Berserk--Too powerful?

[Louis XXIV]

I think Berzerkers should replace Medieval Infantry, but now require iron (no other changes)

While sort of off-topic, I think it would be a better fit.

I think Berzerkers are powerful, but not unbalanced. They are very similar to Immortals in that they have unmatched attack of the time (Immortals have attack of Knights, Berzerkers have attack of Cavs), the matching defensive unit is an era away (Pikes and Infantry), Immortals at least have the advantage of having equal Defense, but then again, 2 points higher attack is better than 1. The cost and speed of the unit balance it out (except for amphibious attacks, which it is the only unit to have it, until Marines)

My biggest complaint about them is that Guerrillas have the same attack, but that's really a complaint about Guerillas.

 

[nmcul]

Consider this: according to the default stats, Norsemen with axes have as much attack power as WWI infantry, and have a 50% chance of dislodging an equal-size force of marines armed with automatic weaponry.

 

[Aramazd]

a 7/2/1 unit with amphibis attack is to powerful

 

[nmcul]

Well, actually, berserks have an ADM of 6/2/1, amphibious. I do, though, think that this is still grossly overpowered. Especially when vanilla Civ 3 UUs only would have ONE stat improved by ONE point. The berserks get a three-point improvement and a new ability. In my experiences, the AI doesn't have any problems affording the best units, no matter what their cost, so I don't think their extra cost is that much of a deterrent. Besides, you only build a unit one time, right?

 

[Black Waltz]

It IS powerful. But over-powered? On land they're unmanoverabled as anything. Yes they pack a punch but once they've used their one movement point they're ripe to be picked off. Longbowmen and the such will make mincemeat out of the 2 defensive points.

Then if you factor in Amphibous attack you must also factor the cost of the ship transporting the Beserkers! Thus you have an extremly costly unit - if used badly very ineffective - if used properly very effective.

Oh. And in response to Nmcul. We are playing a game where it's possible for a Spearman to defeat a tank. I don't think realism plays a big part.

 

[NeonInfusion]

i agree w/Black Waltz. every unit has a weakness and a strength. Berserkir have overpowering strength, yet they have 2 defense, which is their weakness.

@nmcul: Black Waltz is right. In a world where spearman can somehow defeat tanks, realism isn't much of an option, although that almost happened...

 

[Puzzlinon]

I love the berzerk. It's expensive enough so as not to unbalancing the overall game, but it is great fun to play with.

I never did much marine attack in plain III, it just seemed like unreliable drudgery. But the berzerks come along at a time when they have a pretty good attack advantage, so you don't need to shlep around huge numbers like you do with marines.

They're like the tanks of their day when they first appear. You can reliably take coastal cities from a couple of caravels; the problem afterwards is defending them, but you get all you want.

A really viking-seeming thing you can do is take a couple of outlying cities, wait to see which one the ai decides to take back first, fall back out of it into the boat with any workers you caught, sell every improvement, and Abandon the city. You don't get a raze reputation for that, I don't think, if you've had the city for a turn. Then you concentrate on holding the other one; usually, there's no more culture umbra from the other territory pressing around it after its neighbor vanishes, so you can keep it more easily.


The oddity about berzerk is that it upgrades to guerrilla. That seems wrong; it should upgrade to a marine, I think.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You get the raze rep hit if the city you abandon have 50% or more foreign nationals.

 

[Penguin Glory]

The traits make up for the difference. The beserk is also easy to pick off due to their low defense.

 

[bru]

The beserk fits in the game well.

 

[Tweedledum]

My main "problem" with the Berserkers is their timing, which is way out of their real historical context. Let's face it, by the middle of the Middle Ages, the Vikings had long since ceased going berserk (if truth be told, they'd long-since ceased being Vikings, but had settled down and become Swedes or Danes...!)

I'd move them way back in time and make them amphibious Immortals, with the same cost since the extra cost of the ships would really be a factor (even assuming you could build them when the Beserkers initially became available). If this is too far back, then they should at least be amphibious MedInf...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Tweedledum
My main "problem" with the Berserkers is their timing, which is way out of their real historical context. Let's face it, by the middle of the Middle Ages, the Vikings had long since ceased going berserk (if truth be told, they'd long-since ceased being Vikings, but had settled down and become Swedes or Danes...!)

No offense, but do read a history book before you coment on the Berserkers' timing again. Please.

The Viking Age was about 800-1050 AD; well into the Medieval period. And of course, the Vikings already were Swedes, Danes, Norwegians etc. However, most Scandinavians of the Viking Age were not Vikings - the word properly refers to sea-borne warriors/raiders.

 

[Black Waltz]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist


No offense, but do read a history book before you coment on the Berserkers' timing again. Please.

The Viking Age was about 800-1050 AD; well into the Medieval period. And of course, the Vikings already were Swedes, Danes, Norwegians etc. However, most Scandinavians of the Viking Age were not Vikings - the word properly refers to sea-borne warriors/raiders.

The Vikings also held extensive land on the North-East coast of Scotland and the outlying islands such as Orkney and Shetland. Captured - of course - by sea raids. The Vikings were still going strong up until the 14th Century. They were allied with Scotland during their war of independence against England (even after fighting numerous wars against Scotland - the last one ending when King Hakken was killed in bad weather trying to invade Scotland). They even tried to avoid conflict between Scotland and England by having the Maid of Norway become Queen of Scotland and marry the English King Edward I's son. But she died on the crossing.

Anyway. That was just to ilustraite how far the Viking civilisation carried on. They were by no means an ancient unit.

 

[hotrod0823]

@ Barron: Point taken on the f-15, you could say the same about the musketer and the man-o-war and the conquistador.

The zerk is meant for amphibous assults. Take you zerk vs. long bow and move it to a coastal city and see the results. Your long bows don't get any attacks .

I have seen the Hwacha in action and although not around for long it can be strong to help weaken the rifles and used with cavs make a strong artillery force.

My point was that any UU that is played and a game that focuses on using that UU can show its strengths. Perhaps even the f-15 (check out Epic 11, people even got elite f-15 if you can believe it). My point is people don't think impi are strong, or War Chariots or bowmen but each has a strength and put in the right context and using a focus approach you can push it and show its power. Look the LK Always war game that used the Vikes. They had a cake walk.

All that being said they are fun to play !

Hotrod

 

[Puzzlinon]

You get the raze rep hit if the city you abandon have 50% or more foreign nationals.

Good to know, thanks!

 

[Mullet Crusader]

Berserkers have never really given me any trouble. Mostly because the AI has no idea how to use them effectively though, a human might be able to do some real damage with them.

 

[Tweedledum]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist


No offense, but do read a history book before you coment on the Berserkers' timing again. Please.

The Viking Age was about 800-1050 AD; well into the Medieval period. And of course, the Vikings already were Swedes, Danes, Norwegians etc. However, most Scandinavians of the Viking Age were not Vikings - the word properly refers to sea-borne warriors/raiders.

.

OK, I've read one (briefly) and some of my comments still stand. Look at what the Berserker replaces - the Longbow, a weapon that wasn't developed at all until the early 12th century and had most of its well-known successes (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt etc) much later than that. This suggests that the Berserker does
come too late (although maybe not by as much as I originally thought), so I'll split the difference and move them back to Medieval Infantry...

 

[The Last Conformist]

I didn't say the timing was correct. You're perfectly right the Longbowmen belong to a somewhat later age. So does, BTW, the kind of heavy infantry depicted by the Medieval Infantry animations.

Really, the entire Middle Ages are a bit weird in Civ III - units turn up out of chronological order (Pikemen before Knights being a good example), and many of the Era's techs as well as many of the units really belongs to the 'Early Modern' period (ca 1500-1800 AD). But I think it clear that the Berserker does belong in the early part of Civ's medeval Era - if under Feudalism or Invention does not make a whole lot of difference.

Black Waltz: At least in Swedish historical literature, the Norse holdings in modern Scotland would not be refered to as "Viking" after 1100 AD or so. As for the expression "Viking civilization", it's probably too much to hope for that it'll go away, but the expression does simply not make sense. No-one would refer to Spanish 1500s culture as "Conquistador civilization". As for how long it held on, well, Scandinavia is still around. Culture have changed over a millennium, but there's no neat break between "Viking" and later Scandinavian culture.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Shouldn't their axes require iron?

I think Feudalism is a perfect place for them (MDI)

Then again, a technologically advanced viking civilization can attack while the enemy still uses spears (ouch!)
But I guess they would now have the dissadvantage of requiring iron

 

[Puzzlinon]

> the word properly refers to sea-borne warriors/raiders

Pretty much. As a noun, viking in the original sense meant wandering; the word referred to the activity.
It's hellishly dull in northern towns in winter, so they developed a hobby.