New ulf/berserker in 0.9.0

[Kamamura]

The fact that the berserk ability works in offense only now is a bad thing with capital B, IMO.

Before, it was a great ability with drawbacks - similar to charge. You can deal a lot of damage, but you can also die quickly. Interesting. He is just a drooling madman that keeps whacking until he falls or the enemy is dead, offense, defense, no matter. I liked that.

Now, the guy just became a guided fire-and-forget missile. Wizards, leaders, supports, he whacks everything in one turn, as long as he attacks from at least reasonable terrain or the target has been softened. Then he retreats to heal, and again, and again, ad nauseam.

I know that there was a notion of strenghtening dwarves, but this is overreaction.

I propose to do one of the following:

- Return berserk to the original state in previous versions
- Strip berserker of his insane resistances. In history, berserkers fought almost naked, without armor. The only resistance I think is plausible is cold resistance due to this habit.
- Make him slower

[AT]

I think the berserk change might be reverted, but I don't think the other two are going to happen.

[Kamamura]

I meant do one of the three proposed options, not all of them.

The thing that I mind most on berserker is that he punishes the mistakes too hard. If you overexpose, your units become wounded, you can retreat, heal, regroup, you have time to react. You may have to cede some space to the opponent, but that's interesting.

With berserkers, the errors are unrecoverable, if you don't notice that berserker can walk to your support unit (or worse, levelled support unit), too bad, the unit is dead. Or if you are unlucky and your frontline is breached, the support units are slaughtered instantly.

[Elvish_Pillager]

I have a suggestion for toning down the Ulfserker:

Reduce the number of rounds of combat it can have in one turn to 3.

A 4- or 5- 12 attack isn't bad, but at least it's only as powerful as a level 3 unit's attack. Thus, its average maximum damage would be 54, comparable with the Knight's 58 on its charge. It would no longer be able to, for instance, kill an Elvish Fighter in Forest in one turn most of the time.

It would also not be able to kill an average, Resilient, full HP unit on Grassland in a single attack. This would be a Good Thing.

It also needs some other rebalancing, but this would deal with most of the more major issues. It would also put an end to the one thing that I most hate about the Ulf/Berserker: Its deterministic nature.

[Darth Fool]

I meant do one of the three proposed options, not all of them.

The thing that I mind most on berserker is that he punishes the mistakes too hard. If you overexpose, your units become wounded, you can retreat, heal, regroup, you have time to react. You may have to cede some space to the opponent, but that's interesting.

With berserkers, the errors are unrecoverable, if you don't notice that berserker can walk to your support unit (or worse, levelled support unit), too bad, the unit is dead. Or if you are unlucky and your frontline is breached, the support units are slaughtered instantly.

I don't see how reverting would change this, except to make berserk useless. With the current berserk, if you leave support units open to attack by berserkers, the support units will almost certainly die. The question then is how likely is it that the berserker will die in your retaliatory strike on it? With the old Berserkers, they were essentially suicide units, and with berserk on defense, they rarely could even make it into a position where they could damage the enemy, and if they did, they almost certainly were killed in the next turn by the opponent. To me, this does not fit the dwarven race. Dwarves should not have suicide units. If they are overpowered, raise the price by 1 or 2 gold.

While berserkers can be powerful anti-support units, they are not really that great at frontal assaults. If you are finding that your support units are getting wiped out by berserkers, you probably need more front line troops for each support unit you recruit.

[The Bishop]

While berserkers can be powerful anti-support units, they are not really that great at frontal assaults. If you are finding that your support units are getting wiped out by berserkers, you probably need more front line troops for each support unit you recruit.

The berserker can actually act in a combo with something not so terribly big (solo, even)and decimate a front line unit. This wasn't a problem in 8.11, but now that they can heal up and do it again, knalgan players on multi typically recruit 1/3 to 2/3 berserkers. It is the general concensus on multiplayer that between the extra guardsman move and the ulfserker, the dwarves have become unstoppable by anybody when in the hands of a good player.

If you insist on making the defensive berserking removal permanent, then the berserker definitely needs to be made less effective in combat (removing resistances is a good idea), or raised not by

1 or 2 gold

but something more to the order of 3-5 so that it retains its role as a heavy support unit rather than a standard infantry.

[Sangel]

I've continuously proposed stripping the Ulfserker of its resistances. I think that this would substantially ameliorate the problem, as it would no longer be an even damage match one-on-one with frontline units.

A small drop in HP (2HP) would also be appropriate. An Ulfserker should not have more HP than the Dwarven Fighter.

I believe these two changes taken together should be amply sufficient.

[Ankka]

The ulf's image is almost naked. Why are the resistances so high?

Other dwarves have armor. The ulf doesn't. Yet still, they have the same resistances. Kinda weird...

[yeeha]

I think that they shouldnt be weakened but berserk should be way it was. Selective berserkness just doesnt feel right- Berserker: nice mage, lets go berserk and kill it. Berserker kills mage, heavy infantry comes to kill him. Berserker: i probably shouldnt go berserk and be sane.

[Tomyellow]

I think that they shouldnt be weakened but berserk should be way it was. Selective berserkness just doesnt feel right- Berserker: nice mage, lets go berserk and kill it. Berserker kills mage, heavy infantry comes to kill him. Berserker: i probably shouldnt go berserk and be sane.

<IMHO>
I think the argument is between two choices.

1. Berserk in all time. It means berserker can not remain in life 1 turn in the front line because 2 enemy will kill him anyway. So this choice would create a totally useless unit to dwarves, in addititon they has the fewest unit-type. So I think it isn't good.
2. We create a powerfull dwarf unit with one or more disadvanages.

I think 2nd choice is better. The berserker should have more HP than a dwarf fighter, because he has trained to a berserker for more then 30 years, but he should have lesser resistances, because he doesn't wear armors. And of course he can be expensive, because berserkers are not to common even amongst dwarves.
</IMHO>

Cheers,
Tomyellow

[js138]

Even before the change in the hands of a good player berserkers weren't suicide units. The standard tactic I observed was to ensure that the after the unit being attacked died, the space it was in would be the only one the berserker could be attacked from, and this would be filled by another unit, protecting the berserker.

I preferred them when they were beserk on defence - this made the ability a two-edged sword it is true, but with proper tactics it can still be exploited.

Now it's just way too easy to keep them alive, and it makes any archer type unit (especially mages) very hard to use effectively against the Knalgans.

[turin]

Well, your first point stands, but...

it makes any archer type unit (especially mages) very hard to use effectively against the Knalgans.

And its hard to use pierce units against undead. Its OK to have good against ranged attacks be a strength.


---

I really think that some of the changes proposed (increased cost, make berserker only for 3-4 rounds, and reduce berserker health) would make the unit no so effective, and they are, AFAIK, being discussed.