The new crazed

[Ranos]

I don't see a need for a change. I'm more pleased with the new enraged than with the former. The only things that needs addressing is the AC 90 and efect on AI.

My 0.02 gold

Even if enraged is fixed so that it effects that AI, it would still be useless at AC 90 as it is now. A bunch of units just running around the map and attacking only if you are at war with a civ. That is a point that I can see in Sarisin's complaints.

I did think of another solution but didn't include it because I figured it would be even more hated than enraged is now. That would be to allow enraged units to attack any unit of any civ regardless of war or peace. I think it would be cool at AC 90 as that would cause the total chaos that is intended during that time. Some people would really hate it though for the same reason they hate enraged now, you have no control.

The main downside for me would be early enraged units (crazed, lunatics, werewolves) declaring war in the early to mid game causing chaos that is not intended then. It could be interesting but for many, it would be bad.

One solution to this of course is still implement two different promotions. One that works as enraged does now used on the units listed above and the second one for AC 90 that would allow these enraged units to declare war when attacking.

 

[notque]

It shouldn't be useful. It should be interested, and negative, which it is.

It's awesome the way it is, with the changes of AC 90 fixed, and it affecting the AI

 

[Fafnir13]

It's not interesting. It's, "Oh look, a unit with enraged. Delete."
Similarly, I'm not going to be building any lunatics (they all come with enraged). As for freaks, there's already a long history of getting rid of the bad ones. Crazed is now just another trigger for the delete button.
That's all that a happens. No strategy, no building up for techs to counter. Just delete.
As for AC 90, that's even simpler. Nice little option that turns AC off. The fun it provided with horsemen and the like is less then the annoyance a game running off to 90 would be. Do my games reach 90 that often? No, but the chance just isn't worth it.
So instead of a negative you can eventually fully counter, we have a negative who's only solution is to avoid it completely. That means good chunks of the game that people have devoted time and effort into will never come back into play for anyone who seriously wants to avoid enraged.

 

[notque]

If you are so concerned with maximizing value that having a unit go run off without your control is too much to handle, play as civs that don't have to deal with it.

Deleting the unit is just silly.

I am playing all crazed armies aside from a few archers in cities to defend, and somehow I'm not seeing the problem you are.

 

[Sarisin]

Even if enraged is fixed so that it effects that AI, it would still be useless at AC 90 as it is now. A bunch of units just running around the map and attacking only if you are at war with a civ. That is a point that I can see in Sarisin's complaints.

I did think of another solution but didn't include it because I figured it would be even more hated than enraged is now. That would be to allow enraged units to attack any unit of any civ regardless of war or peace. I think it would be cool at AC 90 as that would cause the total chaos that is intended during that time. Some people would really hate it though for the same reason they hate enraged now, you have no control.

The main downside for me would be early enraged units (crazed, lunatics, werewolves) declaring war in the early to mid game causing chaos that is not intended then. It could be interesting but for many, it would be bad.

One solution to this of course is still implement two different promotions. One that works as enraged does now used on the units listed above and the second one for AC 90 that would allow these enraged units to declare war when attacking.

I think you have some fine suggestions, there Mr. Ranos.

I think you do need maybe two mechanisms if you want to have a new Crazed/Enraged system.

One would be for AC 90. Your suggestion of making those units with Enraged HN as well UNTIL they get their first kill might be interesting. They would then be at war with everyone and have plenty of targets. Also, most should be in your territory so you can send them out selectively to get that combat to lose the HN. Of course, the key here would be that YOU have control. You wouldn't want the AI taking control of them again or we would have the same problems noted.

Then, you would have everything else - the Lunatics, Werewolves, Freaks, etc. and I think most have some control whether or not they build them. The current system is a bit annoying, but it is different and there are ways of dealing with it. Unlike AC 90, unless you follow Fafnir's idea.

Honestly, if AC 90 is not changed, I would consider it. It is very frustratiing to play hundreds of turns (epic speed) and get to something that is just not right. It would be a shame to lose the other AC events. Now, I turn off Hell Terrain in my games. I had to way the loss of flavor and if I randomly got a civ that would benefit from it against the terrible micromanagement of using Adepts/Mages to put out fires, stop the spread, etc. I just got so tired of the latter that I turn it off in all my games and I just don't miss it.

It would be a loss to turn off all the Armageddon events, but until you have had the joy of one of these current AC 90 events in your game, you don't know what you are missing. It should be tough. Maybe it should be a little bizarre and crazy. But, it shouldn't be just an annoying event mostly that take the game out of your control and hands it to the AI.

 

[Ranos]

If you are so concerned with maximizing value that having a unit go run off without your control is too much to handle, play as civs that don't have to deal with it.

Deleting the unit is just silly.

I am playing all crazed armies aside from a few archers in cities to defend, and somehow I'm not seeing the problem you are.

The problem is the way different people view the new enraged. I think what it comes down to is the difference between Civvers (those who focus mostly on the Civilization aspects of the game) and the RPGers (those who see the role play value of the game).

The Civvers only see the negative. They can't control their unit and it goes out and dies and this is a bad thing. They can't see any of the positive aspects of it. They have the strategies they like to use and are unwilling to change them to fit the new situation.

The RPGers get an enraged unit and have fun watching what kind of stupid and or heroic things it will do. It adds flavor and uncertainty to the game for them and requires them to use new tactics to work with this new system.

I enjoy watching my Ravenous Werewolves run around on their own. It's entertaining to me. It's like watching a five year old run around and do things I would never do. While sometimes it can be annoying, mostly it's just entertaining.

I really enjoyed this post earlier in the thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7629479#post7629479

Now I haven't come across the AC 90 situation yet but when I do, I'll figure out some way around it. More than likely, I'll just declare war on my neighbor and watch as my enraged units either kill themselves or kill the enemy. Maybe it'll be good and maybe it'll be bad, but that's the fun of randomness. You never know what the outcome will be.

 

[notque]

I agree. I look at it from the RPGer side.

 

[Ranos]

I think you have some fine suggestions, there Mr. Ranos.

I think you do need maybe two mechanisms if you want to have a new Crazed/Enraged system.

One would be for AC 90. Your suggestion of making those units with Enraged HN as well UNTIL they get their first kill might be interesting. They would then be at war with everyone and have plenty of targets. Also, most should be in your territory so you can send them out selectively to get that combat to lose the HN. Of course, the key here would be that YOU have control. You wouldn't want the AI taking control of them again or we would have the same problems noted.

Then, you would have everything else - the Lunatics, Werewolves, Freaks, etc. and I think most have some control whether or not they build them. The current system is a bit annoying, but it is different and there are ways of dealing with it. Unlike AC 90, unless you follow Fafnir's idea.

Honestly, if AC 90 is not changed, I would consider it. It is very frustratiing to play hundreds of turns (epic speed) and get to something that is just not right. It would be a shame to lose the other AC events. Now, I turn off Hell Terrain in my games. I had to way the loss of flavor and if I randomly got a civ that would benefit from it against the terrible micromanagement of using Adepts/Mages to put out fires, stop the spread, etc. I just got so tired of the latter that I turn it off in all my games and I just don't miss it.

It would be a loss to turn off all the Armageddon events, but until you have had the joy of one of these current AC 90 events in your game, you don't know what you are missing. It should be tough. Maybe it should be a little bizarre and crazy. But, it shouldn't be just an annoying event mostly that take the game out of your control and hands it to the AI.

You were misunderstanding my intentions. I still believe the AI should get control like it does now. The HN was for werewolves only not for all enraged units. The ability for enraged units to attack anybody was not that they are HN and can attack anybody without reprecussions but that they would attack the first unit they came across. If it was a barb or a unit of a civ you are at war with, then nothing changes. If it was a unit of a civ you were at peace with, you would now be at war with them since your unit attacked a unit of that civ.

It's all about chaos in my mind.

Of the two suggestions I made, I would prefer the suggestion in post 117 as it would still cause chaos but allow you to choose who you are at war and at peace with.

 

[Asthix]

The problem is the way different people view the new enraged. I think what it comes down to is the difference between Civvers (those who focus mostly on the Civilization aspects of the game) and the RPGers (those who see the role play value of the game).

The Civvers only see the negative. They can't control their unit and it goes out and dies and this is a bad thing. They can't see any of the positive aspects of it. They have the strategies they like to use and are unwilling to change them to fit the new situation.

The RPGers get an enraged unit and have fun watching what kind of stupid and or heroic things it will do. It adds flavor and uncertainty to the game for them and requires them to use new tactics to work with this new system.

I enjoy watching my Ravenous Werewolves run around on their own. It's entertaining to me. It's like watching a five year old run around and do things I would never do. While sometimes it can be annoying, mostly it's just entertaining.

I really enjoyed this post earlier in the thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7629479#post7629479

Now I haven't come across the AC 90 situation yet but when I do, I'll figure out some way around it. More than likely, I'll just declare war on my neighbor and watch as my enraged units either kill themselves or kill the enemy. Maybe it'll be good and maybe it'll be bad, but that's the fun of randomness. You never know what the outcome will be.

I've got to hand it to you Ranos, this is one of the most objective posts
I've ever read on this site.

But if I could marry micromanagement, I would.

Serenity now!!!

 

[Fafnir13]

The Civvers only see the negative. They can't control their unit and it goes out and dies and this is a bad thing. They can't see any of the positive aspects of it. They have the strategies they like to use and are unwilling to change them to fit the new situation.

Why would I need to change any of my strategies? I've never once relied on crazed units and loyalty. They were always fluff. Bits that make the whole of the game more interesting. Now they're just something I avoid. Woohoo.

 

[Bad Player]

I really like this idea. quite flavourful and LOTS of fun

That gets my vote too! Or maybe make Hemah do something like this.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I just noticed that you still control the promotions your AI controlled Enraged units get. That seems wrong to me. I think Enraged units should auto-promote.

 

[Ranos]

Why would I need to change any of my strategies? I've never once relied on crazed units and loyalty. They were always fluff. Bits that make the whole of the game more interesting. Now they're just something I avoid. Woohoo.

And yet you made this post:

But I like them.
Allow me to elaborate. My very first game of FFH, I went random civ and got the Lanun. Eventually got OO and started playing around with their various unique units. One of them that stood out was this crazy thing called a lunatic. Essentially a mob of crazies running around wielding flails, they struck a cord with me somehow. Even better, they were a dynamic unit with this great little random buff that made every turn with them like Christmas. Will my little lunatics go crazy and get better at killing things this turn? Ooh! You did! Good job little lunatics.

I managed to finish that game, played many more, then upgraded to BtS after some deliberation. Thanks to the lack of up to date pedia entry, I did not realize for a long time that loyalty prevented units from turning barbarian without also dying. In a way, I lost my beloved little lunatics. Even made a post at one time decrying the existence of crazed. That's when I learned that loyalty did work and once again my legions of flail wielding guys were out having fun.

But no more. Once again they have been banished to the backside of the world. If you use them as fodder units, the crazed ain't so bad, but their building also adds the risk of any unit coming out crazed and they don't get a lower % chance to turn like lunatics. That and the unhappiness makes creating an unwieldy mob even less attractive.

Anyways....

NEW IDEA

No more wandering units. That just bights. Instead, make them attack any non-owner unit with 1 tile. For even more fun, they do not attack the stacks chief defender. They attack randomly. The enraged promotion retains move and attack bonus as well as the old school chance to turn barbarian. This accomplishes several things.

1: Enraged is still dangerous. Allies might not like it if you're killing their units and you will still need loyalty to guarantee you keep your units.

2: Enraged units are still a viable part of the army. Scattered units are useless, and little but fodder. You still have to handle them with care as they will attack if you get them too close.

3: Enraged gives something of a benefit with the ability to attack randomly in a stack. Or not. They might just waste attacks on workers or not even attack the stack you want them too, but you might just get lucky. Plenty of randomness but with an element of control. Like a funky bomb in ye olde scorched earth. You may not control where all the random shots are going, but you at least can aim the core shot. Sorry if no one else get the analogy.

Anyways, that's my NEW IDEA. Let me know what you think.

They were a part of your game. You used them in an effective way to attack your enemies. Now you can no longer do that and you don't like it. Instead of trying to figure out a new way to use them, you are just complaining that you can't use them the old way.

As for your new idea, it would cause nothing but trouble. Having units that just randomly attack anybody at any point in the game would mean you would have one of two situations. A) You have to keep all of your crazed units in your borders and having no open borders with anyone. B) As soon as you get any crazed units be prepared to be at near constant war with almost every other civ near you until they stopped agreeing to your open borders agreements.

Instead of complaining about not being able to use them how you did before, try and figure out new ways to use them. Just sitting here writing this post, I have already though of a couple of ways they could possibly be used and will propbably try them in my next game.

 

[Smakemupagus]

What are the odds of a unit starting Crazed if you have chaos mana -- it seems as high as 5%, is that right?

With the new Crazed, (x)% of Lanun and Doviello workers, setters, great people, adepts, missionaries, and for the most part, scouts hunter and priests, are useless. These units won't find an enemy they have a chance to defeat and will permanently go to sleep (or try to get on your boats if they can).

This is a pretty seriously bad effect, right? And not particularly fun or tactically interesting in my opinion. Why would you ever build a chaos mana node if you weren't stuck with it in your palace, given these penalties?

it's fine for lunatics and werewolves.

edit:

perhaps i misunderstand the mechanic.. is it the asylum, as opposed to chaos mana, that causes a significant portion of units to be crazy? in which case -- why would you ever build an asylum?

 

[Imuratep]

Chaos mana mutates units. Crazed and enraged are among the promotions you can get with mutated, but the probability is quite low as there are so many other promotions you can get with it.

 

[krinndnz]

Ranos, I think you're partially right, but you're attaching too much of a value judgment to "Civvers" and "RPGers." Because of my background as a Magic player, here's what I kept thinking when I read this thread: "this is an argument between Timmy and Spike." The two primary positions in this arguments are kind of arguing past one another.

Here's what I see as the Spike side of it: "I want to play chess, not roulette. The change to crazed/enraged moves this away from 'game I play' and towards 'thing I watch.' Crazed/enraged used to be a calculated risk that added strategic depth. Now the calculation has been simplified: delete the unit immediately, because good results are vanishingly rare and results worse than just losing the unit are likely. Because I am losing control, especially in the specific areas of high-AC game states, Baron Duin Halfmorn, and Mutate/Chaos-using civs, the strategic depth of the game as a whole has been reduced. This change hurts my ability to engage with the game."

Here's what I see the Timmy side answering: "This is part of a vibrant and fully realized world. It increases the depth of immersion into Erebus. Bad things happen in that world, and that's okay because it makes playing the game more of an interesting, dynamic, emotionally engaging experience. This change helps my ability to engage with the game."

In short, those two sides are trying to describe this change as good or bad, but are not going to come to a consensus because they judge good and bad differently, they value different things. I'm more sympathetic to the Spike side of the argument, personally. It's important to note, though, that different players value different things (which Ranos said very clearly). That's not bad, that's just facts on the ground that designers have to deal with. They have to craft their work with that in mind.

With that said, here's my input: FFH's primary audience is the Spikes of Civ. The wonderful thing about looking for narrative and engagement is that with imagination, you can find 'em anywhere. The Timmy voices in this thread have certainly demonstrated ample imagination. I think that this change is a misstep by the design team: they've already demonstrated many times in the past that it's possible to add flavor, depth, and richness to the world, to create an emotionally engaging experience, without doing it at the expense of equally engaging strategy mechanics. The change we're discussing doesn't live up to the standards that they've previously held themselves to: it's not that making a strategy-for-story tradeoff is inherently bad, it's that this particular one is a really bad tradeoff that affects large areas of the game. It should be stricken from the mechanics.

 

[Imuratep]

Though in MTG language the Role Player would not be a Timmy as a Timmy wants to win with big, big Dragons (in FFH that would mean lategame units in general). In MTG language there is a player type that fits this exactly though it's not so well-known as the Timmy-Johnny-Spike-differentiation: The Vorthos.
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278
And for me I have to say since I have won the game with every civilization, I only play the game if I have found a weird synergy as Gibbon Goetia with Body III and Life III and an early hero.
But generally I agree with your points, because the fantastic flavor of FFH is made by its mechanics.

 

[Vitek]

It's not interesting. It's, "Oh look, a unit with enraged. Delete."

I just don't understand why you should delete Crazed units? I see no point in doing it.

 

[Imuratep]

Especially as right now you can still control the movement of the unit (which I think should be fixed).

 

[iffi]

I just don't understand why you should delete Crazed units? I see no point in doing it.

You still pay for their upkeep, right? Which increases when they are out of your cultural borders. A semi-usefull unit for one or 2 coins per turn.

I had a crazed highly promoted unit a while ago. Sort of entertaining, if it could find a target. But could not bother babysitting it so in the end it was practically useless.

I think choosing Mobility promotions for your crazed ones makes it a more enjoyable experience.