Yes I am aware of Longbows, but as mystral mentioned it was invented much later.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do lots of damage, just that they shouldn't be able to pierce armor as well as they do and that they shouldn't be as insanely accurate and/or quick firing. If bows were really this amazing in combat, one would think that it would be the primary weapon of the dark ages; however, this is not the case.

The way bows are presented now, they might as well be semi-automatic pistols.

Bows of the era Vikings takes place in were used primarily as harassing weapons prior to engagement, at ranges greater than slings and javelins.

The other strange thing about archery in Vikings compared to Conquistadors is that quick shot seems way more effective than it used to be (and it was already good), while hailstorm is now really weak - especially considering it's a top-level skill. The only times I ever bother with it is if there are multiple enemies close together that I can't already use a quick shot on.

Well swords are pretty good because of that DR-ignoring strike, as well as the possibly-OP "execute" (though it's less OP than quick shot).

Both spear and two-handed axe can hit from two spaces away, which SHOULD be awesome, but since you can't use either with a shield and archers can do at least as much damage (and generally much more) from further away, they seem kind of pointless.
For some reason I've had the AI use shield hook, but then hardly ever follows that up with an attack on the person they've shield hooked (effectively wasting an action).

I don't think anyone was saying bows were the only option - just that if one wanted to play the game as optimally as possible, then bows and axes would be all you'd wield.

IMO the game's really easy, even on insane. I play with a mixed team because otherwise battles would be way too boring, though I do equip almost everyone with a shield in their primary slot just in case.

I never want to do that... ever... in any game.

Still! Nada! Booo!

The version without Galaxy is STILL 1.2, if I am not mistaken.

If i cannot use a fully patched games without some extra software or internet connection, there is no advantage compared to steam anymore.

Its a form of DRM, or at least a restriction I am not willing to accept.

So: Update the game, or loose customers. Your choice.

Well, I got a reply. A "we passed it on" rubber stamp. *sigh*

"Hello

I have informed our Product Team, they will investigate. We will make the update available as soon as possible.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards
Genoan
GOG.com Support"

I also did it just now.
I will not buy any game here until am 100% sure I will receive patches in time.

DRM-free ist the only reason, I am buying GOG games.

I am thinking this will be the last "New" game I buy here, if this is how it's gonna be. Still great for old games.

Although I went and ended up getting this patch via Galaxy, I completely agree with the above posters: Galaxy should NOT be required for installing patches!

I don't see any reason why GOG can't simply make patches available to both Galaxy and the website at the same time (or at least close to it).

This is just plain disrespectful to the customers.

You know, a long while back - before GOG started doing the deep-discount sales like Steam does, one of the GOG staff said the reason they didn't do that was because it devalued the games.

For me, what really devalues the games are things like this. Why would I shell out full price for a 'DRM-free' game on release when the stand-alone patch won't show up for days (or weeks) after the patch has been released via the game client?

I bought this one on release day, and did so because I really liked the first so thought I'd give the devs my support and grab this one right away (even though I had no plans to fire it up right off the bat). So, even though I'm not intending to play this for a while, I'm pretty pissed at the delay in patching the off-line installer version.

And I don't care who's at fault: whether it's the devs not providing the standalone version for GOG or whether it's GOG delaying getting this out, but this just means I'll wait for a full patch cycle and a sale before buying any new games in the future - just like I do for games with plans for a crapton of DLC.

So, if any GOG staff and/or devs happen to read this thread: congratulations - you're losing customers as noted in above posts, and you're losing money from customers that are at least still willing to buy.

There really is no point in being a cunt about some delays, especially when you're talking about small studios. You need to remember Logic only has like 2 devs working on the patches. So they need to find the issues, fix them, make a steam patch, roll it out, THEN make a gog patch, roll it out. And remember, with GOG you need to rebuild the whole installer too, so new people download the game with the patches included.
If you're a little kid that can't wait like 2 days for these guys to do their jobs, maybe you should just buy your shit on steam and spare us the whining and crying.

Ignorant moron. This patch has been live for nearly two weeks, and most of that time it's been available for GOG users via Galaxy. What people are complaining about is that preferential treatment: patch available for a game client but not for offline users. The patch is old, it's not about "waiting 2 days".

Well, I got a reply from support. A "we passed it on" rubber stamp. *sigh*

"Hello

I have informed our Product Team, they will investigate. We will make the update available as soon as possible.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards
Genoan
GOG.com Support"

See hickory's post.