Morale Effecting Unit Stats

[Alvaro da Luna]

I think there should be a distinction between morale and experience.
Experience is the level of skill and can be used in combat calculations.

Morale is the will to fight and the will to die. It can be called up in certain times to destroy the enemy, despite variences in actual strength. How, and when you would do that combat calculation though...

 

[Jon Shafer]

Well, Soren has said that there would be a more interesting combat system in CIV, so who knows what might be in the game...

 

[dh_epic]

Looking forward to morale, if it will happen. I figure it's just the probability of receiving a bonus on any given round. (e.g.: 75% chance of doing one extra point of damage this round, 33% chance of nullifying damage that would have otherwise been incurred by the unit, etc)

Aussie,

I'll confess I never understood the importance or impact of armor and firepower. As far as I was concerned, they were just ways to resolve the spearman / tank thing?

 

[sir_schwick]

Exactly, Armor and FP were ways of keeping era combat seperate. This way almost never happened. I do not think FP will make a come-back because it was removed for a good reason, obviously? Anyone from Firaxis care to fill me in?

If any part of unit stats need to improve, its unit evolution. Your Swordsmen at 2000 BC are the same as those at 500 AD. That is just plain ridiculous, as weapons improve incrementally over time with new technology. There were a couple major jumps in weapon techs.

 

[dh_epic]

I think that Civ may need more finely grained everything. Instead of 5 hitpoints, 25 hitpoints. Instead of one, two, three pop heads, you get 5, 10, 15 pop heads. And instead of 2 attack then 3 attack then 4 attack... you get 10 attack then 15 attack then 20 attack, with stuff in between.

Could open stuff up. More intuitive than adding decimals.

Is firepower this: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040806/adams_mobile.shtml ? (Sometimes referred to as Lanchester's Laws?)

 

[sir_schwick]

Not really. Here is how FP worked in Civ 2. One, FP determined how much damage the succesful winner of a round dealt. Also, HP was 10 times the listed value. Ancient Era was usually 1 HP, renaissance 2, modern 3, and tough modern units 4. FP was usually1 , maybe 2 with gunpoweder, 3 modern, and 4 battleships/cruise missles.

Suppose you had Armor (10/5/3 3/3) vs. a Spearmen (1/2/1) (1/1). The Spear will win 1 of every 6 rounds. this means once every 6 turns the spear deals one damage to the Armor. The armor has 30 HP, so it would take 180 rounds to defeat the armo, assumign perfect probability. This means the armor wins the other 150 rounds. Each round the armor wins it deals 3 damage. THat means the spear would experience 450 damage. Obviously the spear would die a long time before that. Actualy, the tank would have to win just 4 rounds to defeat the spear, vs the 30 rounds the spear would have to win.

I do suport increasing all numbers by significant factors, especially population if they introduce my model for urbanization.

 

[Jon Shafer]

The reason firepower was removed was because the only thing it does is basically weaken the AI, which is usually behind in techs and has older units.

"So teach the AI to play better!"

Right, let's see you do it.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't care so much about weakening/helping the AI. There are plenty of ways to let the AI cheat and stay at a competitive level. (My problem with the AI is that it keeps running at a consistent pace, regardless of whether the player is behind or way ahead... it should move at a variable pace, in my opinion. But that's a topic of another thread.)

I think my biggest problem with firepower is it's just confusing. As soon as I saw the math part of Sir Schwick's calculations, my eyes glazed over. Not that I'm anti-math, God knows I did enough in Computer Science at University. But I think it's important to describe the most behaviors with the fewest variables possible -- that's the essence of ockam's razor.

If we really want to have a huge jump between ages, why not make the advent of gunpowder a larger Attack advantage? Instead of jumping by 2 points, maybe jump by 4 or 5 points? Or if you want to prevent spearmen from killing tanks, why not increase the amount of HP, so there are more rounds to combat, converging on normality instead of fluke?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Morale effecting the combat value with the values we have now would be unbalancing, at least up to late middle ages. Making the numbers bigger would leave more room to make combat value finetuning based on morale, which would be a good idea, imo. The morale value as it was pointed out should then be based on WW and defense/offense situation (WW should work for ALL governments and should also be overworked). Increasing the number of HP would only mean that the battle results from the RNG come closer to the expected value. I personally like the system as it is now; more units and a more continuous increase in units statistics would be nice, though.

 

[Stid]

for all you people slagging of sir schwicks suggestions, i agree with him and dont see a problem with his little table thingee.it would add more stratedy to it and it would be cool to be able to name elite units

 

[sir_schwick]

First, they should increase all stats to allow for more slight bonuses/penalties and evolution. Also, here is how morale and experience could be worked in.

Experience is a filter of sorts to determine when Elites are needed and when they are not. Any Attack would have a minimum experience value. If the unit attacking was below that experience, they would experience a penalty.

Morale is partially increased by experience, but other factors affect it more. The main purpose is slight modification of attack/defense stats for good or bad morale.
-One of these would be 'Local Momentum'. This means that if you have been attcking in the area with heavy losses and little gained ground, you will feel like your in a standstill and start to lose morale. If you many but gain much and push back the enemy, you will start to feel bad over prolonged periods, but short offensives of this kind are okay. If you manage ot breakthrough with some or few losses, your morale will be sky high.
Also, if you manage to hold aganist an enemy in a meat-grinder, your morale will drop, but not as much as the enemy. If you hold the enemy with much better ratio, you'll have good morael that eventually becomes decent. If you start being pushed back or loss a lot of ground, your morale will drop.
-'Positioning' is the situation of your army compared to the enemies in the area. Being surrounded will quickly bring down spirits. Being flanked also is demoralizing. Doing the same to the enemy will bring your troops a good feeling. Being in the low ground is never morale boosting, althoguh the effects are less if its wooded. Open ground is always bad unless you are mobile. Havng the high ground raises confidence.
-'Tactical Confidence' is how much a certain offensive action seems survivable. Attacking across rivers and into fortifications and cities for non-elites or breaching units is demoralizing. Attacking into an open field from less open terrain rasies spirits. Attacking with artillery support raises confidence.

The effect is that local action is important, so you may be losing overall but manage to pull soemthing through in a critical area. Also, this rewards daring offensive and defensive strategies, since you may be able to turn what looked like a messy operation into a clean sweep.

 

[douche_bag]

It would be easy to do, and add an interesting dimension to morale upgrades. The current system is just not good enough in regards to morale. Here are some examples of what I mean.

Warrior
Conscript through Veteran = 1/1/1
Elite = 2/1/1

Archer
Conscript = 1/1/1
Regular and Veteran = 2/1/1
Elite = 3/1/1 or 2/2/1

Spearmen
Conscript = 1/1/1
Regular = 1/2/1
Veteran = 1/3/1
Elite = 2/3/1

Swordsmen
Conscript and Regular = 2/2/1
Veteran = 3/2/1
Elite = 4/2/1

Chariot
Conscript and Regular = 1/1/2
Veteran = 1/2/2
Elite = 2/2/2

Horsemen
Conscript = 1/1/2
Regular and Veteran = 1/2/2
Elite = 2/2/2

Pikemen
Conscript = 1/2/1
Regular and Veteran = 1/3/1
Elite = 2/3/1 or 1/4/1

Medieval Infantry
Conscript = 2/2/1
Regular = 3/2/1
Veteran = 4/2/1 or 3/3/1
Elite = 5/2/1 or 4/3/1

Knights
Conscript = 2/2/2
Regular = 3/2/2
Veteran = 3/3/2
Elite = 4/3/2 or 5/2/2 or 6/4/1

Musketeers
Conscript = 1/4/1
Regular and Veteran = 1/5/1
Elite = 1/6/1 or 1/4/2

well if it did do this, it should be alot harder to become elite.

 

[Yuri2356]

I belive a promotion system should be based on the proability of winning a battle. The chance of being promoted could be expressed as 100%-(The chance of victory)-(A penalty applied for the unit's current skill level, something like Conscript -10% Regular 0% Veteran 10%) This would reflect the supposed "skill" required for a poorly trained/armed unit to overcome a superior force. So, a few examples:
Warrior (1.1.1) fortified on a mountain is attacked by an Archer (2.1.1)
Both are regular. (this assumes we still use the same HP system as in Civ3)
So, according to the combat calculator, The warrior wins 55% of the battles, and the Archer 45%.
So, if the warrior wins there is a 45% chance of promotion, and the archer has a 55% chance of promotion.
Not to un-even, but now let's jazz things up a bit:
Conscript Rifleman (4.6.1) defending grassland against Veteran Cavalry (6.3.3).
Crunch the #s and we come out with 30% Rifleman, 70% Cavalry.
Giving the Rifle 90% chance of promotion, and the Cavalry a mere 20%.

This kind of system or a simpler version of it could help to keep people from gaining hordes of elite units from camping a few barb camps, and might add some depth to the game. Thoughts?

 

[sir_schwick]

Actaully, I propose a modified system that eliminates promotion through battle, sort of.

Militia - This is a special class of soldier that arises whenever a city is under attack. Presence and strength would have a variety of causes/factors. Same strength as conscripts, but go back to the fields when done.
Conscript - These are soldiers that are drafted rather than trained as Regulars. They take 8 battles and require retraining in a Barracks to become Veterans.
Green Regulars - These are regulars that do not have formal training at a Barracks. They take 5 battles to become Veterans.
Trained Regulars - These are regulars that do have formal training at a Barracks. They take 2 battles to become Veterans.
Veterans - These are battle-hardened troops who can handle tougher situations. They get a slight bonus to stats.
Elites - Elites have to have 4 batttles as Veterans, and must be retrained at special facilities(Palace, Sun Tzu's Academy, Modern Barracks, Military Academy, etc.). They can handle almost anything, and get moderate increase in stats.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I like the way you're thinking on this one Sir Schwick ! In fact, I think I have liked most of the ideas you have posted! Watch out though, any minute now you will have the 'it won't be civ anymore' brigade coming on and telling you how, if you change unit levels and training 'it won't be civ anymore....' !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Thanx for the support, but I already thoguht of a couple flaws with my system.

1) It encourages camping even more now.
2) What about Militaristic civs, wha't stheir bonus now?

 

[douche_bag]

Thanx for the support, but I already thoguht of a couple flaws with my system.

1) It encourages camping even more now.
2) What about Militaristic civs, wha't stheir bonus now?

i think all military units should cost less for militaristic civs,or is that too extreme? and yes your ideas are pretty awesome and yes towlie is the worst character ever.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Thanx for the support, but I already thoguht of a couple flaws with my system.

1) It encourages camping even more now.
2) What about Militaristic civs, wha't stheir bonus now?

Also, I think you have things a bit backwards. 8 battles for conscripts to become green regulars but only 2 battles for regulars to become veterans?

Should be the other way around. Once troops get over the original "shell shock" they learn how to fight "alright" faster than they'll learn to fight exceptionally well. Upgrade from conscript should not take 1/2 as many battles as veteran to elite...

 

[Yuri2356]

Also, I think you have things a bit backwards. 8 battles for conscripts to become green regulars but only 2 battles for regulars to become veterans?

Should be the other way around. Once troops get over the original "shell shock" they learn how to fight "alright" faster than they'll learn to fight exceptionally well. Upgrade from conscript should not take 1/2 as many battles as veteran to elite...

That's kind of what I was going for with my system. It's much easier for a person to pick up the basics of something than to become a master of it. Example, the difference between a noob learning how to place a city fairly well, and an expert who can plan ahead for his next 100 cities, compensating for overlap, terrain bonus, possible locations of resorces, ect.

 

[dh_epic]

I like Sir Schwick's ideas.

To build on the analogy, morale would extend war weariness. Right now, people start out content and gradually become more critical of the war, hence war weariness. You start out at zero, and gradually dip down into the negatives.

Instead, morale would let you go positive OR negative. Morale for the war goes down as the war goes on longer, and the number of losses becomes greater. But morale for the war is high when your people are attacked "unjustly" and the war is just getting started. Also, winning a lot would raise morale. This morale would not only affect your productivity back home, but your effectiveness on the battlefield. Believing that you have justice on your side makes you a much more effective fighter.

To extend this idea, I think there should be an option to sack a city without razing it / conquering it. The advantages to doing so aren't clear and would need elaboration in another thread (right now, it would always make more sense to keep a city). But in sacking it, you boost morale more than conquering or razing it would. The rationale being that you gave the spoils of war to your troops. Alexander did it, and Sun Tzu proclaimed it very important -- winning a war requires a happy soldier, and a happy soldier should share in the success.

Morale could be tied in with other modifications. Or it could be as simple as unbalancing the probabilities. If one calculation is a probability thing, morale could boost or lower the probability of that calculation going in your favor by 5% to 25%.