1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Berserk--Too powerful?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Yaype, Jul 2, 2003.

?

Is the berserk unit too powerful?

  1. No. Its cost counters its abilities.

    31 vote(s)
    64.6%
  2. Yes. Nothing can defend such a high attack until Nationalism and Riflemen.

    16 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. Make a better poll. (To those who answer this one, I apologize in advance.)

    1 vote(s)
    2.1%
  1. Yaype

    Yaype Me

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Is it just me, or is the berserk a bit too powerful for the point of the game at which it shows up? I mean, a 6 attack when only pikeman are available just doesn't seem fair to me. The musketmen at 4 are a bit better, but it still doesn't seem like a fair unit. I know that it is much more costly than the regular bowman, but with two more attack points, an extra defense point, and the amphibious attack ability (something that actually can be annoying--I thought I would never say that with only marines previously being able to do so), it just seems a bit much. Any opinions?
     
  2. Peebo

    Peebo Grand Poobah

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    USA
    ah, so its sposed to say:
    Yes. Nothing can defend such a high attack until Nationalism and Riflemen.
    No. I ts cost counters its abilities.

    that confused me a little at first.
    hehe. its okay, we all do dumb things every once in awhile
    as for the beserks, i think theyre just fine and make the scandinavians a powerful civ for war
     
  3. marceagleye

    marceagleye Underground Economist

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Confederate States of America
    It's not too powerful in the hands of the AI. The AI don't know how to use them. With only a 2 defense, they're easy to cut down with swordsman.
     
  4. Vietcong

    Vietcong Deity

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,570
    Location:
    Texas
    "I am officially an idiot."

    no one is an idiot but thos u clame that some one eals is...
     
  5. WillJ

    WillJ Coolness Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Messages:
    9,471
    Location:
    USA
    Well, let's see:

    Longbowmen have an A/D of 4/1, and cost 40 shields. Beserks are 6/2, and cost 70. Longbowmen have a "cost value" (which is [A+D]/Cost) of 1.25, while Beserks have a cost value of 1.1428... Longbowmen are therefore better in cost value. However, this doesn't take into account the fact that Beserks have the amphibious unit ability, and a number of Beserks costs less in maintanance than the number of longbowmen that would match their strength. Overall I'd say it's about right in power for a UU.

    Edit: I'll add that I don't have any gameplay experience with Beserks.
    So then you're an idiot, since you just now called all the people who call others idiots idiots. :p
     
  6. marceagleye

    marceagleye Underground Economist

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Confederate States of America
    WillJ it's the same formula. Add the three ADM numbers. subtract two. multiply by ten.
    Longbowman--> 4.1.1--> 4+1+1=6. 6-2=4. 4x10=40
    Berserk--> 6.2.1--> 6+2+1=9. 9-2=7. 7x10=70.
    Simple formula. It works the same for every unit.(except UU's)
     
  7. WillJ

    WillJ Coolness Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Messages:
    9,471
    Location:
    USA
    Sure, but the thing is, the subtracting 2 is a constant, which messes things up. You can tell that since both the longbowman and beserk "fit," the beserk is worse cost wise (only considering A/D/M, of course). The higher up you go, the worse it gets. Consider the warrior:

    1.1.1---->3---->1---->10

    Then consider some super unit:

    100.100.100---->300---->298---->2980

    Now, which unit do you think is better cost-wise?

    (And interesting; I never noticed that formula. :goodjob: )
     
  8. marceagleye

    marceagleye Underground Economist

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Confederate States of America
    WillJ I'm just realizing the berserk IS a UU. Does it really cost 70 shields? This doesn't seem right. other UU's are buildable at lower cost than this standard formula. Maybe Firaxis made a mistake?
     
  9. WillJ

    WillJ Coolness Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Messages:
    9,471
    Location:
    USA
    According to the units section of CFC, it does. I'm going to bed in a minute, so I don't feel like checking the actual game (maybe someone else could).

    And of course it's a UU! :p That's why I was comparing it to the Longbowman, because that's the unit it replaces. :)
     
  10. marceagleye

    marceagleye Underground Economist

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Confederate States of America
    Matter of fact I got a game going as the Vikings... but I'm not to the middle ages yet. I could let you know tomorrow.
     
  11. marceagleye

    marceagleye Underground Economist

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Confederate States of America
    Let me correct myself about the formula. I thought it was correct but I see if you apply it to swordsman you'd conclude they cost 40 shields but we all know this is not correct. The formula also doesn't apply to musketmen (formula = 50 shields, actual cost 60)
    Nor does it apply to any unit above musketman.
    But now my mind is in a state of confusion. Musketmen are more expensive than the formula while all others after musket men are cheaper. OUCH! Looks like I bit off more than I can chew. Well I guess I've got some research to do.

    Anyway the formula DOES apply to warrior, chariot, archer, spearman, horseman, pikeman, medeival infantry, longbowman, and knight. For ancient UU's it appears the subtraction constant is three instead of two. Maybe this isn't even totally right. I'll have to check all the swordman-variant UU's (legionary, immortals, gallic sword) But Impi, jaguar, war chariot, hoplite, bowman, and numidian DO fit. Don't know about the Iroquois Mounted Warrior... I'll have to check on that one. Does it cost 30 shields? If so, that one fits, too.

    I'll have to stop here because when we get to the Knight-variant UU's I don't know these numbers. These include war elephant, samurai, keshik and I'm not sure about ansars and riders. Cossack and sipahi are the next generation so they don't apply.

    Any how if I come up with something more accurate I'll post tomorrow. Maybe Moonsinger or Bamspeedy or one of the other experts already knows this. I apologize for the partially correct (mis)information.
     
  12. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    Most of the ancient UUs are simply a reg'lar unit with one extra in one of the stats, for the same cost, which explains way your formula works for those. The MW does indeed cost 30 shields

    Your original formula does work on the Gallic Swordsman: (3+2+2-2)*10=50, but you have to subtract -4 on the Legion and Immortal.

    I suspect this formula is just a coincidence - you get the same results if you simply add +10 to the cost of a Warrior for each stat increase. Pre-PTW UU advantages are free, of course.
     
  13. connor

    connor Highlander

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2001
    Messages:
    193
    Location:
    Bannockburn, fighting the English
    Berserks rock and have saved my butt on many occassions. I used to play as the Celts all the time, but when you see those axes slicing, dicing, and making Julien fries out of your enemies, you can really appreciate them.

    The Aztecs sent some Jag warriors to attack and my Berserk made short work of them, you could almost see pieces of Jag warriors flying off. Ok, maybe that was a little too graphic, but hey they attacked me!
    ------------------------------------
    It is the enemies job to die for his country, yours is to live.
     
  14. barron of ideas

    barron of ideas Barron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    695
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You need to add Finagles famous variable constant, the number which, when added (or subtacted, multiplied or divided by) to your answer, gives the correct answer.

    I don't know if 6 is too high an attack number. It probably is historical. "From the fury of the northmen, God deliver us" was prayed with a reason in that time frame all over Europe, and in Asia minor too. The Vikings got around, Russia, Byzantium, maybe they found America? Lets not go there in this thread though. What they should have is the longship, that can go on sea and ocean, while galleys can't. And also can be portaged up rivers, and overland from river to river. Vikings got their ships into the Black Sea from the Baltic, without sailing through the Med.

    I don't think six is too high for the Vikings on offense. If you have to be their neighbor, kill them early (before invention?), or be sure you are attacking. As someone pointed out, their defense of 2 means they die just as fast as a spearman, when they defend.
     
  15. hotrod0823

    hotrod0823 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    2,753
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I think any UU used properly can be powerful :hammer:

    Recent SG games have highlighted the War Chariot, the Jag warrior and the Impi and all have over run the AI easily. The Zerk is one of those UU's as is the Mounted Warrior and the Sipali.

    The increased cost of the zerk is supposed to balance the strength of the unit but it isn't high enough. By invention you can afford it and a few extra turns to produce make it worth it.

    I think a better comparision is Zerks vs. Medievil Infantry rather than longbows. I would still take the zerk.
     
  16. Sukenis

    Sukenis the J'BOOtian Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Location:
    Southeast Missouri
    Zerks die fast when they are on the offense and not attacking from a ship. If it were not for the amphipious attack, I would say they are of little use. A defense of 2 just dies to easy and they cost way to much. As long as the other civ has fast units (or roads in their territory), zerks are easy to kill.

    My opinions are off because I have only gone against the AI with zerks. In the hands of a human, I am sure they are much more powerful. But is that bad? It gives an actualy reason to keep a navy (to kill the ship the zerk is on).
     
  17. barron of ideas

    barron of ideas Barron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    695
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Lets hypothsize a battle between equal values of Berzerkers and longbowmen (values in shields makes the most sense to me). So we can use 7 longbow against 4 berzerkers. And being the nice guy I am, I'll let the Vikings start first. Ok, 4 Berzerkers kill 4 longbows. Its 6 to 1, the race is not always to the fast or the battle to the strong, but thats the way to bet. That leaves 3 longbows to kill, probably 3 Berzerkers. 4 to 2 isn't a sure thing like 6 to 1, but it isn't bad. So probably a few of the longbows are in the yellow or red after the battle. So , again hypothetically most of the time, we have one berzerker to kill one of the three longbows, again at 6 to 1. Nest round we have two longbows, probably dinged up, to kill one berzerker. End result, we have probably one or two longbows left standing, who need to sepnd some time getting to full health, and no berzerkers.

    Obviously when the seven longbows attack first, the 'zerks take serious losses without causing much damage back. Seven longbows likely will eliminate four targets with defense two. I know, the denfensive bonus of at least 10% for open terrain, up to 50% for a mountain needs to be applied, and sometimes cumulatively (across a river, in a city, etc) But this is a thought experiment not a true game test with thousands of iterations and standard deviations with every variable being controlled.

    However, what it tells me is that the 'zerker is not too strong, for its cost. It may actually be a little underpowered, and needs to attack from the sea or somewhere where it has the initiative. Or be guarded with better defensive units, if any are available (pikes anyone?). Up against equal values of longbows, or immortals, or probably swordsmen, unless they can attack, the Vikings should avoid combat, if they can. Yeah, four zerks have attack factors totaling 24, but 7 units with attack factor of 4 have a total of 28. Six longbows still have a chance to wipe up the floor with zerkers if the longbows can attack first.
     
  18. Yaype

    Yaype Me

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I couldn't agree more with barron of ideas. While the Vikings certainly were fearsome warriors, they weren't great military strategists or wielders of sophisticated technology (weaponwise), but rather, gained an advantage by being able to strike in places other civilizations did not think possible. Their quick raids (and retreats) were usually against unprepared (and even unarmed) people living along rivers. Some of their favorite targets were churches.

    Anyways, this is some good feedback here. While the zerk certainly does cost a lot, in the hands of a Viking civilization that has grown to be the biggest in the world (because of great spawn for them, bad spawn for myself), they can afford to build a large number of them. IMHO, I think a 5 attack and a cost of 60, or something similar, would be much more fitting.

    Oh, and thanks to the moderators for fixing the poll. It reads much better now. :)
     
  19. barron of ideas

    barron of ideas Barron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    695
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Hot rod

    "any UU can be powerful if used properly'? Maybe not the f-15, man of war or whatever the Korean UU is. I'd be willing to discuss it, maybe in another thread.

    Tough to support those Any, Always and Never statements. I try to weasle word mine, cause its so hard to defend them in certain cases.

    "The sun will always rise in the east" is eventually not going to be true. The sun will go out in multi-billion years, the earth may become tide locked to face the sun with the same himisphere, the sun may expand to engulf the earth. Or we may work out some way to reverse the spin of the earth, probably as a weapon of war. After all, Joshua made the sun stand still.

    It is definitely true that if you know what you are doing, you can use most UUs effectively. Abd you know what you are doing. Perhaps you can enlighten us on what to do with the "non-appearing" UUs like the F-15.
     
  20. marceagleye

    marceagleye Underground Economist

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Confederate States of America
    Ahh, yes. Now I get it. Berserks would probably only cost 60 if they were not amphibious. I'm sure this amphibious ability is why they cost 70 instead of 60.
     

Share This Page