Viking Berserks vs. Cavalry. (+Chieftains BQ)

[Devang]

Should the Berserkers get some more bonus vs. Cavalry?

Anybody playing Vikings will most certainly focus on quickly advancing and fielding their 84 HP champions. Along with the faster Celtic ones, Viking champs are the second best champs in a real game situation. Sure Japanese, Aztec and Slavic champs sound better on paper. Best ones are Gothic though, hands down. You can get some 80 gothic ones for the price others get 53(?).

Nobody hence bothers to create Berserks. They are trained in the castle. You can get a lot more barrackses(?) than castles. Regeneration sounds good on paper, but in actual battles, it translates to Berserks surviving only an extra hit. They're too slow to actually function as raiders. They cost +5 food and gold. In the castle age, they are barely any different from Long Swordsmen.

As it is, Vikings don't get Halberdiers. So why not give the Berserk something to differentiate it even more from Champions? I've tested and propose:
Normal Berserks get an innate +2 attack bonus vs. cavalry (including camels).
Elite Berserks get +4 bonus vs. cavalry.
Add to that +4 from Chieftains, for +6/+8 vs. cavalry.

It is hardly game breaking, doesn't disrupt the balance vs. other units. Catapharacts still own them badly.

This also is historically accurate. The dane axe vs. cavalry wasn't a pretty sight. Ref. Hastings, 1066.

Also all other Infantry UU have an actually useful 'gimmick'. Already said why regeneration doesn't work in actual battles.
Woad Raiders have speed.
Huskarls have huge pierce armour + bonus vs. archers + creation from Gothic Barracks
Teutonic Knights are well, Teutonic Knights.
Samurais vs. UU
Jaguar Warriors vs. Infantry.

BQ: Why doesn't Chieftains affect Berserk's attack vs. Camels? Was this done purposely?

[kreexz]

How about increasing the speed of regen instead of 2/3 per second make it 3/5 or 4/5? Castle Age berserks are probably the worst UU in the game anyway.

[Devang]

Definitely, they'll need +1 attack and +1 melee armour to just even be viable in the castle age.

[the cup]

IMO instead of Berserkergang granting increased HP regen it should increase their armour by an amount, this would make them durable in battle, and hopefully after the battle the survivors can actually utilise their (slower) regen.

[FE_HockeySam18]

Originally posted by Devang:

This also is historically accurate. The dane axe vs. cavalry wasn't a pretty sight. Ref. Hastings, 1066.

Hastings was a battle between the Normans and the Saxons, not the Vikings. The Vikings were crushed by the Saxons at Stamford Bridge weeks before, but no cavalry force of any notable size participated in that battle.

Cavalry were nonetheless effective against infantry unless it was a very well-disciplined and numerous spear-wielding force with the proper surroundings and support, so despite the above historical inaccuracy your point still stands =)

Originally posted by Devang:

BQ: Why doesn't Chieftains affect Berserk's attack vs. Camels? Was this done purposely?

Meh, Camels are already weak enough against infantry (and every unit that is not cavalry). Plus they share an armor class with ships, making them even weaker against some units. Not sure that camels would be a viable option against Vikings anyway.

[hot_gril]

Aren't Vikings considered overpowered on water maps and good for castle age rushing on land maps? That is, if you let your enemies get to the Imperial Age, you're at a disadvantage, but otherwise, you're at an advantage, so it's balanced. They're only weak against cavalry once everyone is in the Imperial Age.

[Devang]

@AoF_HockeySam18. I haven't once mentioned Vikings in that sentence. It clearly states, the Dane axe vs. cavalry. I know, Harold the Saxon's Housecarls.

You didn't comment on the main point though? Regeneration is useless in real games. No one bothers creating Berserks in lieu of Champions. What would it be if they get a rather partial (+2/+4) innate bonus vs. Cavalry? Also the regular ones get +1 attack and armour. Take out bonus vs. buildings if you want, to balance.

Obviously, nobody will create Camels vs. Vikings 1 vs. 1, but I'm more concerned about team games. I consider the Indian Imperial Camel, 'certainly not a pushover'.

@[Vergil] Aeneas. Vikings are hardly overpowered on water in AoF. They got a nice nerf bat. Their team bonus is reduced and ship cost bonus is staggered. They don't even get Halberdiers despite being an infantry civilization. Even if they did (72 HP), Japanese helbs still defeat them.

[kreexz]

Originally posted by Vergil Aeneas:

Aren't Vikings considered overpowered on water maps and good for castle age rushing on land maps? That is, if you let your enemies get to the Imperial Age, you're at a disadvantage, but otherwise, you're at an advantage, so it's balanced. They're only weak against cavalry once everyone is in the Imperial Age.

In AoC yes, they are. And in a 1v1 vikes can certainy hold their own, it's in team games with trade that vikes will struggle, because you usually can't finish off the enemy before postimp.

[FE_HockeySam18]

Originally posted by Devang:

@AoF_HockeySam18. I haven't once mentioned Vikings in that sentence. It clearly states, the Dane axe vs. cavalry. I know, Harold the Saxon's Housecarls.

You didn't comment on the main point though? Regeneration is useless in real games. No one bothers creating Berserks in lieu of Champions. What would it be if they get a rather partial (+2/+4) innate bonus vs. Cavalry? Also the regular ones get +1 attack and armour. Take out bonus vs. buildings if you want, to balance.

Obviously, nobody will create Camels vs. Vikings 1 vs. 1, but I'm more concerned about team games. I consider the Indian Imperial Camel, 'certainly not a pushover'.

Even so, equating Saxon Housecarls with Viking Berserkers just because some of each used a similar weapon isn't the best historical basis for an argument.

That said, I still agree with you- sword/axe infantry aren't viable against cavalry. UUs are rather hard to mass due to being trained at the castle instead of any other building, so Vikings would always go for champs instead. Zerks are a good supplement with chieftains though, given their overall versatility. Regeneration is nice to have but is very situational. Vikings can counter cavalry with their extra HP pikes- I've always seen Chieftains as more powerful against he scout-line than the knight-line.

Imperial camels are powerful, but not viable against archers or infantry. I think that's a big reason why Indians have nice archery/HC options. Overall, they're an enigmatic civ, but powerful if properly used.

Originally posted by kreexz:

Originally posted by Vergil Aeneas:

Aren't Vikings considered overpowered on water maps and good for castle age rushing on land maps? That is, if you let your enemies get to the Imperial Age, you're at a disadvantage, but otherwise, you're at an advantage, so it's balanced. They're only weak against cavalry once everyone is in the Imperial Age.

In AoC yes, they are. And in a 1v1 vikes can certainy hold their own, it's in team games with trade that vikes will struggle, because you usually can't finish off the enemy before postimp.

Agreed.

[hot_gril]

Originally posted by kreexz:

Originally posted by Vergil Aeneas:

Aren't Vikings considered overpowered on water maps and good for castle age rushing on land maps? That is, if you let your enemies get to the Imperial Age, you're at a disadvantage, but otherwise, you're at an advantage, so it's balanced. They're only weak against cavalry once everyone is in the Imperial Age.

In AoC yes, they are. And in a 1v1 vikes can certainy hold their own, it's in team games with trade that vikes will struggle, because you usually can't finish off the enemy before postimp.

But then if you were to give them any improvements for imperial age warfare, they'd be overpowered. They can't be good early AND late game. And you can't really give them an advantage in team games specifically unless you give them a trade cart bonus, which still might not cut it.