"cracks call" spammed by AI

[zuzzu]

Been playing a game (while waiting for 1.10 to become available, hope Slitherine gets better at this), and unfortunately I have been crushed by the enemy just because two AI players I am at war with both have cracks call, and of course by year 1507 they can cast it 8-10 times per battle, essentially guaranteeing that I lose 2-3 valuable units EACH battle. WTF. It's not fun. There is no counter to this. I don't have flying units, I don't have counter magic... What else could I do?

I think it would be really fair if units killed by cracks call could be "raise dead", at least.

[Anskiy]

Yeah Crack's Call is definitely one of those very unfair spells, where basically it's useless for you since you have better things to cast usually, but it's great for the AI since they get shittons of mana to burn throwing the dice, especially at its current cost. I propose that it should be changed to doing 10 damage, and have a 50% chance of working, but cost 50 MP to cast.

[zuzzu]

Yeah Crack's Call is definitely one of those very unfair spells, where basically it's useless for you since you have better things to cast usually, but it's great for the AI since they get shittons of mana to burn throwing the dice, especially at its current cost. I propose that it should be changed to doing 10 damage, and have a 50% chance of working, but cost 50 MP to cast.

I think that:
1) the casting cost should be higher
2) the damage should be smaller, e.g. 15
3) units killed by crack's call can be "raised dead"

[jhsidi]

The nearly unanimous hatred of crack's call is one of the long-running themes of this forum. The search function is pretty bad and the discussions are buried in threads with hundreds of pages, but the summary of why it's still the same from MoM is that nature has no other answer for killing extremely powerful units like heroes, other than crack's call, and nobody has ever been able to propose an alternative that works.

I hate that spell as well, but even I have to admit that double the cost for half the effect is not the way to go. I think it might be improved by giving it a range of unblockable, unhealable damage that has 100% chance of hitting; it's really the 25% chance of a unit just instantly blinking out of existence that makes crack's call feel so awful. At least with damage that has to build up over turns you wouldn't lose your favorite unit just because you accidentally walked onto a magic spirit or something and the enemy 1-shotted with crack's call.

[Anskiy]

I would definitely prefer a 100% reliable spell for sure. I just think that 21 damage is excessive. Sure, there should be a counter to absurd defense stacking on heroes, but it doesn't have to be that strong, especially considering that Nature is supposed to be the "mediocre at everything" realm. At 100% reliability I think 5 unblockable damage would be a good idea? I still think 25 MP is too cheap for what the spell does currently(for the AI, for the player the spell is bad thanks to the randomness factor).

[Beorn]

I think the problem with Crack's Call is that it is one of those reminders that you are not playing against actual human opponents, it breaks that kind of immersion.

You are playing to win.  AI opponents are playing to make your task more difficult, and their trying to win themselves is only one way to accomplish that goal, and an extremely difficult method of doing so for a game maker.

You, trying to win, would rarely see a spell with a 25% chance of success as the best use of a precious turn.  Maybe as a parting shot before retreating, but not in a competitive battle between important units.  So the AI using the spell frequently serves as a reminder that this is a very asymmetrical sort of thing.

For older NFL fans, I remember decades ago, a boast out of Chicago that the Bears didn't win much, but they left their opponents so bruised and injured that those opponents had a pretty poor record the following week.  That's what I think of when I see Crack's Call used repeatedly.

But... even in Casters, the AI isn't really that effective unless given big advantages as the difficulty rises.  If you want to play a challenging game, the AI either needs stuff like this, or rather stiff material advantages, it's just a matter of which is more fun for you.

[Seravy]

but not in a competitive battle between important units.  So the AI using the spell frequently serves as a reminder that this is a very asymmetrical sort of thing.

It is, though, I mean the spell is generally used in asymmetric situations.
In general the AI uses the spell in these cases :

-They can't win the battle, your forces are way too strong. In that case killing the best unit at a medium chance of success to make sure the same army won't keep going and taking your cities is a valid choice.
-They want to use direct damage spells and have nothing better. Either your units are immune, have too much defense, or they don't have a decent direct damage spell. This generally happens if you have very few (1-2) units and a success will immediately end the battle, or when they have the far stronger army so they can afford to gamble for a larger win.
-The target regenerates, has a very high value, or is a hero. These are major threats that are often impossible to destroy any other way  but leaving them alone would let them steamroll all of the AI's cities. (this is actually the case when I found myself in need of using the spell btw)
-If the target tile has a city wall. (destroying the wall in addition to possibly killing the unit)

So basically you either had a very good unit, or one of the sides had to be much stronger than the other to see the spell unless they literally had nothing better to cast.

What you need to keep in mind is, the AI is damaging your armies because that "next" target the army attacks can and often will be their next city. Obviously this doesn't apply if it's their last one but who wouldn't want to blow up as many of the troops that made them lose the game as possible?

[zuzzu]

but not in a competitive battle between important units.  So the AI using the spell frequently serves as a reminder that this is a very asymmetrical sort of thing.

It is, though, I mean the spell is generally used in asymmetric situations.
In general the AI uses the spell in these cases :

-They can't win the battle, your forces are way too strong. In that case killing the best unit at a medium chance of success to make sure the same army won't keep going and taking your cities is a valid choice.
-They want to use direct damage spells and have nothing better. Either your units are immune, have too much defense, or they don't have a decent direct damage spell. This generally happens if you have very few (1-2) units and a success will immediately end the battle, or when they have the far stronger army so they can afford to gamble for a larger win.
-The target regenerates, has a very high value, or is a hero. These are major threats that are often impossible to destroy any other way  but leaving them alone would let them steamroll all of the AI's cities. (this is actually the case when I found myself in need of using the spell btw)
-If the target tile has a city wall. (destroying the wall in addition to possibly killing the unit)

So basically you either had a very good unit, or one of the sides had to be much stronger than the other to see the spell unless they literally had nothing better to cast.

What you need to keep in mind is, the AI is damaging your armies because that "next" target the army attacks can and often will be their next city. Obviously this doesn't apply if it's their last one but who wouldn't want to blow up as many of the troops that made them lose the game as possible?

All good theory, but as said at the beginning, I just had a game (at Lunatic difficulty, I admit) where the AI was spamming crack's call way, way too much. No good strategy, no amount of luck, not even reloading and retrying certain battles allowed me to move forward with the game. In this particular game, it was beyond frustrating. What I am suggesting is not to eliminate the spell, but rather to mitigate its effect. E.g. allowing to resuscitate / raise units killed by crack's call, during the same battle, would be enough. Otherwise, a smaller effect (15 damage instead of 21, perhaps at a 33% chance instead of 25%).

[Anskiy]

What you need to keep in mind is, the AI is damaging your armies because that "next" target the army attacks can and often will be their next city. Obviously this doesn't apply if it's their last one but who wouldn't want to blow up as many of the troops that made them lose the game as possible?

Actually, if I were a king/wizard and were in a losing position(overall, not just in one battle) I would gracefully surrender or try to negotiate a truce with my enemy. Any half decent ruler would do that, instead of pointlessly exposing their people to more danger by enacting a losing war.

It is true that in a losing battle(individually) I would try to inflict as much damage on the opponent as possible. What I don't understand is, why does Nature need a high power irrecoverable damage spell? Nature's game is summoning, not combat spells, and Crack's Call is frankly busted, except for the fact that it's pure RNG. And a tool that is pure RNG is going to be inevitably unfair for the player since a good player will almost never rely on RNG, while the AI has much more mana to burn on rolling the dice. This spell is heavily flawed, and I'm surprised it has stayed unchanged for so long. Just because it has some niche uses against say high defense heroes or cheesing lairs doesn't mean it's worth keeping.

[Slingers]

Hmm. I think Cracks Call works fine ... if my caster superhero spams it.) Devaluing Cracks Call would also devalue whatever counters it.