[Edi]

FrankTrollman said:
In what way is it not successful. The initial claim is that a double blessed heim strategy cannot be beaten. I've beaten it, therefore that's an iron-clad argument to the contrary.

That there seems to be nothing but a strawman of the actual argument put forth, namely that the Van units are overpowered. I didn't see anyone claiming they were unbeatable, but that they are overpowered. That's with the assumption of current costs and abilities.

FrankTrollman said:
The burden of proof is on the people claiming imbalance - not the other way around.

Yes. More on that shortly.

FrankTrollman said:
The people who are claiming that Vanheim is overpowered are saying that they lost badly and don't see what they could have done differently. That's anecdotal evidence at best. One could conclude from that anecdote that either:

1. Vanheim is overpowered.
2. The faction they were playing is underpowered.
3. The player of vanheim in the example was really good.
4. The player complaining about Vanheim isn't good.
5. Vanheim plays differently than other nations and that repeating standard tactics with or against them is ineffective.

By the same token, your ability to beat Vanheim is just as anecdotal and cannot be used as evidence for any kind of larger trend. However, when there is direct testimony from a lot of people who are experienced players that the Van and Helheim units are a problem for the reasons listed because they skew games in several ways without the player using them really sacrificing anything, I'm far more likely to take that aggregate testimony as valid than someone like yourself coming out of the woodwork and just dismissing it with a handwave. I know Graeme Dice, Cainehill, Huzurdadi and some of the others here well enough to know that they can beat Vanheim or Helheim in MP, so I don't see where this accusation of incompetence that you're bandying about with that list of yours is coming from.

You're also ignoring what happened when the new people started running set-piece tests to get their own numbers. Not all of them changed their minds or did so immediately, but there was a marked drop-off of the dismissive replies at that point and even some reversals of opinion.

FrankTrollman said:
Those are all valid conclusions. But a lot of people are saying "Vanheim is unstoppable!" as if that conclusion was foregone. Well, I've never lost to Vanheim in any era with any nation in multiplayer or single player. So I theorize that one of the other options may be what you're actually looking at.

So, it's back to more anecdotal evidence (yours, this time) coupled with a strawman argument (since I at least haven't seen anyone saying Vanheim to be unstoppable, just more powerful than it should be).

FrankTrollman said:
The Vanir are virtually immune to sword attacks. That's a big deal.

Yes, and what you neglect to mention is that the same mechanism that makes them nearly immune to sword attacks also makes them nearly immune to all other forms of physical attack as well and leaves massed mages and powerful battle magic (which takes a long time to get in the kind of numbers we're talking about) as about the only brute force counter. Everything else requires either a ridiculous ratio of units from a cost comparison analysis and/or intricate strategies that are easy to counter and will only work if the Van player does what you want him to do instead.

FrankTrollman said:
But it's not an insurmountable deal.Every nation can mount an offensive that is not based on melee attacks that have a chance of missing. Area attacks, trampling, battlefield enchantments and more are all within the realm of possibility. The specific tactics to be employed will of course vary nation to nation, but you can put up a defense against the Vanir.

No, not insurmountable, but did you actually bother reading the posts in the thread where these issues were discussed in more detail?

FrankTrollman said:
And if you aren't tailoring your troop setups to your opposition, you should lose. Really, the fact that it requires specific planning on your part to win is not a flaw in the game.

-Frank

Yes, generally speaking that is true. But when the situation is such that you generally have to do everything right with complex strategies while your opponent has far more room to make mistakes and all other things being equal, then it bears at least investigating, not an outright dismissal.

Edi