Morale Effecting Unit Stats

[sir_schwick]

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

 

[dh_epic]

I think of morale as something really different from just experience.

Morale is your momentum. You could be the toughest dude in the world, but if you're sick and tired of fighting, an up-and-comer who has no fear of death and will put his life on the line to kill you ... well, he'll succeed, and your time will be up.

That's morale.

Like when Alexander the Great's troops stuck their spears in the ground and said "forget it, we can't keep doing this". Or comparing the attitude of someone who was anxious to sign up versus someone who was drafted.

 

[sir_schwick]

Civ does not really make that distinction. An additional Morale stat would be useful, but adding stats would add complication. Do you agree though, the current XP system does not really change much. There should be situations that only Elites could hope of surviving and those which will be a meat grinder for anyone, so Conscripts would do well.

 

[Moonsinger]

What are you guys suggesting? I think they had already implemented the "morale" issue in Civ3, PTW, and C3C. Let the record show that a high morale spearman should be able to take on a tank of very low morale.

 

[dh_epic]

May the record show that you're probably right

I would endorse a new morale value, and give it social effects across multiple units or domains too. That your entire society can grow sick of war, at home and on the battle lines... or your entire society backs you in your decision to go to war, applauds it even, and affects your domestic and military progress.

 

[sir_schwick]

That is because units have too few HP. Besides, I would rather see stat increases rather than HP increases with morale. It would be more interesting, because then elites could tackle tough attacks or defences that veterans could not hope to try.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Stat values are designed to represent technology.

HP bars are designed to represent strength, experience and morale. The more a unit fights the more its HP bar goes down. This shows both the number of units killed and the erosion of morale as more and more battles are fought. Winning battles increases both experience and morale, allowing units to fight longer - which is essentially what morale is.

Now then, translate the single HPs into a bar like in other games and you have a more realistic system. That is something I would like to see in CIV, but I think the current system is fine as it is.

 

[dh_epic]

Still, war weariness at home doesn't make troops less effective on the field. In reality, the two are somehow correlated (not to say that one causes the other).

 

[sir_schwick]

But the capability and morale of an army are two different things. In terms of tactical power, the Persian army at Thermopylae should have experienced way fewer loses. However, because the Spartans were in the fight to save the homeland and the Persians were on some excursion, they were able to woop ass. It may also be because the Spartans were that good, like the Swiss Armoured Pikemen of the 1300s.

 

[Tomoyo]

There isn't much tactical maneuvering when your trying to get past a 30 foot wide pass and there is a wall of shields with guys with spears and swords behind it. Just send guys to their deaths until they get lucky and break through.

 

[Yuri2356]

Skilled units realy should have a stat bonus like they used to, and Conscripts have a penalty. As it stands, you can conscript half your population and they'll fight just as well as your trained soilders! The system encourages levy armies and civilian meat shields, making that last AI city that much more annoying. I also belive that drafting shuld be made availible earlier, because nations forced their people to fight long before the industrial age. I'd say somwthing like Warior code, chivalry, or Military tradition should allow it instead.

 

[sir_schwick]

Feudalism would probably be the best place. My main point I think is Yuri's, there are places were only the hardiest of troops can break through. Currently the only reason to commit elites to battle is for a Great Leader, which is stupid.

Yes, Thermopylae was an attack straight into a choke-point, but the Spartans had to keep fighting, the Persians could send fresh guys in. The Immortals did better then anyone against the Spartan Hoplites(still got theri asses handed to them), because they were elite.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Currently the only reason to commit elites to battle is for a Great Leader, which is stupid.

Maybe that's you, but I use mine to win tough battles. They retreat more often than less experienced troops anyways.

Most expert players will never go to war with less than veteran units.

 

[Tomoyo]

With 300 guys to cover 30 feet, that's 10 guys per foot. I say that they took turns until near the end of the battle. I actually picture Thermoplylae in civ terms as a whole lot of regular warriors ramming their heads against some elite Hoplites.

I think the Persian Immortal in civ just represents a whole lot of warriors.

(Why would anyone go to war with less than veteran units? Veterans have a 33% advantage over regulars, and barracks building is one of the greatest advantages a human has in military over the AI in the Ancient Age.)

 

[Yuri2356]

The veterans have an advantage, as they should, but shouldn't there be something more, something different?

And at Thermopale, the Persian's werren't idiots. It's just that the Spartans were so beyond Persia in skill. As things are now, two conscripts have the same odds of winning as one veteran. Now, history shows that swarms of untrained troops need more than a 2:1 numbers advantage to beet well organized forces. Wither give elites a bonus, or conscripts a penalty. Something to realy show the gap between human waves, and actual strategy.

 

[dh_epic]

I think a much better analogy than Persia and Greece is this:

The largest army in the world is the Chinese Army (I think).
The most technologically advanced army in the world is the American Army.
We can argue about who the most skilled army in the world is, and we can even discuss who has the most war-wounded.

But the most *effective* army, man for man, is the Israeli army.

Why?

Morale. Their soldiers are the most galvanized. They're the ones who most believe in their cause.

We model size, technology, skill, and health in the Civ as quantity, type, experience, and hitpoints (respectively). But morale has not been modelled.

 

[Tomoyo]

I know the Persian weren't idiots, but for some reason I remembered my Latin teacher's reenactment of the Etruscans attacking Rome.

Etruscan: Duh... There's a guy in our way. He's blocking the bridge. That's kind of annoying.
Other Etruscan: Bob, you go fight him
[Bob fights him and dies]
Etruscan: Wow. He's pretty good. Kenny, you go fight him.
Other Etruscan: Oh my god! He killed Kenny!
Etruscan: Maybe if we all attack them at once, maybe we can beat him.
[The Romans are finished dismantling the bridge and Lefty Scaevola swims for dear life ]

 

[rhialto]

There should be some kind of morale bonus when finding in your homeland, and another when you are in a backs-to-the-wall situation. Regardless of the legalities (that's too political), this is exactly how the Israelis feel.

However, the 4 hp vs 3 for morale in civ3 is more than a 33% advantage when you actually run the numbers in a combat simulator.

Ultimately though, I'd rather have morale boost att/def values than boost hit points.

 

[sir_schwick]

A bullet will kill an Elite soldier as much as a Regular one, but an Elite will more likely fire the shot that hits the target. Also, an Elite will realize the best way to approach a hardened position.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, though I do not plan to enter the 'Morale' debate here (I WANT morale, btw !) I will say that I would like to see a better hp RANGE for units at different levels of experience (instead of the 2-6 we currently have) AND I would like to see more XP levels AND an improvement in the system of unit advancement!
Oh, and an armour/firepower stat is FAR more important to me than a morale stat, but would be great if all 3 could be in there!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.