an (early) medieval civ. Axemen are pre-classical.

Makes sense but they were still at a classical level of development (thanks Adam!) compared to the civs they were pillaging until they settled in Ireland and Russia around 1000 AD. They are the equivalent of the AI which, thanks to a lousy starting position is still trying to catch up in tech.