Vikings for Civ7

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. Which age should they be?
2. their UU? or TWO UUs with no UCs?

Premises is that they're sea kings in the Early Middle Ages. (Age II)
UUs.. my idea could be
1. Longships (Langskippe, or Snekkjaa, since there are too many names to call different kinds of 'Longships'. but these names are based on size).
- Self Upgrading naval unit, with final iterations being gun galley similiar to Venetian galleys.
2. Housecarl. Berserkers shouldn't represent the entirety of Viking infantrymen, there were only a handful of Berserkers, there were alot more Housecarls. (semi-elite infantrymen).
Unique infrastructure... one of these should be Stave Church (recurring from Civ6)
Berserker should be their Tradition instead. adding combat strenghts especially when outnumbered.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would put them in Antiquity. The only reason is the Normans themselves are descended from the Norse, so I don't see why they couldn't progress into the Normans.

Longship makes sense for a military UU, if not going for an infantry unit. For a civilian UU they could get the Knarr, a merchant trading ship.

Unique Infrastructure could be Mead Hall, Naust (Boat House), or Trelleborg (Viking Ring Fortress)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

But Viking Age is very much post classical.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But Viking Age is very much post classical.

So is the Khmer Empire, but they are put in Antiquity to go into other civs. That's why I think the Norse will also go into Antiquity.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Vikings in Antiquity would fit the mould for an early game raider Civ, but also provides a good ancestor Civ for Exploration Euro Civs, and we're very likely going to get a lot of those, down the road.

Theoretically that role can also be taken on by the Illyrians and the Minoans though, which are both a bit worse attested than the Vikings. There's also less overlap with Kalmar Union Denmark if you go Vikings in Antiquity.

It should effectively boil down to what uniques you'd give to the Viking Civ, and whether they fit the equivalent Buildings and Units in the Antiquity or Exploration Era more. It's hard to see which Era is the best choice without having played either.

 

[Evie]

It's not just the Normans - it's simply a lot easier to find a Norse successor for the Exploration Era if you put the Norse in ancient. (any/all of: Medieval Russian Principalties, Medieval Scandinavian Kingdoms, Medieval British Isles, Normans), than to find an Ancient Era predecessor for the Norse if you put them in Exploration (Random Connections with another Germanic tribe, I guess)

It's just much more sensible to have them in the first era.

Mind you, it shouldn't affect whether or not we can have *Mediterannean* raiders.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Vikings in Antiquity would fit the mould for an early game raider Civ, but also provides a good ancestor Civ for Exploration Euro Civs, and we're very likely going to get a lot of those, down the road.

Theoretically that role can also be taken on by the Illyrians and the Minoans though, which are both a bit worse attested than the Vikings. There's also less overlap with Kalmar Union Denmark if you go Vikings in Antiquity.

It should effectively boil down to what uniques you'd give to the Viking Civ, and whether they fit the equivalent Buildings and Units in the Antiquity or Exploration Era more. It's hard to see which Era is the best choice without having played either.

Norse uniques could easily fit Antiquity age, as most of them have in the past as long as you don't go with a Berserker unit.

But yes, considering the Normans are already in the game at Exploration, and a potential Kalmar Union Denmark, Kievan Rus etc. could appear down the line, I think the Antiquity Age is the best place to put them for them to be able to progress to these.

 

[Evie]

Not to mention the near certainty of *some* sort of Medieval Rus/Russia, whether Kievan, Novgorodan or Muscovite, who also have a strong claim to a Norse lineage...

 

[Lord Lakely]

Strong claim undersells it rly. Olga of Kiev was literally a viking.

 

[Evie]

Indeed. Which is why it amuses me that everyone keeps pointing at Normans and Denmark but not mentioning the third major Norse successor.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Indeed. Which is why it amuses me that everyone keeps pointing at Normans and Denmark but not mentioning the third major Norse successor.

I edited in after I was reminded. To be fair my mind always goes to Slavic first when talking about them, and sometimes I forget the Norse influence.

 

[The Fanatical]

With exploration being the central theme of the second age, it makes little sense to me for the seafaring medieval Norse, who were notorious for their sea exploration, colonization and raiding, to appear in Antiquity. Plus, the Goths, a Germanic civilization that possibly originated from Scandinavia, will fill the role of the much-needed ancient Germanic and Scandinavian civilization.

Two Unique Military Units are a possibility for civilizations, meaning that both a land unit and a naval unit can make the cut. Dreki and Berserkr or Ulfhedinn or Huskarl. But if the Kievan Rus' are added in the Exploration Age with a Druzhina or a Varyag unit, then the Danes or the Nordmenn can get two naval units. One military, the other civilian, the Knarr and the Dreki, thus making those that wanted both a Viking warrior unit and a Viking warship unit happy.

The Unique Infrastructures can be a Naust (boathouse, unique version of the Shipyard) and a Stave Church or a Trelleborg (ring fortress with four longhouses).

 

[Willie5000]

Vikings make more sense in Exploration, seeing as they were sailing well beyond their homeland and explored the Atlantic. By the logic of these ages Exploration makes more sense.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Vikings make more sense in Exploration, seeing as they were sailing well beyond their homeland and explored the Atlantic. By the logic of these ages Exploration makes more sense.

That logic is understandable. But it would also be weird seeing Normans and Vikings/Norse coexist in the same age, when the former are descended from them.

But this way we can also get an Exploration Age Denmark that doesn't have to be Viking-themed.

 

[Evie]

There have been seafarers and explorers and colonizers for all of human history, form the earliest Polynesians and the Phoenicians all the way into nineteenth century Britain. The Age of Exploration mechanisms best fit that kind of gameplay, but it absolutely does not follow that all seafarers will be in that era. So, no, I do not buy that the Norse should be in exploration. That's a cheap mental shortcut.

And frankly, while it may seem obvious from the name, looking at the mechanism, the Norse are not actually a great fit for the Exploration era. What is the exploration era actually about, in the game? It's not merely about exploration, but about colonizing and exploiting distant continents, and spreading organized religions. Neither of which are great fit for the Norse ; who despite all the (grossly disproportionate) focus on Vinland, were first and foremost expanding in Europe (and adjacent islands). They spread to the Volga, the British Isles, Iceland, Normandy ; became part ancestors of all of European nations in the process. Sure, they sailed a couple times across the Atlantic, and had one short lived attempt at settlement there, but in the grand scheme of who they were, it's simply not an important part of it. And religion wise, though the Norse did eventually convert, the Norse people are definitely associated with the pagan faith and the Gods of Asgard ; not with the spread of Christianity, which is much more associated with their successors.

So, no, despite the instinctive Norse = Seafarers association, I don't actually see the "Norse in exploration" as the obvious slam-dunk that it's being portrayed as. Could they work there? Of course. But they no more need to be in Exploration than the Phoenicians or a hypothetical early Polynesian civ need to be there..

And at that point, the fact that civ unlock simply work much better with Norse in Ancient (since a lot of Exploration Civs want to be unlocked by the Norse, whie ther are no great choices for Ancient civs that could unlock the Norse). So, no, I still think the idea of Norse in Exploration is a mis-aimed choice.

 

[Zaarin]

That logic is understandable. But it would also be weird seeing Normans and Vikings/Norse coexist in the same age, when the former are descended from them.

While not as directly related, we have Egypt, Greece, and Mississippians in the same age so...I wouldn't overthink it.

nd religion wise, though the Norse did eventually convert, the Norse people are definitely associated with the pagan faith and the Gods of Asgard ; not with the spread of Christianity, which is much more associated with their successors.

Which is funny given they were Christian by the High Middle Ages--and yet the association is so strong we have Norse leaders swearing by Thor in Civ5 and Civ6.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

With exploration being the central theme of the second age, it makes little sense to me for the seafaring medieval Norse, who were notorious for their sea exploration, colonization and raiding, to appear in Antiquity. Plus, the Goths, a Germanic civilization that possibly originated from Scandinavia, will fill the role of the much-needed ancient Germanic and Scandinavian civilization.

Two Unique Military Units are a possibility for civilizations, meaning that both a land unit and a naval unit can make the cut. Dreki and Berserkr or Ulfhedinn or Huskarl. But if the Kievan Rus' are added in the Exploration Age with a Druzhina or a Varyag unit, then the Danes or the Nordmenn can get two naval units. One military, the other civilian, the Knarr and the Dreki, thus making those that wanted both a Viking warrior unit and a Viking warship unit happy.

The Unique Infrastructures can be a Naust (boathouse, unique version of the Shipyard) and a Stave Church or a Trelleborg (ring fortress with four longhouses).

1. Norsemen did reach North America several centuries before New World Hype begins. there was a Vinland colony founded by Vikings. They did so with Knorrs, not Langskippes. and well within accepted 'European Middle Ages' timeframe.
2. And Viking Rampage was a feature of Middle Ages before High Middle Ages.
3. Langskippe was used well into 16th Century. the last iteration was gun galley with a bombard / cannon mounted to the prow. just like Mediterranean Galleys. and I THINK Langskippe has always been Clinkers
4. There were Antiquity candidates that's good at sea--Venetii. peoples mentioned in Julius Caesar's memoirs as he even used their (presumably clinker built) ships to sail across English Channel and invade Britain. Also famous King Arthur's Prydwin could be Venetii ship.

 

[The Fanatical]

That logic is understandable. But it would also be weird seeing Normans and Vikings/Norse coexist in the same age, when the former are descended from them.

But this way we can also get an Exploration Age Denmark that doesn't have to be Viking-themed.

The Normans were of Norse origin, but the Norse people elsewhere didn't stop existing after the creation of the Duchy of Normandy. If I am not mistaken didn't the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Norman Kingdoms coexisted in the same time period? If the Franks for instance appear in the Exploration Age, how will I raid them if the Norse belong to an era earlier?

There have been seafarers and explorers and colonizers for all of human history, form the earliest Polynesians and the Phoenicians all the way into nineteenth century Britain. The Age of Exploration mechanisms best fit that kind of gameplay, but it absolutely does not follow that all seafarers will be in that era. So, no, I do not buy that the Norse should be in exploration. That's a cheap mental shortcut.

The most famous ones surely will.

And frankly, while it may seem obvious from the name, looking at the mechanism, the Norse are not actually a great fit for the Exploration era. What is the exploration era actually about, in the game? It's not merely about exploration, but about colonizing and exploiting distant continents, and spreading organized religions. Neither of which are great fit for the Norse ; who despite all the (grossly disproportionate) focus on Vinland, were first and foremost expanding in Europe (and adjacent islands). They spread to the Volga, the British Isles, Iceland, Normandy ; became part ancestors of all of European nations in the process.

What you write here is a bit contradicting. The Exploration Age is all about expansion, colonization and exploring. The Map is more limited for these kinds of actions in the Antiquity Age. If the Norse were renowned for their expansion across Europe, then they fit here better than in the restricted previous age.

Sure, they sailed a couple times across the Atlantic, and had one short lived attempt at settlement there, but in the grand scheme of who they were, it's simply not an important part of it.

Sailing was the most important aspect of their life. They might have sailed a couple of times across the Atlantic, but who did it before them?

And religion wise, though the Norse did eventually convert, the Norse people are definitely associated with the pagan faith and the Gods of Asgard ; not with the spread of Christianity, which is much more associated with their successors.

You have a point here, but even If they aren't remembered for their religious achievements, they can still be in the second era. After all, religion isn't the only focus there. And even if they don't fit at all because of religious reasons, we have the Khmer who practiced Buddhism in the Antiquity Age, but as I role player you will never have them follow that religion.

So, no, despite the instinctive Norse = Seafarers association, I don't actually see the "Norse in exploration" as the obvious slam-dunk that it's being portrayed as. Could they work there? Of course. But they no more need to be in Exploration than the Phoenicians or a hypothetical early Polynesian civ need to be there..

They do need to be there, in my opinion. There are other more ancient seafaring civilizations that need to be represented in the previous era. Civilizations such as the Tonga, the Minoans, the Phoenicians etc. While when you think about the greatest seafaring medieval civilizations, who comes to mind? The Norse, at least in the western part of the world.

And at that point, the fact that civ unlock simply work much better with Norse in Ancient (since a lot of Exploration Civs want to be unlocked by the Norse, whie ther are no great choices for Ancient civs that could unlock the Norse). So, no, I still think the idea of Norse in Exploration is a mis-aimed choice.

The Goths are the perfect choice for a precursor civilization, and I explained the reason. They came to Europe from where the Vikings lived. The Ancient era needs a Germanic civilization and I don't think that's the Norse and there is a wonder that proves my speculation, we will see the Goths in Antiquity, and a blob Norse civilization or the Nordmenn or the Danes in the Exploration.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

While not as directly related, we have Egypt, Greece, and Mississippians in the same age so...I wouldn't overthink it.

Right but those are all precursor civs that would go into various other civs, just like I think the Norse would be.

The Normans were of Norse origin, but the Norse people elsewhere didn't stop existing after the creation of the Duchy of Normandy. If I am not mistaken didn't the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Norman Kingdoms coexisted in the same time period? If the Franks for instance appear in the Exploration Age, how will I raid them if the Norse belong to an era earlier?

If you make the Franks in Antiquity, problem solved.

Of course they didn't stop existing, at least no more than other groups of people. But they did diverge eventually into different kingdoms like Kievan Rus, Denmark, and the Normans which are all civs that can be represented in the Exploration Age, which is all I am saying.

The Goths are the perfect choice for a precursor civilization, and I explained the reason. They came to Europe from where the Vikings lived. The Ancient era needs a Germanic civilization and I don't think that's the Norse and there is a wonder that proves my speculation, we will see the Goths in Antiquity, and a blob Norse civilization or the Nordmenn or the Danes in the Exploration.

I agree that the Goths will be probable to come, but I'm not sure as a precursor to the Norse.

 

[Zaarin]

Right but those are all precursor civs that would go into various other civs, just like I think the Norse would be.

True, but there's about 2500 years between Hatshepsut and Cahokia was my general point.