Greeks had a 'bit' of a hard time? A 'bit?''Norse pay the price?'I mean - what the... ? The fact that Greeks got a boost on water has nothing to do with making Norse 'pay the price' and everything to do with making Greeks somewhat competitive. As for dock hit points - who cares much? It's more of a flavor thing than a real balancing element in this case. If your dock is getting ripped apart, a Greek dock won't last that much longer anyway. For longhouses, you might have a point, but Norse longhouses remain the cheapest military building in classical, which they have been since early AoM.
The 'big picture' in this case is that Greeks used to get run over hardcore on water maps in AoM. All things considered, I'd probably still rank them as the weakest on maps like medit, but it's by a much, much smaller margin. The 'big picture' is that Norse OWN on water maps, thanks to a superior economy and superior classical age vessels - though other civs have somewhat better odds now than before, courtesy of shooting docks.
As for TA against Atlanteans, there's a few points I'm not sure have been considered in here.
1) Atlanteans have no cavalry in classical. That's fairly significant in terms of how well their overall army stacks up. If their frontline infantry gets hosed too fast, they die miserably. Their army is also overall not very mobile. Egypt vs Norse prior to TA getting the attack reduction would be a good example. Norse would absolutely steamroll Egypt in classical, because the spearmen wouldn't last long enough, and didn't counter the RC well enough. Now that RC are even harder to beat, but TA don't utterly massacre spearmen, it's actually a more fair match-up. Against Atlanteans, the likely problem isn't that TA are too weak - it's that katapeltes are too good. TAs just might need a boost against fanatics too, but that's much later in the game, and Norse players might just want to consider some ballistas then - and lots of hill forts. Atlanteans have real issues dealing with lots of shooting buildings. To place fanatics vs TA on an open battlefield and proclaim 'look! Atlanteans are too good against TA!' just doesn't cut it.
With Greeks, hoplites are slightly better than murmillos, but Greeks also have cavalry as an alternative meat shield-type unit in classical.
2) TA actually fare pretty well against ALL Atlantean units in classical under the right conditions. They beat murmillos and katapeltes. Turmas and cheiros have pretty low hack durability overall. They own TA, of course, but if the TA have a good meatshield they'll still do very well. You might want to argue that that would be relying on inferior micro from your opponent - which is about half right. Still doesn't make it any less true that TA have the potential to do pretty well against all Atlantean classical units.
3) The Norse classical army requires less micro at a basic level than any other in a straight fight. RC stand up excellently to everything but katapeltes, and TA automatically aim for the units they counter - infantry - since infantry has the highest hack armor. Compare that to Atlanteans, where cheiros and turmas by default will aim for RC, since RC have the highest pierce armor around. What does that mean? First, ES were wise to make cheiros so powerful and take up so much pop, because using cheiros efficiently against a mixed army takes a hell of a lot of clicking. Second, a Norse player might theorethically have more time left over for finesse micro - though, in reality, Norse compensate by requiring more micro elsewhere.
4) Balancing the game isn't simply a matter of straight-up unit comparisons. In regards to Atlanteans vs Norse, there's a lot of other factors to consider as well. Like the Norse ability to build stuff everywhere. A bunch of TA can easily throw up a few walls around the map, severely restricting an Atlantean player's mobility (which, at a basic level, is already lower than that of a Norse player). Same goes for towers. Atlanteans even have issues dealing with them. Norse have an easier time countering MUs than Atlanteans do, Valor notwithstanding. Norse also have more powerful and hard to counter MUs. Atlanteans have a pretty rough time dealing with hersirs, barring massed cheiros. That makes Loki rushing very, very powerful against Atlanteans. At the same time, you should consider that using hersirs against Atlanteans will give you more favor, which means more MUs, which means that the Atlantean will ultimately have to spend more resources converting units to heroes, which is pretty much a losing game. There's always the issue of running interference, of course. Ever try disrupting an Atlantean player's econ early on? They're pretty vulnerable to it, whether by villagers, priests, ulfsarks, or even hersirs. Just hit and run. It can be quite annoying. Norse even have the good ol' lamo 'build a wall tile on their hunting' thing if you want to play it out real lame, and deprive them of food (which in turn means less infantry for them, which means your RC will utterly own). Then, there's always the general Atlantean difficulty of dealing with buildings - while their destroyers stand up pretty well to villagers and can fight in a pinch, Atlanteans still have problems overall with mass shooting buildings - while their own palaces and TCs are by no means sturdy.
You might just want to consider doing things a bit differently and thinking outside the box, rather than trying to pretend that you should play against Atlanteans the same way you do other Norse, Greeks, or even Egyptians. Because, you know, Atlanteans have their weaknesses too - it's simply a matter of exploiting them.
Oh yes - calling Tordenskiold 'Torsken' is a real sign of maturity. Maybe you'd enjoy having your screenname creatively rewritten in a childish fashion too? Like Icanta or Ekunta? There's no need to resort to childish insults just because you're running out of substantial arguments.