Viking "Ragnarok/Viking Ideas"

I saw on the Ottoman civilization discussion something about Ragnarok being added to the Vikings, but since this mod is not mythological, I thought of a way to make it "non-mythological". The idea is, you can call Ragnarok like you would Revolt, causing all your units to turn into a Húskarl, that were not previously military based. (Villagers, etc). All previously military units gain 15% speed (Except for cavalry) and 10% damage. However, they lose 20% HP as well, and can not be healed. Units that are "specialized", or above the common soldier, turn into Thanes. All "resource generating" structures the Vikings may have (Docks, slaughterhouses, etc) produce resources 30% faster during Ragnarok. Since all the villagers are now a Húskarl, no structures will be built, meaning if you lose your docks you are crippled, same with any other resource gathering building.

During Ragnarok, all military units can build certain military structures, such as a outpost (Must garrison 5 military units in order for the outpost to "work", to shoot arrows, etc. The name "outpost" is generic) as well as walls. Other structures too, of course, but it's up to you how you want to design it. I picture Ragnarok to be something like all the units go to fight, but the economy can still "move on" from buildings at your base/raiding the enemy. Some of these buildings could be;

~ Slaughterhouse: Generates food slower than farming, however if placed next to a livestock pen it boosts the food production. You can have up to 4 livestock pens next to a slaughterhouse, one for each side.
~Raiding Hall: Generates coin, has no "set" speed for gathering coin, instead utilizes a "random gather" sort of pattern. Acts like the Ottoman villager production from AoE3, it automatically works, but for every time the counter ends you get a random amount of gold. Anywhere from 50 gold, to 500 gold. This symbolizes a "successful raid" or an "unsuccessful raid"
~Logging Camp: Generates wood, produces much faster if placed nearby woods (Around the distance of 4 Town Halls distance, if that makes sense)

The above listed buildings can be built when not in Ragnarok, however they mainly are the only source of resource gathering during Ragnarok.

Another way of acquiring resources is by destroying enemy buildings.You only gain 5% or so of his resources per each building destroyed.

So you can continue a skirmish and maybe even a war over time, while still being able to sustain enough resources to keep a decent flow coming, at the cost of having less powerful units than your opponent and not being able to build more economy related buildings, so the more buildings you lose, the more crippled you are. Unlike the Revolution, which once you revolt, you pretty much have to charge in to the enemy's base since you have no other alternative.

Hopefully some of my ideas have potential!

In my opinion (bear in mind I'm not a team member or anything), this just sounds as an overcomplicated variant of revolts...

Hoop Thrower wrote:In my opinion (bear in mind I'm not a team member or anything), this just sounds as an overcomplicated variant of revolts...

Nothing is over complicated.

Why would it matter if you were a team member?  

Besides, this is much more than just one idea being "Ragnarok", I threw in some other Viking suggestions as well.

AKA: Slaughterhouse, Raiding Hall, Logging Camp, military units having to be garrisoned in outposts for outposts to be effective, boosting production rates for the previously 2 listed production buildings (Logging Camp next to woods, Slaughterhouse next to livestock pens), as well as the randomizing factor to simulate "successful or unsuccessful raids" for the Raiding Hall (Which seems quite realistic in my opinion).

Ragnarok was a relatively small part of this, the title even said it was Ragnarok as well as other Viking Ideas, I just figured I'd weave some other ideas that can correspond with Ragnarok in here instead of making a new thread.

It is overpowered yet terribly complicated, as Hoop said. It is also against the idea of revolootin in our mod.
And I am a member.

We, however, might interpret Ragnarok as something else, like Lord's ability or something else.

Pretty much the name "Ragnarök" sums it up, it'd be too much of fantasy or AoMish. It's indeed more complicated and powerful version of Revolution and couldn't be implemented for only one civ and still keep it balanced.

A simpler way to implement part of your ideas would be:
1. Give Vikings a UU Militia (for example Húskarl). This isn't probably going to happen for now as they a decent amount of UUs already.
2. Give Vikings extra bonuses from Revolution. Again, this type of bonus would be hard to explain without using the name "Ragnarök".

Buildings that just generate a certain resource have proved to be extremely unbalanced (especially when you could build them while you still have Villagers!) and these are the main reason for the complicated system.

Actually, this might work of better as a separate gamemode where you can do this type of "Revolution", which makes all military units more powerful but cripples your defenses and resources are gained only with resource trickles. New game types aren't our priority right now though.

The term "Ragnarok" was mean't as a generic, I tried my best to interpret how it would seem if persay the Vikings went into a certain blood lust, "berserk". All economy would be extremely cut down, while at the same time a military can do some heavy damage, at the cost of "this is your last chance to break into his defenses". I can't see the Vikings having any sort of artillery or firearms, unless you plan to add them, so why not give the Vikings something powerful? If the enemy breaks even one building (Only ONE of each resource structure anyway are allowed to be built) the Vikings virtually lose all resources for that building. If they lose the Slaughterhouse, no more food. So this is also a strong form of defense, leave your base and send all your  military and the enemy can flank and cripple you forever.

If the resource buildings seem too OP, you can lower villager gathering rates by 15% or so. And since the buildings would gather resources slowly anyway, you can only spend so much resources at one time. I'm trying to go for a raiding civilization idea, send waves of units instead of the constant stream someone such as the British can do in AoE3.

Again, these are just my suggestions, take them apart and do it your own way as I'm not trying to lay the round for the entire civilization here. If you like the idea of something such as the Raiding Hall, use it. If you don't like the Slaughterhouse, don't use it. Up to you.

Pepp wrote:It is overpowered yet terribly complicated, as Hoop said. It is also against the idea of revolootin in our mod.
And I am a member.

We, however, might interpret Ragnarok as something else, like Lord's ability or something else.

Ability? Like, a power? That certainly sounds AoMish. If it seems overpowered, think about this-

The Vikings were mainly raiders and pillagers, they did not have cannon, catapults, ballista, or even large amounts of archers. They were unorganized (To some degree), did not have heavy fortifications, and relied on raiding for a large quantity of their wealth. So if you think the Vikings can hold out against someone such as the Saracens, or the Ottomans without all the above listed, then the Vikings will be utterly annihilated in every match. The Vikings will need some sort of way to crush a civilization, but I agree, nothing too OP. As I stated in the above post, they will be ridiculously crippled if they lose even one of their buildings, almost safe to say "Game Over".

Just as a note; please try to refrain from double posting. There's no character limit to posts, or at least nothing you'll be getting close to, so you might as well just edit your last post if you have something more to say and nobody has responded in the mean time.

As for more ontopic matters; I think you may have a fairly skewed view of the Vikings. Yes, they became known for the many raids they committed in the 9th and 10th centuries, but they were far from simple people... They did have artillery, they did have fortifications, they gained more wealth through trade than they did through raiding, and as the Middle Ages came closer to their end and the Viking dominions became the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, they most definitely did use gunpowder weapons...


peugeot407

To my knowledge (Which as I have said before, Is not perfect in History), the Viking Era (Golden Age) ended around 1100 AD. The first cannon I can recall being used in battle was around 1250 AD. So how does that give the Vikings black powder weaponry? It would have been an incredibly new technology, not one that was produced enough to make notable difference in a battle. They would have been one shot, and then the Viking would either take an enormous deal of time to reload or simply pull out another weapon.

Fortifications would be reserved mainly for the main villages I believe, and would have been made of wood and cobblestone. Compared to the French "Buttress", their fortifications would have been fairly simple. Capital villages would of course have more fortification, but against cannon it would be shredded.

A great deal of trade was with previously raided/pillaged goods, I thought?

Vikings of their Golden Age would not have used artillery frequently. Yes, they would have had [i]some[i] form of artillery such as Onagers, but a very, very small amount. Traction Trebuchets would not have been used, as Vikings preferred hit and run tactics. It would have made it into hit and crawl. Not many Viking long Ships could even carry such artillery, ships being their main transport.

Like I said, I may have some holes in my history, but I seriously doubt Vikings would have had such advanced technology for the time period of their Golden Age. I've never heard of any occasion.

The thing is that the way Walls work in K&B, it'd be basically impossible to have a civ without proper siege units or otherwise strong turtlers like Byzantines would be impossible to beat. Even stronger lategame units or resource trickles wouldn't help in this case.
In any case, Vikings in K&B will be represented as a civ with focus on melee infantry and naval units, with raiding/map control being the main strategy. I completely understand they could be a "different" civilization to play with but I don't see making a one civ heavily different to others as a good thing to do. Slavs might be an exception but we want them to be half-European half-Steppe type of civilization. Well, you'll see it eventually...

Just curious but where are you from, if I may ask?

Generally speaking, all main civs are supposed to span the time between, say, 900 AD and the end of our timeline in 1559. While the Vikings may have slowly ceased to perform their trademark raids by around 1100, the people of Scandinavia didn't suddenly vanish, and while the civ may be called "Vikings", the Kingdom of Denmark in the 12th through to the early 16th century is as much a crucial part of the civ as the same kingdom was in the period you describe.


peugeot407

peugeot407 wrote:Generally speaking, all main civs are supposed to span the time between, say, 900 AD and the end of our timeline in 1559. While the Vikings may have slowly ceased to perform their trademark raids by around 1100, the people of Scandinavia didn't suddenly vanish, and while the civ may be called "Vikings", the Kingdom of Denmark in the 12th through to the early 16th century is as much a crucial part of the civ as the same kingdom was in the period you describe.


peugeot407

 The Vikings weren't such a large threat after their "Golden Age", so even so, it's a relatively basic civilization compared to that of major world powers of the time, most of which are going to be a civilization in the mod. If the Vikings would have had a tough timing bloodying another civilization of larger proportions, It's nigh suicide when not in their Golden Age.  And that makes much more sense.. Someone said the timeline between something like 50 AD and 1500 AD I saw on the forums.

The thing is that the way Walls work in K&B, it'd be basically impossible to have a civ without proper siege units or otherwise strong turtlers like Byzantines would be impossible to beat. Even stronger lategame units or resource trickles wouldn't help in this case.
In any case, Vikings in K&B will be represented as a civ with focus on melee infantry and naval units, with raiding/map control being the main strategy. I completely understand they could be a "different" civilization to play with but I don't see making a one civ heavily different to others as a good thing to do. Slavs might be an exception but we want them to be half-European half-Steppe type of civilization. Well, you'll see it eventually...

Just curious but where are you from, if I may ask?

Ahh, so the Vikings are planned to be "metaphorical"? Sort of "If it would have been this way?". Well that of course would work, but it'd kind of be taking away the Vikings uniqueness.

I'm from

On a more serious note, thank you for asking kindly, but I do not like to reveal my nationality nor my true age for my own reasons. Yes, I want to contribute with Voice Acting (If you saw that in my PlayTester application), but I'd like to know there's a possibility of that even happening before I spill my secrets. I'm not 18, however my birth IS in September. I'm over 16 years of age.

As Peugeot407 already said, Vikings will not just be "stereotypical Vikings" but also representing the Scandinavian countries around the time of Kalmar Union and Hanseatic League as well (although the latter is more distinguishable German). It's very hard to say how things will eventually be implemented but we do have a good outline for now. However we're mostly focusing on Spanish, Moors and Mongols right now so things can still change...

I wonder where's Synecdoque when you need him...

Anyways, you've got a really stereotypical outlook on the Vikings/Norsemen, wich is no real surprise, given that the christian kingdoms of that time really liked to downplay the successes of them as a civilizations and portray them as pretty much barbarians because they weren't christian like them. But well, their civilization was as much, if not more advanced, than all the others in Europe. Not for anything were they the first colonial empire. (Does Vindlandsaga ring any bells for you?)

They weren't by any margins a "basic civilization", they had huge trade networks (where they did commit actual trade, not the famous raids wich were the least) and a sophisticated economy, they were good blacksmiths as you'd imagine after all...

They did raid, but then again, that goes against the point you had that they wouldn't be able to lay siege to large cities, they could and did! They successfully besieged Paris on 845 and 885 again after all, and that's just the first example that came to my mind.

They weren't advanced in technology (except on what seafaring respects) but they certainly didn't lag behind either.

Given that I am an Atheist, I do not look at Vikings as savages. However, you ARE listing them as "Barbarians", right? I'm going off what knowledge I have, I didn't know Vikings besieged Paris, so more information for me. Researching about the Siege of Paris gives me new insight, being able to muster thousands of men and hundreds of ships is no small feat for the time, however research says Paris could only gather a few hundred men, compared to the thousand of Vikings who had Siege Engines as well. They did not even break through Paris' defenses, both times they attacked. Like I said, you guys are planning how to do it, I was just given the ideas that I originally posted to see if they would work.

Source: http://home.eckerd.edu/~oberhot/paris-siege-885.htm

Notice my note at the bottom saying "Hopefully my ideas have potential!"

~ Edited by Admin: Again, no need to quote the previous post...

I wonder where's Synecdoque when you need him...

Well, Gandalf came back to the dwarves a bit late. Oh wait, there is already a Gandalf there, so Syn can be Radagast, lurks in the woods and gone.

you ARE listing them as "Barbarians", right?

Nah nope. The meaning of barbarians in our mod are the natives, no matter they are savages or as noble as the Romans, they are still called barbarians. For example, there are Jewish 'barbarians', even Quraysh, Persian, and Khwarezmian 'barbarians', while the latter ones were actually empires.

Knights means our playable civs, Mongol and Vikings for example, are stereotypically savage people, but still, they are knights.

However, you ARE listing them as "Barbarians", right?

It really depends how you define "barbarian". Yes, they have a focus on melee infantry in terms of unit roster and they are classified as "raiding civ" in terms of strategy but they'll also have a strong naval bonuses and it'd be a shame if we didn't implement the trading aspect in form of HC cards.

@Hoop Thrower: By the way, it's "which", not "wich".

[quote="Pepp"]

The meaning of barbarians in our mod are the natives, no matter they are savages or as noble as the Romans, they are still called barbarians. For example, there are Jewish 'barbarians', even Quraysh, Persian, and Khwarezmian 'barbarians', while the latter ones were actually empires. Knights means our playable civs, Mongol and Vikings for example, are stereotypically savage people, but still, they are knights.

Ahh, that makes more sense I suppose.

Hoop Thrower wrote:I wonder where's Synecdoque when you need him…

I'm operating on a 3 month delay timer lately. 

Hoop Thrower wrote:Anyways, you've got a really stereotypical outlook on the Vikings/Norsemen, wich is no real surprise, given that the christian kingdoms of that time really liked to downplay the successes of them as a civilizations and portray them as pretty much barbarians because they weren't christian like them. But well, their civilization was as much, if not more advanced, than all the others in Europe. Not for anything were they the first colonial empire. (Does Vindlandsaga ring any bells for you?)

They weren't by any  margins a "basic civilization", they had huge trade networks (where they did commit actual trade, not the famous raids wich were the least) and a sophisticated economy, they were good blacksmiths as you'd imagine after all...

They did raid, but then again, that goes against the point you had that they wouldn't be able to lay siege to large cities, they could and did! They successfully besieged Paris on 845 and 885 again after all, and that's just the first example that came to my mind.

They weren't advanced in technology (except on what seafaring respects) but they certainly didn't lag behind either.

Yep, this is true! Also interesting is the extent of the Norse hegemonies you mentioned, which works out to this, which surprises a lot of people.

The most successful self-governing popular republic of the Middle Ages (and really since Rome fell to the Emperors) is included in this image, and it's nowhere near what you'd think of as the centers of medieval enlightenment!

Novgorod, I suppose?


peugeot407

Well, Novgorod was ruled by aristocracy (boyars) and religious leaders for the most part, though the popular assembly did elect the bureaucracy and had some power. Iceland was a true republic up until it was annexed by Norway with the Old Covenant in the 13th century.

Right. Well, learned something new again then...   


peugeot407

Do you have any campaigns featuring Vikings as if yet?

We don't even have any campaign at the moment.

Will the Vikings speak Norse and will the English speak Old English, or will the Vikings speak a modern Scandinavian language and the English will speak Modern English?

So how will the viking naval bonus be represented? Will the vikings have cheaper, faster, and more manuverable ships than any other civ?

Will the wealth the viking raids gained be represented? As in, if you burn down a church, gold and Christian slaves are sent to your town center?

The Vikings will speak Danish, while the English will use the same voiceset that the British use in unmodded AoE3, so that's still the same Shakespeare-inspired Early Modern English. The Vikings will get naval bonuses indeed, but they've not been revealed yet, so I won't do so here either. Suffice to say though that they'll be able to establish control of the waters very early on in the game...


peugeot407