Fatigue + Morale

For this model, I am going to assume a few things.

1) Fatigue and morale really only matter in combat, so only during combat will it be considered.
2) As units fight, they grow tired.
3) Losses, especially lots of consecutive, worsen morale.
4) Seeing the enemy die increases morale.

Civilization is a turned based game, so the real time nature of combat is hard to simulate, especially in regards to fatigue and morale. However combat is many small turned-based turns inside the bigger turn. Using that scale of time, each round represents some passing of time.

Fatigue

Based on assumption two above, we can assume that units also lose combat effectiveness. In Civ terms this means that they get worse stats as they get tired. Because fatigue should be a strategy, not frustrating factor, stat progression would be fixed. It would also be variable based on terrain, as this example shows with Knights(A/D/M)

Terrain = Round 1 = Round 2 = Round 3 = Round 4
Desert = 4/3/2 = 3/2/2 = 2/2/2 = 2/1/1
Grassland= 4/3/2 = 4/3/2 = 3/2/2 = 2/2/2

Because I do not how units will be in Civ 4, here are general rules for fatigue.
*Hot terrain affects armoured units more than unarmoured
*Difficult terrain is more tiring, especially for mounted units
*ARmoured units tire more easily
*Cavalry tends to have really high stats but tire out easily
*Spear types have very good fatigue progression

I'll add the section of morale later....

I like this idea, and much of the general premise makes sense.

First off: There 3 be three components for combat:
skill- as in Civ III
Energy- fatigue as proposed by sir schwick
Morale- as proposd by sir schwick

These three would come together to form the combat value of that unit.

Skill would equal 50% of the combat value
Energy would equal 25%
Morale would equal 25% as well

-The highest morale would come after several wins.
Low morale would come after a retreat.

@ Sir Schwick:
Difficult terrain would be worse for ground units, not mounted.
Armored ground units would tire more easily.

any armoured units, but especially mounted ones
the idea is that cavalry have a huge charge advantage, but after the first couple rounds are only okay

anyway, here is morale

Morale determines whether a unit tries to run or not(different from withdrawl, which is a function of tired fast units).
A unit breaks whenever their morale hits a certain low. Morale is refreshed and adjusted per battle, no cumulative form other battles. Here are some modifiers based on battlefield. The +/- is not one but an indicator of effect.

+ for defenders

+ for fortification(defender)
- for fortification(attacker)

+ for river(defender)
- for river(attacker)

+ for spear/mounted in flat and open terrain
- for spear/mounted in wooded areas

+ for archer types on steep terrain

Also, as your current fatigue carries and additional morale modifier, as example will show.

Knight
Round 1 = +2, Round 2 = +1, Round 3 = -1, Round 4 = -2


Experience Level obviously increases your fatigue resistance and morale. Regulars have to worry about running easily while elites will last the fight.

Also, taking HPs have a big effect on morale:
First blood is double the morale boost or penalty.
Consecutive kills increase the morale boost/penalty per kill.

This means that heavy cavalry, which have good start stats, do best when they manage to take the first 2 HPs. This means they might rout the enemy before they get tired. Spears can do really well if they survive the first couple rounds. Infantry is the same way.

Routing:
When a unit routs it automatically loses 1 HP for each MP left in the attacking unit. This MP is the one derived from the fatigue stat, not the game map.

Hiya Sir_Schwick. Well, seems great minds think alike....well, almost anyways ! In my changing the combat model I do mention morale (though not fatigue-which would also be an intriguing addition). In my morale model, the amount of morale a unit loses in a 'pulse' (i.e. a turn of combat) is based on the success of an opponents attack-even if that attack scored no damage. Though I also pointed out that damage enhances the morale loss caused by a successful attack (in my preferred system, a successful attack still has to penetrate a units 'armour', if any). Morale is also reduced, though, by facing poor odds-a single unit against two enemy units is a -10% morale loss, a single unit against THREE enemy units is a -20% morale loss, etc. Units with 'blitz' ability can fend off multiple opponents, according to the movement allowance, so the reduction in morale would be less for such units (i.e. if a cavalry unit has blitz, and 2 MP's, then it can fend off two opponents without loss of morale). I think that terrain would also be a useful morale effector, as you have suggested!
Now, in my system, morale also has an additional effect. It reduces a units attack strength and firepower (as the unit becomes increasingly focused on its own survival). Like you, though, I believe that morale should also increase the chance of a 'forced retreat' OR a rout-though I feel a rout should be a complete loss of a unit, even if it isn't redlined yet. However, it might be possible that such a routed unit can 'reform', after say 1-2 turns, in friendly territory-though with only 1hp!
Anyway, just some extra thoughts!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Quite impressive. You may notice that I am generally not interested in combat suggestion threads, but these morale and fatigue features would be very welcome additions to Civ warfare.

While the discussion here has currently centered only on battlefield effects on morale and fatigue, undoubtedly morale can eventually be expanded to take many other broad social and political effects into consideration. For example, social factors such as relative cultures (and thus pride, honor, etc.) and political factors such as the "justness" of the war and army/state loyalty or authority could influence morale and battlefield performance.

I have recently been reading a bit on the French revolution, and it is interesting to note that the rag-tag "citizen-armies" of revolutionary France were able to defeat and drive out the professional, well-disciplined armies of Austria and even Prussia. As much as this is possible in Civ3 due to randomness, I would be delighted to see that this kind of situation would be possible in Civ4 due to actual gameplay circumstances.

Also,

searcheagle said:

Difficult terrain would be worse for ground units, not mounted.

Click to expand...

This seems a bit more reasonable, since the foot soldiers would have to slosh through mud or swamp.

Some other things that should affect morale should be cultural. I don't know if the civ traits will carry over into Civ IV, but a militeristic civ should get a bonus.
In addition, the advent of techs such as Military Tradition should also improve the base morale of a unit or perhaspe thier staying power.
Some units, such as Berserks, should ignore all negative morale penalties as well.
Lastly, percieved superiority over opposing units (tanks vs cavalry or cavaly vs muskets for example) should also bump up the begining morale of the superior unit.

Complexity of combat will cause issues particularly in relation to multiplayer, this game tends to be too slow for that anyway, do not want additions to complexity that make it worse

As a quick note on this I think it'd be better to have the fatigue system implemented only after many more turns and on special occasions since some armies tend to just get more hardened and tough while others break down. Maybe a new civ trait would do the trick concerning this?

Very good thread !

I sounds good that attack and defence values are modded during combat! If it was made as a complex model it could become 'very' realistic, but it could also be made simpler (simpler functions) and still resemble the complex model.

But there are always victories where the outcome goes against the odds before that battle. But this could be avoided by adding a term of experience to the equation, because experience is nothing more that being able to adapt to change. Experience should therefore not be a matter of hitpoints as in civ3. Experience should should have a large effect in some battles, but in others a little. I am thinking of a random number generator which will reprecent the amount of 'luck' that will affect the battle. This random number might be different for the attacker and the defender. But this should also be a terrain dependence (see later: the function, func2). For example a frozen march or river would make a larger difference than a frozen grassland. So the 'luck' random number will have a slightly related to the weather, but also have other depencences. Hope you get my idea.

Well it didnt explain itself completely so here is some sloppy math in stead . Btw: these calculations only reflect ideas of open combat, but could be extented to sieges aswell (but i dont care to do so atm):

T = c * func1(rand,expe,fat,mor,loss,dead,ter,turns)

With T as the extracted true combat value and the variables: combat value = c, number random = rand, experience = expe, fatigue (the higher the faster the unit gets tired) = fat, morale = mor, losses in own unit (loss/full health) = loss, the weight is the number of enemy soilders left/total number of soilders left (sort of enemy weight), terrain = ter, turns of combat = turns. func# are abitary functions (func1, func2, ...)

For simplicity we do a serparation of variables, some can (clearly) not be separated! others might for simplicity anyway therefore the ~.
~=>
T = c * func2(rand,expe,ter) * func3(mor,loss,weight) * func4(fat,turn)

The functions could look like this for a simple case:

func2(rand,expe,ter) = ter + ( rand ( expe + ( ter - 100% ) )

func3(mor,loss,dead) = 1 - ( ( a1 * loss + a2 * weight ) / ( 1 + mor )

func4(fat,turn) = exp [ ( - a3 * turns ) / fat ] + a4

exp is is a natural exponential function. The variables must be: 0 < rand < 1, 100% < ter (can depend on units, for example cavalry may have 150% in open when attacking, but only 100% when attacking in hills, which also will be the 'normal' modifier for attacking units. Defenders will have the normal values like in civ3), -100% < expe (normal is 0%), 0 < loss < 100%, 0 < weight < 100%, 0 < mor. turns going from turn 0 to 'infinity'. a3 a well chosen normalization when fat ~ 100% and larger than 0 (100% is normal fatigue dependence for units, less is better).

a1 is an invers resistance to own casulties (higher number gives a larger negative effect casulties will have on the unit), 0 < a1 < hmm lets say 0,75.
a2 is an invers resistance to being 'outnumbered' (higher number gives a larger negative effect of being outnumbered). 0 < a2 < 0,25 (because of a1).
a4 it the 'minimum combat strength' when being completely tired, a4 ~ 0,1 - 0,2 I would suggest.
a1, a2 and a4 (and even a3) could be unit dependent, but i would choose them to be global constants (simplify, simplify, ... ok we got it!).

This may have solved some problems, ie. fatigue, morale, losses, weight, (experience), but not the tank vs. spearman 0:1 problem. This problem could be solved by inserting a function which will lower the combat value for the ancient unit and raise the combat value for the modern one. func5 would look something like this:

func5(own unit,opponents unit) = 1 + ( own unit - opponents unit ) / ( own unit + opponents unit)

(this formula is partly stolen - cannot remember where, so dont fry me for this)

own and opponent will represents values from 1 to (lets say) 10 where 1 is the least advanced and 10 is the most advanded.

a tank would get a value about 7 and a spearman about 2. The tank would get a modifier of 1,56 and the spearman would get a modifier of 0,44. The total modifier (advantage) would be 1,56*(0,44)^-1 = 3,5. This might be enough else the values could be increased. Besides the spearman will not have '5' hitpoints, because the experience goes into the equation of calculating the combatvalue.

Sorry I couldnt resist , and a big sorry to the people, who didnt follow me. if I couldnt express my ideas in sloppy math, then I dont think I would bother.
And remember this was only an idea - so dont kill me.

Aks K

Turtleneck said:

As a quick note on this I think it'd be better to have the fatigue system implemented only after many more turns and on special occasions since some armies tend to just get more hardened and tough while others break down. Maybe a new civ trait would do the trick concerning this?

Click to expand...

Actually this was something I was going to head into if the original idea took shape: battlegroup conflicts. In battlegroups fatigue would be even more important. Each unit would lose fatigue in the normal pattern as a single unit, but units are attacking other units per whatever matching algorithim is derived.

This means that you have to decide whether to have a cavalry heavy army that can cause many enemy units to rout quickly or go really infanty and ranged heavy for that long lasting punch.

------------------------------------------------------

A restatment is that combat stats and normal turn stats look and play different. MP on the map determine how far the unit(s) can move. In combat, the MP stat helps determine retreat chance when fatigue starts to set in badly. It also helps determine rout damage and flanking(that is when a free unit can gang up on an engaged enemy unit in group combat).

A knight might have used his last MP on the map, but has 2 for the first two rounds of combat.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ranged units get a free bombard attacks. The no. of rounds this lasts is based on the MPs of both units and the terrain type. Faster ranged types and slower pursuers plus open or hilly defending leads to lots of rounds(4 rounds).

here's a crazy idea, how about making combat simpler! Yeah, only one number per unit! Combat ability and that's it!

Why you ask?

1. Well, experience only works if that unit is full of soldiers who have had the experience ... looking at the time line, I would suggest that in Ancient and Middle Ages, no unit has the same group of warriors for 2 turns! So, all that battle expereince is voided each turn.

2. Attack and defence?? What the?? Ancient & Middle Age battles were mostly big melees! Yup, you basically ran at each other and chopped and punched and stabbed etc ... don't think these battles looked anything like the movies! (notable exception, Roman legions, who had formations, but in the end, still just a big pack of people bashing into each other)

3. there are sooooo many variables (terrain, morale, training, people liking the leader, food, disease, weather, supplies, the cause, inspiring words, fear, experience etc etc etc etc), why not just "imagine" that the RNG is taking these things into effect ... so one day, your crack troops (ie tank) might be stuck in the mud, with no fuel and little ammo, then the spearmen come along at night, and kill em all! It doesn't happen often, but niether does spearmen vs tank happen often!

4 Civ is a global game, why so much emphasis and so many different options on war? lets face it, 90% of the time, economy, birth, health, learning, working, plowing fields etc ... that is what is happening in the world, so why not more emphasis on this aspect.

Well, there you go ... some reasons for why war should be just one number not many!

Albor said:

2. Attack and defence?? What the?? Ancient & Middle Age battles were mostly big melees! Yup, you basically ran at each other and chopped and punched and stabbed etc ... don't think these battles looked anything like the movies! (notable exception, Roman legions, who had formations, but in the end, still just a big pack of people bashing into each other)

Click to expand...

TW has proven that ancient and middle age warfare is a lot more than guys running at each other. Tactics and morale may even have been more important then versus today's world of tremendous firepower.

1. Well, experience only works if that unit is full of soldiers who have had the experience ... looking at the time line, I would suggest that in Ancient and Middle Ages, no unit has the same group of warriors for 2 turns! So, all that battle expereince is voided each turn.

Click to expand...

Have to disagree with you there, Albow, as you're not thinking....Abstractly enough. When a unit gains experience, it represents not just the units that WON the battle, but also the 'tradition' of that unit over the years-if that makes sense?! e.g. a warrior unit wins a battle and, therefore, becomes a veteran. Through the years, just before the former veterans die, they pass their knowledge and skill onto their successors, who have to be the very best in order to belong to such a prestigious unit!!! This would also explain why, if you upgrade an elite unit to the next step in the upgrade path, you actually LOSE your extra levels (trust me, I have seen it happen), as there is no-one to train the troops, with these weird new weapons, up to the same level of experience as they had in their old weapons!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Originally posted by ALBOW (notable exception, Roman legions, who had formations, but in the end, still just a big pack of people bashing into each other)

Click to expand...

and with the notable exception of the Phalynx formation of the Greeks, or the superb formation tactics used by Hannibal during the Punic Wars, or the Chariot formations used by a number of Middle-Eastern and North African nations, and the list goes on. Strategy and Tactics have existed for almost as long as the nation-state and standing armies!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Fatigue----since that's mainly a tacitical or short-term logistical issue (like 24 to 72 hours), it doesn't seem significant to the CIV turn/timescale. Possibly a unit that is Fortified and unmoved gets and advantage over a unit that moved, but that already is factored into the game.


MORALE would be a great addition to CIV. But I like the current 'strategic' combat system in CIV, so I'd represent Good/Bad morale as a +1/-1 to the unit hitpoints. GOOD = +1 hitpoints like Elite = +1 hitpoints over Veteran. BAD = -1 hitpoints.
Maybe there would be a scale from +2 to -2 for morale, with BAD/CONSCRIPT being the worst (near zero).


Good MORALE would mainly represent 'military' happiness, society happiness, and any local leadership (presents possibility of 'small' leader to lead a stack of units, or to be attached to one unit).

Possible calculations of morale:

By Gov't type (simply a new field). Possibly some gov't types like Feudalism would benefit the 'military' social class more, so morale would be 'Good' under them. Being in ANARCHY might be 'BAD' for unit morale.


By Mobilization state/War weariness (with Nationalism).
If a CIV is in war weariness overall (not just locally within a city, due to citizen's nationality), then overall morale would be bad, perhaps as a lag effect following a few turns after war weariness becomes critical
If a CIV just mobilized to Wartime, then the initial stimulus will usually make morale Good.
I'm not sure if unit losses figure into War weariness, but they probably should, as a relative percentage of the history of unit losses during the current war(s) vs. current overall army power/size. If that ratio becomes high (near 1 or higher), than morale might favor being 'BAD'.



By Overall CIV Happiness.
With a high ratio of cities in "love the leader... (day)" vs. total cities in the CIV, then overall morale would be good and would transfer to the units.


By local unit stack Now there could also be a new unit type (love those!)---basically a minor leader, or 'captain'. Attaching that two a unit could be a free +1 in hitpoints. Maybe it could be a stack-leader, or permamently attached to a unit on a 1:1 basis. Would they be created by combat, produced somehow, generated by great leaders?

Fatigue----since that's mainly a tacitical or short-term logistical issue (like 24 to 72 hours), it doesn't seem significant to the CIV turn/timescale. Possibly a unit that is Fortified and unmoved gets and advantage over a unit that moved, but that already is factored into the game.

Click to expand...

My fatigue is based upon the particular battle that is being fought. I am assuming that unit-to-unit attacks represent major battles, at least in Ancient/Middle ages. It is not dependant on MPs used on the map, or current health. It resets before each battle to full.

Also, I created this and the morale factor so small elite battlegroups would have an interesting advantage, followthrough. Conscript and regular armeis of massive size might start routing(line routs in TW come to mind) in large amoutns, allowing small number of elites to change a war. I would prefer to make global factors very insignificant and focus on the immediate surroudnings.

This also leads into another incorporation of a widely discussed topic: logistics.

Now being supplied or not would have a gameplay effect that feels intuitive and worth taking the risk. Many have suggested that units lose HP from being unsupplied. This just does not feel as fun or strategic. I would rather unsupplied armies lost because they are tired and fight poorly, as my system will show.

If units are fully supplied that turn(logistically happy), then they will start combat on round one of their fatigue chart. If they have recently been supplied, but are curretnly out of the loop, they will start on round two of their fatigue chart. The longer since resupply, the more fatigued units start combat. For arbitrary purposes we could assume the following, with no. of turns being since supplied.

0 = round one of fatigue chart
1-3 = round two of fatigue chart
4-5 = round three of fatigue chart

by the time most cavalry and armour units hit the third round fo the fatigue chart, they start without their big punch. breakthrough units tend to run out fo steam easily when fully charged, so having them start tired just is not good. infantry can last a bit beyond the 5th adn 6th turn of no supplies, but are then eaten up by supplied enemy armour.

This means you could try a daring maneuver through unsuppliable territory because the enemy woudl not expect it. Normally trying to attack with a tired force would kill your guys instantly. Also, the longer without suplies means morale penalties. So armies that have been stranded from their logistics are going to be easy pickings. Just don't rely on only your air force.

This also allows for the meaningful use of geurilla types who can go much longer without unsupplied penalties.

You know, S_S, you may be on to something there. As I have mentioned before, units outside of their range of operation suffer a penalty of -10% to Attack and Defense Strength, as well as Morale and Firepower. However, I could also see it applying to unit 'stamina' as well. This means that units CAN fight effectively outside of their operational range (i.e. unsupplied), but will suffer serious degredation in performance if they do so! It also gives wider scope for elite unit types, such as paratroopers and marines, to fight deep in enemy territory-where standard units could not normally go!
That said, though, there should also be a chance of losing HP, each turn, but should be more of a factor if either (a) the unit has already be damaged and/or (b) are a significant distance from home! Being outside of Operational Range would also seriously limit, or prevent, a units ability to heal damage-even in the advent of Battlefield Medicine!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Ok, all points taken ... I guess I just wanted the discussion opened up to the possibility that instead of making things more complex and in-depth, what about thinking of making them simpler and more abstract ...

I guess its a matter of taste. Is civ about war strategy, or is it about empires rising and falling?

Do you want civ to become more like a table top war game?

My thought on this issue is that no matter how many models and complexities we can think up to simulate more realistic battle variables, in reality, to play this game with its oh so many rounds of combat, you are going to have still reduce it practically and playably to something very simple. When I look at a cavalry unit, I want an immediate idea whether or not I want to use that one for a fight. Right now, I can glance and see whether it is conscript, regular, veteran, or elite, and whether it is damaged. I can intantly guage this and decide.

Let’s say if we add a second variable to the visible stats on a unit...a second bar that represents morale or morale/fatigue (to me, fatigue would it be mixed into how damaged a unit has become...it can’t last as long in battle). Now I have to look at two bar levels and think about all the combinations of how they might interact in combat (do I gain or lose advantage on a hill, in a forest, in a swamp, in a desert, etc.) How, combined with the fighting strenght and status of my unit is this likely to make me likely to win my fight? I suspect this would be too convoluted to be able quickly figure out. And as many rounds of combat as I am going to be going through in a typical game of Civilization, I don’t want to have to stop and ponder and calculate for each unit or round of fighting. It’s got to be fast and intuitive.

Which is why I think that it would be fine to factor in experience and morale, but make it reflect in overall hit points, a single overall strength meter still. The gradations should be finer perhaps. The note on Civ IV states: “Your units will gather experience from specific enemy units”. How this will factor into strength or fighting stats remains to be seen. I do predict one thing. They are going to keep it simple and intuitive enough so you don’t slow down your rounds of combat to do any extra calculating in your head.

Or I could be completely wrong. But I get the feeling they are going to keep combat simple and fast, despite all the math going on underneath.