Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
As mentioned above the Caledonians (and likely the Picts) certainly fit that bill a bit more if you absolutely want "northern aesthetics".
I'd possibly advise the Ostrogoths though, fairly northern, definitely not an 'easy' starting position (you do have to expand against the ERE or WRE and would have to defend against the Huns). The Ostrogoths are closer to the most regular difficulty level for the game, as they have same-ish ability tree as most of the other factions of the game (except the Celts and Desert Kingdoms, which have such good ability trees that it makes the game noticeably easier).
Since you are a new player I'd go with Suebians, Langobards or Franks.
Slavs have good infantry and the best archers but they are hard for a beginner.
Suebians are an horde, but they are easy and have a complete roster.
Langobards and Franks are more traditional because not hordes.
Vikings have trash archers, Celts have crossbows but bad archers.
Do you have problems with river battles in multiplayer? Because I do. The game keeps crashing