[Suggestions] Persistent Moral and Faction Rivalries

So one thing that gripes me in most strategy games is the total anhialation effect in warfare.  Essentially, when you declare war on someone there is generally an incentive to fight the war until one side is completely defeated unless the war escalates with other factions becoming involved.  Unfortunately, this tends to be bad for cultivating national rivalries like that of Carthage and Rome who fought many wars over the course of hundreds of years.   

In Civ 4, they added warweariness, but it only ultimately effected the people at home in cities rather than soldiers on the battlefield.  9 out of 10 wars involved the complete anhialation of a specific given party anyway. 

So my idea?  Now that we know how moral will work, let's bring moral into play.  I suggest making troop moral persist even after a battle is over.  What do I mean exactly? 

Well, I think that moral could stick with a unit from battle to battle throughout a campaign.  When invaders are on alien soil, their moral gradually begins to decrease.  The longer you are there and the further they are from home, the quicker moral begins to deteriorate.  When they win a great victory, moral increases.  Win a costly victory and moral decreases.  Likewise, occupying a foreign city that has recently been conquered would also inflict a hit to troop moral, even if the war is over.  Only after they spend time on home soil does their moral begin to climb on its own accord.  Let me illustrate. 

Lucius Blight of Aragon leads a campaign into the Acacian Kingdom.  Lucius has led his soldiers to victory many times and they have enjoyed all manners of treasure and riches as their spoils.  Thus, their moral is very high.  They raid an Acacian border town, take whatever they please, and then burn it to the ground.  Moral remains high.  Then, they march many leagues and many days through the mountains to reach the mountain city of Sespech.  The lengthy journey inflicts a mild penalty to the men's moral.  Before they arrive they are met by the army of Acacius Dracondros on the Gracian Plataeu.  There is a hard fought battle with both sides suffering high casualties.  Moral of the invaders suffer yet again as the war has played out not as decisively as they may have expected.  What's more, the battle has not yielded the head of Acacius Dracondros, who escaped with some of his best men.  The moral of the invaders is beginning to suffer dearly and continues to slip.  If they do not win another swift and decisive victory like that at the border town, Lucius may be forced to give up his campaign.

With a now weary army, Lucius marches to the walls of Sespech.  The Acacian reserves are called forth and another battle ensues.  Though Lucius has the clear advantage, a tiresome campaign has already worn out the will of his soldiers.  The Acacians, with no intention of driving Lucius from the field by force, simply entrench and gradually break the will of their rivals.  With moral too low to make the campaign worthwhile, Lucius withdraws to Aragon to lick his wounds.  Upon arriving home, he contemplates executing 1 out of every 10 of his soldiers for their cowardice, but decides against it.  After all, the Acacians are planning a counter campaign and he'll need every soldier he can get. 

It will take 30 turns before the soldiers of Aragon will forget their unsuccessful invasion (in other words, 30 turns until their moral will be restored and they can mount another invasion with the same gusto), however, if the Acacians were to invade Aragon their perspective would be very different.  Their "defensive" moral would take effect instead, which is much more resilient than an invader's moral.

So you can see how this system would essentially mute the total anhialation effect unless you are mounting a highly organized and successful campaign.  Wars between major powers would almost never be utter and decisive, with gains being made here and there over the course of a lengthy period of time.  The lull between wars would allow both sides to court new allies and re-examine their military and would also prevent a high frequency of certain opponents growing extremely powerful extremely quickly. 

Comments?

9,977 views 11 replies
Reply #1 Top

I love this idea and it makes a lot of sense to. Men are not machines... You can't just keep telling them to fight and expect their spirits to be nigh unbreakable. Nothing wearies a mans heart faster then the hell of war and campaigning through the hostile lands of an enemy far from their wives and children and loved ones would definitely impact their fighting strength. Great losses in bitterly fought battles would again have the men suffering from doubts, with each hiccup costing more then just a numerical amount of soldiers their very wills would be tested.

Also men never fight quite as fiercely as when they are defending their home, so it makes sense that a battered attacking army that has already fought many difficult battles engaging a fresh force of soldiers ready to defend their homes... Yeah the morale difference should be massive.

Also it allows for some cool spells and race traits such as

Warlike - racial trait that decreases the penalty to attacking armies when in hostile territory.

or a spell

Will to War - Fire spell - Negates X% of morale penalties from combat by filling the men's hearts with a strong zeal for battle. (It could also be a one shot spell that "Heals" morale for an invading army.)

Reply #2 Top

How about if occupied cities cause a drain on moral when in the occupied civs land? say -1 per turn per city occupied, for 20 turns after capture. That way you would have to slow the advance or end the war before the effect of lots of discontent (5+ cities) kicked in. Either way a siege should affect the moral of attacker and defender, say -1 to both, with defenders having a higher natural recovery rate. The effect on moral when moving through enemy lands could simply be to just offset natural recovery, which would cause more trouble to a retreating broken army then it would prevent you from reaching your enemy.

Reply #3 Top

Brilliant idea! Morale is a necessity in every tactical game and by nature, it is complex. Your idea seems like a good foundation to large scale war-based modifiers, taking into account invading and defending armies plus time, distance and victories/defeats -- a nice start.

Dr. Franknfurter add-on is also quite interesting. Captured towns should deal a blow to global morale to the defending nature, while giving a morale boost to the defending nation's local troops i.e. troops produced by that city who happens to be in its vicinity. Why? Bad news can sour the mood of an entire nation but they can give incentives to the populace of a captured town to take their city back. Troops who call that region home will be eager to take it back, with morale bonus lasting for a few good turns or until the invading forces inflict another shameful defeat on them. If possible, those bonus should be applied at their fullest to fightings only close to the home town and with the enemy who holds it.

 

Reply #4 Top

Absolutely love this idea.  Would make things much more interesting than the typical 4X conquest model.  It would also provide incentives to conduct pillaging raids with your main army (broken up into several smaller forces to cover more ground) to gain loot and boost morale, instead of just trying to (and only deriving benefit from) conquering.

Reply #5 Top

The concept is indeed sound, but I fear that it'll be hard to come up with a meaningful(not tiresome) mechanic for it. If your units get morale penalties that accumulate, it sounds like you'll end up micromanaging the armies. As one army gets low morale, you send it home, and send another army to replace it, effectively still continuing the war. Unless the morale effects are global. But would that really work? If you are fighting against two nations, where one war is going really well, and the other really poorly, supposing the morale is global, it'd feel rather wrong. And if the morale is not global, you can abuse it simply. Just take the low morale troops away from where they are fighting, and bring your really high morale units to the battlefield, and just crush the enemy at one front, while defending in your homeland in the other front.

A game that does it remarkably well is Europa Universalis. In it, as you wage war and conquer lands, you gain Victory Points for the war, which will be used for permanent gains as you broker peace. The thing is, if you simply wage war and never broker peace, you will never legally own the lands, and can't develop them, or reap the most of their taxes, so it's in your best interest to eventually broker for peace.

Suppose you crush the armies of your enemy, and occupy his Capital. Now, you would have a very high Victory Point amount for that war, which you can excange for provinces(or vasallage or other things too) as you broker peace. However, the amount of Victory Points you can have in a single war is almost never enough to truly crush your enemy. At best, you will weaken him significantly in a single war, and it takes multiple wars waged across centuries to truly crush a nation.

It is a very simple mechanic, and works really well in that game. Now, Elemental is quite different from it in many ways, but I should like that at least some parts of it be considered for application, as they would increase the feel of such "meaningful" wars.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Tiavals, reply 5
The concept is indeed sound, but I fear that it'll be hard to come up with a meaningful(not tiresome) mechanic for it. If your units get morale penalties that accumulate, it sounds like you'll end up micromanaging the armies. As one army gets low morale, you send it home, and send another army to replace it, effectively still continuing the war. Unless the morale effects are global. But would that really work? If you are fighting against two nations, where one war is going really well, and the other really poorly, supposing the morale is global, it'd feel rather wrong. And if the morale is not global, you can abuse it simply. Just take the low morale troops away from where they are fighting, and bring your really high morale units to the battlefield, and just crush the enemy at one front, while defending in your homeland in the other front.

The disadvantage of this would be that you would have to split your forces half-and-half between your homeland and the enemy front - thus, against an equally powerful foe focused on defense, you'd be up against 2-to-1 odds.  Generally, that wouldn't be a viable strategy.

Reply #7 Top

I was also thinking about another idea like this morale, that will also affect it. Food ang gold supply for the army! But there also should be a definition of "province/area resisting" that will determine how difficult it will be for supply caravans to reach the army. So less supplies "-morale", allow looting and it will cause problems with population and land. The major concept is something like this, it can be thought nore thoroughly... Though think it can be too complicated also for realisation, butI like the idea of morale, so why not to sophisticate things a little?)

Reply #8 Top

While not based on Morale, faction grudges, alliances and cyclical wars were implemented well in Master of Orion 1 & 2.  You were able to form trading partnerships both economic and technological, alliances and go to war several times both by "cold war" espionage and hot war over hundreds of years.  This built up a sense of charm and personality to the game and the various factions as the player developed a desire to face the bitter rival even across several games.

Additionally the aspect of voting for a diplomatic victory on the Galactic council built a competitive rivalry that could break down even more even between friends and alliances.

And the invasion by the Antaerans forced cooperation amongst friends and allies alike as necessity as the only means of victory against an outsid force.

The combination of these aspects put the Moo series above and made it more addictive over decades then Civ, Galactiv Civs, Space Empires etc.

Elemental should build up some major personality and prolific friendships and anatagonists to connect the players more deeply in the game.

Reply #9 Top

I like this take on the effects of a war. Long wars of attrition, do affect the morale of the fighting forces. (Well that and in the real world idiotic leadership, ordering things because they can, though not because it's a needed goal or actual necessity. In this case I would reference the great HBO Series Generation Kill, as it's based on the article published by the Rolling Stones Journalist.)

Now that all said, I think for a future expansion for morale, it could be something that is more gradual, right now there are the +25 and so on states, but a more gradual one that drains it more slowly for attrition, for pyrrhic victories, distance from the homeland, facing monstrous creatures. I think it would be cool to model that type of thing. But also provide ways to counter the loss, including priests and bards, and other morale boosters, and leadership enhancers to the armies.

It's just a perspective I guess. But this feels like it could be expanded upon, just not right now would be my guess with the upcoming beta, and this being a pretty fundamental part of the rules for now. But great post, I must admit.

Reply #10 Top

I like this idea as well. It seems fairly realistic. However, I think the morale should be affected at different levels depending on the leadership or the past victories of the hero. If this hero/leader is exceptionally powerful and has been victorious many times in the past, I think the morale would not suffer as greatly with a single loss or perhaps even multiple losses. I can see where the morale would plummet if it was a "General Custard" type of loss. Otherwise, I think a highly successful leader will have earned a great deal of loyalty from his men. The higher their loyalty to a given leader, the less will be the decrease of their morale in the case of a loss.

I think this is all a moot point, though. I believe it is probably too late to even implement such an idea.