Vikings Will Win The Faction Rush Order | Forums

[Tundra 793]

I've been testing it since April last year, and it's an absolute blast, easily game of the year for me. Technically Vikings were just among the first pirates, so they have that in common at least.
Thanks dude, and so do i. Part of the reason I still read the forums every other day or so, is hoping they'll turn it around into something I'll love again.

[The_B0G_]

Exo thats not true. The vikings were bigger stronger more ferocious and had nothing to lose. Knights would get smashed praying to their weak abrahamic god traitors europe the knights..

Knights were from a different era than the vikings in this game though, if they met in real life the knights would rock the vikings world. Technology alone they would just completely out class the vikings, plate armor was basically impenetrable, the knights also had the long bow, which pierced basically any armor at the time and had far better range than viking bows.

Sure the vikings were bigger and on average probably better fighters but they were mostly raiders, knights were typically part of trained standing armies. Their strength was fighting as a unit in large numbers, and let's not forget heavy cavalry. There is a reason why the UK isn't full of viking descendants today.

[Tundra 793]

There is a reason why the UK isn't full of viking descendants today.

This is joke, yes?

[The_B0G_]

This is joke, yes?

I said FULL, as in they didn't conquer the UK, because they couldn't.

The vikings found their way to Newfoundland in Canada(before it was Canada) and wiped the entire island of all the native population, because they could..

[Tundra 793]

I said FULL, as in they didn't conquer the UK, because they couldn't.

The vikings found their way to Newfoundland in Canada and wiped the entire island of all the native population, because they could..

Quite right, though the UK wasn't a thing then, but they did manage to conquer 3 out of the 4 kingdoms that comprised England at the time. They also founded Dublin and other major Irish cities, and retained control of the Orkney's under the Kingdom of Norway well into the Middle Ages, eventually gifting them back to Scotland.
The Norman invasion also was carried out by descendants of Norse settlers from France.
And while they failed to conquer Wessex, England was ruled by Danish king Cnut the Great alongside Denmark and parts of modern day Norway and Sweden for some decades in the 11th century.

You're right in that total Viking conquest of the UK wasn't succesful, but there were many decades, or even a century or two long periods wherein Norse settlers would have, well, settled in parts of England, marrying English women and men.
The UK today, as a result of these varied attempts at both conquest and settlements, are literally full of Viking descendants.

But to the best of my knowledge, they never wiped out any significant part of the Native American populations in Newfoundland. Their intereactions were largely amicable, or they were repulsed by the natives, hence why that settlement did not last for long.

[Tundra 793]

Also, Vakris I'm terribly sorry for completely derailing your thread, I only meant to post what knowledge I could, not get into lengthy history discussions.

Vikings are totes gonna win that Faction Rush though.
#Odin4lyfe

[The_B0G_]

Quite right, though the UK wasn't a thing then, but they did manage to conquer 3 out of the 4 kingdoms that comprised England at the time. They also founded Dublin and other major Irish cities, and retained control of the Orkney's under the Kingdom of Norway well into the Middle Ages, eventually gifting them back to Scotland.
The Norman invasion also was carried out by descendants of Norse settlers from France.
And while they failed to conquer Wessex, England was ruled by Danish king Cnut the Great alongside Denmark and parts of modern day Norway and Sweden for some decades in the 11th century.

You're right in that total Viking conquest of the UK wasn't succesful, but there were many decades, or even a century or two long periods wherein Norse settlers would have, well, settled in parts of England, marrying English women and men.
The UK today, as a result of these varied attempts at both conquest and settlements, are literally full of Viking descendants.

But to the best of my knowledge, they never wiped out any significant part of the Native American populations in Newfoundland. Their intereactions were largely amicable, or they were repulsed by the natives, hence why that settlement did not last for long.

Ugh, I wrote a long detailed reply but I got a blank screen and the reply didn't post, not putting that effort in again. It happened twice now, I copied this after the first time though. Since this forum update I keep getting failed posts, annoying.

I was more so talking about the UK era with full plate armor, and trained standing armies, basically once the UK became trained and organized, I know about the viking settlements that were there. By saying full of viking descendants I only meant they didn't conquer the UK, not actual genetics.

You are right about Newfoundland, I researched it, the vikings did go there one two occasions, both were bloody, but they did not wipe out the natives, that was the English and French a few hundred years later.

[Tyrjo]

I'm calling it from now. Since the new Faction Rush order will be "balanced" in the same way the Faction War is ... "balanced" ... the smallest faction with the least amount of players will receive a huge bonus weighting to their score. The Vikings are currently the faction with the least amount of players therefore they will be the winners of this order.

Anyone else care to place their bets?

What makes you think the Vikings get "a huge weighted bonus"? The faction war is balanced with a relative average so that all factions work as they are the same numbers, there is nothing skewed by it. The Vikings are simply better players. Period.

[Vakris_One]

Also, Vakris I'm terribly sorry for completely derailing your thread, I only meant to post what knowledge I could, not get into lengthy history discussions.

Vikings are totes gonna win that Faction Rush though.
#Odin4lyfe

No worries, a good history lesson is always interesting. On the subject of Vikings and the UK, aren't the Celts related in some way to Vikings?

What makes you think the Vikings get "a huge weighted bonus"? The faction war is balanced with a relative average so that all factions work as they are the same numbers, there is nothing skewed by it. The Vikings are simply better players. Period.

Good one, lol. Please tell me how it is balanced when a Viking player receives 960 troops for winning a Duel match while a Samurai player receives 480 troops for winning the same kind of Duel match?

I have friends who play the Viking faction and they provided me with that figure during the second week of Season 5. The numbers may have changed since then but to say "The Vikings are simply better players." - yeah, I'm sure the weighting of their assets has nothing to do with it right? The fact that for every 1 Viking win, the Samurai need to get 2 wins to stay even at certain times. Maybe even 3 wins if the unpopular Vikes shed enough players or the Samurai gain some.

Completely "balanced".

[Tundra 793]

No worries, a good history lesson is always interesting. On the subject of Vikings and the UK, aren't the Celts related in some way to Vikings?

Only insofar as sharing Germanic roots If I remember right. The progenitor tribes migrated in different directions centuries before the Viking age began, so any relations are pretty far removed.

Ugh, I wrote a long detailed reply but I got a blank screen and the reply didn't post, not putting that effort in again. It happened twice now, I copied this after the first time though. Since this forum update I keep getting failed posts, annoying.

I was more so talking about the UK era with full plate armor, and trained standing armies, basically once the UK became trained and organized, I know about the viking settlements that were there. By saying full of viking descendants I only meant they didn't conquer the UK, not actual genetics.

You are right about Newfoundland, I researched it, the vikings did go there one two occasions, both were bloody, but they did not wipe out the natives, that was the English and French a few hundred years later.

Understandable, hopefully your point is still conveyed in full though.

Your usage of the UK to refer to England confuses me a bit though; The UK in a recognizable form wasn't founded until centuries after the Viking age, the Vikings "only" had to contend with the divided kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and had enough success in their endeavours that England, Denmark and Norway were ruled as 1 kingdom for a few years.
You are right that any Viking conquest attempts failed to the point that the UK today isn't named "East Denmark" though.

The UK era when they had standing armies and organized itself happened after the Viking nations had also organized themselves and adopted the same level of technology, and, If i remember right, the UK and the former Viking nations weren't even at odds for many centuries post Viking-age.
Basically; There wasn't any historical overlap between the UK and Knights, and Vikings.

Not to go back off topic bit didnt The celts establish dublin then the vikings expanded it (There is archaeological debate regarding precisely where Dublin was established by Celtic-speaking people in the 7th century.Later expanded as a Viking settlement, the Kingdom of Dublin became Ireland's principal city following the Norman invasion)

As you say, there's still debate around. The area where Dublin lies had been inhabited for a long time before the Vikings arrived, it's just that most evidence points to the Viking settlement being the solid foundation upon which the city was then built.
Dublin itself celebrates 988 as its birthday, so the Irish government at least considers the Viking settlement their founding.