I have been thinking about how easy it is to gain national morale, how it takes a major defeat to knock it down a few factors. I am thinking about having national morale gradually decrease every turn (or in big chuncks at the end of each campaign season). Throughout the war, national morale gradually lowered due to the fact that the war kept on dragging on and on. Even without battle, national morale should decrease as there is little end in sight.
I see National Morale as something that is constantly decreasing, that the player's role is to keep it above 100, not to see how high they can get it. There should be a consistant drain to national morale, and the lower it is, the greater this drain should be (if you have low morale, it should be harder to dig your way out of it).
So, similarly to how I am developing sickness and desertion events, I am planning on National Morale events, which have reductions of morale each turn (a base value), plus depending on how low your morale is, further reductions. In tandum with this (eventually) I plan to develop events for the capture/raiding of border or important towns that provide a one time boost to national morale (representing campaigns that weren't designed to capture, such as the CSA invasions of the North).
What's the result? Well, you get the same NM penalties as in a basic game (reduced fighting ability), plus the effects of desertion (via my new game events) will be more keenly felt, and you cannot simply sit back and let the AI or your PBEM opponent bash up against you (especially as the CSA, now you have to actually try and invade the North). National Morale decreases at a constant rate, and it is the job of the player to take an active role and do things to stop it.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I am planning on National Morale events, which have reductions of morale each turn (a base value), plus depending on how low your morale is, further reductions.
So if I follow you, once the AI start to have its head under the water, there is an ominous hand which maintains it under?
You should counterfight the snowballing effect that the victor has, not favor it.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I agree with Pocus. 'Extra' punishing the side with the low morale doesn't really make sense. The changes you propose increase the effect of war weariness, which on it's own starts a kind of 'clock', by which the side with the low morale will be on a course to end the game and lose the war. That alone should be enough incentive to try and keep the morale higher than your opponent.
By the way, I guess the game currently starts the turn-by-turn NM penalties sometime in late '64, which suprised me somewhat. I expected war weariness to set in earlier, perhaps sometime in '63.
By the way, I guess the game currently starts the turn-by-turn NM penalties sometime in late '64, which suprised me somewhat. I expected war weariness to set in earlier, perhaps sometime in '63.
Again, this is to prevent the Union AI a too early collapse, as you don't have options giving morale, only winning battles and taking objectives can do that (and this is a zero sum variable, the opposing side lose as much as you can), and the AI can't hope to compete on that with the player.
In fact, we have even a reverse behavior, called 'war resilience', ie the capacity of a nation to continue fighting even after severe blows: the morale has a tendency to stabilize and climb around 60-70.
In fact, we have even a reverse behavior, called 'war resilience', ie the capacity of a nation to continue fighting even after severe blows: the morale has a tendency to stabilize and climb around 60-70.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
In a good game design, you should have compensatory mechanisms, ie you try to fight somehow the divergence which lead the strongest to be even stronger, just because of a snowballing effect. You don't want to "flatten the curve" though, ie levelling any winner progress, because it would be darn frustrating, so you walk a thin line there.
For example, in the strategic mode of Rome Total War, you know you already have won the game when you have less than 20% of the map surface, the rest is a giant and prolongated mopping up. (I hope I won't be accused of disparaging others games, but I have to provide an example based on my personnal experience as a player).
For example, in the strategic mode of Rome Total War, you know you already have won the game when you have less than 20% of the map surface, the rest is a giant and prolongated mopping up. (I hope I won't be accused of disparaging others games, but I have to provide an example based on my personnal experience as a player).
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:In a good game design, you should have compensatory mechanisms, ie you try to fight somehow the divergence which lead the strongest to be even stronger, just because of a snowballing effect.
All we need is a balance point, a point where there's no bonus or malus. I.e. 100.
Both sides could start with 100 and this level rises or drops according to strategic results but it is counterweighted by war weariness that tends to bring it back to 100. The farther you are from 100 (up or down) the bigger the victories it takes you to keep it from dropping or the biggest the defeats it takes you to keep it from rising back to it. At 100 we could have no modifiers of sort: the balance.
Where is the war weariness then?
If one side is winning it's got more chances to keep the balance on his favour but he's got to do that in combat and to keep this bonus, it must play aggressive and could also be defeated making a mistake. The weariness for the winning side is the fact he must keep initiative or lose that bonus to time....for the losing side, the weariness doesn't apply, the losing side is already being disadvantaged in combat it only tries to stabilize morale.
The automatic movement on this scale is only affected by player and ai results in combat but it could also be tied to scripted or random events (increased desertion rate for the side who's losing by '63 and '64 just to make an example)
Pocus wrote:For example, in the strategic mode of Rome Total War, you know you already have won the game when you have less than 20% of the map surface
You know you have already won the game when you survive the first few turns. The AI is totally bs in RTW...nonexistent strategically, diplomatically and militarly. And it's the same in STW or MTW. That's just a meatball of all factors, all, equally, badly designed.
GShock wrote:You know you have already won the game when you survive the first few turns. The AI is totally bs in RTW...nonexistent strategically, diplomatically and militarly. And it's the same in STW or MTW. That's just a meatball of all factors, all, equally, badly designed.
Right. I played a lot of RTW, but after a while, you do get tired of beating up on the AI. That's why I almost exclusively wargame PBEM against humans.
And, RTWs engine would still be totally fascinating if you could play it PBEM with a game server that refereed for 5 or 6 human players, even without any tactical options. Imagine how the game might play if one human took each of the major factions. Assuming you can rely on 5 people to mail in their game files on a semi regular basis...
Anyway, that's the direction I'm hoping AGEOD is headed with the release of VGN. Some support for more than 2 player games. That would work well for VGN, a VGN style Roman era game, and an Axis & Allies type WW2 game.
And now we are off topic.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I guess I have not been clear in the designes for these 'sets' of mods I am developing.
The Desertion/Sickness Mod, City NM and Campaign Mod, and National Morale Mod are designed primarily for Human players, and the Easy AI. I know that the AI cannot plan the same way as human players, therefore cannot achieve same specific results gained via events. It will not realize that every turn their NM decreases by 1-2 points, and does no long range planning otherwize. Therefore, on Normal or above difficulties, the AI will not experience these events. Why? Because they already play according to these 'rules' (they gain attrition more than Humans therefore do not need Sickness/Deseration, they attack according to opportunity, therefore do not need the NM or Campaign mod to encourage them to take risks).
The goal of these mods is to put some pressure on human players (solo or PBEM) to do things somewhat according to history. The Sickness/Desertion mod is designed to have a drain on their manpower, so they have to buy more replacements instead of new builds. Plus, the lower your morale, the greater the drain.
The National Morale mod is designed to put pressure on a player who 'sits and waits'. CS and US players can both afford to sit and wait, take no risks, and attack only when 99% guaranteed of success. Most gameplay complaints and overanalysis show that as the CSA there is no reason to attack. Why attack when it is better to defend? With national morale decreasing every round, if you sit back and defend, the NM you gan from victorious battles should not cover the loss.
The Campaign/Cities NM mod is designed to provide players with specicfic city and campaign goals in order to make gains on NM. If players have low NM, then they must start an offensive to take 'NM cities' (which provide a one time boost of NM). Also, I am planning a few scripted campaigns, where if you capture and hold certain territories before a certain date you gan NM, VP, manpower, War resources and money (representing a historic campaign with specific goals, such as Lee's 1862 Maryland Campaign). It encourages 'raids' into enemy territory (like the CSA invasions of the North), as you get tangible results. Ignoring these objectives would result in a further decline of NM (troops, politicians, population get frustrated that you appear inactive, reacting to the enemy, and always on the defensive).
The Snowballing effect is as designed. If players let themselves get such low NM, then they should face massive desertions, and declined ability to fight. Basically, from day one your goal should be to keep NM above 100, and with a constant drain, you have to actually do something to keep it there (this makes events, like the 'march on Richmond' event more important).
The only time that NM should be increasing or stable is before the first major battle of the war. War is still glorious. However, after 1st Bull Run, the goal was to get the war over with. Why else was Lincoln always pressing his generals for the 'next great victory'. Winning at Gettysburg bought him reprive for 1863, but, by 1864 national morale was already drooping down again, requiring a new 'vicotry' to keep NM afloat.
The South, once it was invaded and had its defences breeched, was in a snowball effect. The size of the army deminished significantly, and it indeed was only a matter of time. The goal of players, of the CSA and USA is to keep their NM above 100, and at minumum above 50 (which I see as a failing mark). Again, the AI should not be given these specific rules as they play the game according to them anyway.
The Desertion/Sickness Mod, City NM and Campaign Mod, and National Morale Mod are designed primarily for Human players, and the Easy AI. I know that the AI cannot plan the same way as human players, therefore cannot achieve same specific results gained via events. It will not realize that every turn their NM decreases by 1-2 points, and does no long range planning otherwize. Therefore, on Normal or above difficulties, the AI will not experience these events. Why? Because they already play according to these 'rules' (they gain attrition more than Humans therefore do not need Sickness/Deseration, they attack according to opportunity, therefore do not need the NM or Campaign mod to encourage them to take risks).
The goal of these mods is to put some pressure on human players (solo or PBEM) to do things somewhat according to history. The Sickness/Desertion mod is designed to have a drain on their manpower, so they have to buy more replacements instead of new builds. Plus, the lower your morale, the greater the drain.
The National Morale mod is designed to put pressure on a player who 'sits and waits'. CS and US players can both afford to sit and wait, take no risks, and attack only when 99% guaranteed of success. Most gameplay complaints and overanalysis show that as the CSA there is no reason to attack. Why attack when it is better to defend? With national morale decreasing every round, if you sit back and defend, the NM you gan from victorious battles should not cover the loss.
The Campaign/Cities NM mod is designed to provide players with specicfic city and campaign goals in order to make gains on NM. If players have low NM, then they must start an offensive to take 'NM cities' (which provide a one time boost of NM). Also, I am planning a few scripted campaigns, where if you capture and hold certain territories before a certain date you gan NM, VP, manpower, War resources and money (representing a historic campaign with specific goals, such as Lee's 1862 Maryland Campaign). It encourages 'raids' into enemy territory (like the CSA invasions of the North), as you get tangible results. Ignoring these objectives would result in a further decline of NM (troops, politicians, population get frustrated that you appear inactive, reacting to the enemy, and always on the defensive).
The Snowballing effect is as designed. If players let themselves get such low NM, then they should face massive desertions, and declined ability to fight. Basically, from day one your goal should be to keep NM above 100, and with a constant drain, you have to actually do something to keep it there (this makes events, like the 'march on Richmond' event more important).
The only time that NM should be increasing or stable is before the first major battle of the war. War is still glorious. However, after 1st Bull Run, the goal was to get the war over with. Why else was Lincoln always pressing his generals for the 'next great victory'. Winning at Gettysburg bought him reprive for 1863, but, by 1864 national morale was already drooping down again, requiring a new 'vicotry' to keep NM afloat.
The South, once it was invaded and had its defences breeched, was in a snowball effect. The size of the army deminished significantly, and it indeed was only a matter of time. The goal of players, of the CSA and USA is to keep their NM above 100, and at minumum above 50 (which I see as a failing mark). Again, the AI should not be given these specific rules as they play the game according to them anyway.
NM results in some battles are horrible, battles when you inflict more than 20000 casualties vs 5000 of yours and none NM point gained, and then you have an insignifcant militia that is obliteradted, and you lost 1 NM.... something should be done about this...
"... tell the Emperor that I am facing Russians.
If they had been Prussians, I'd have taken the
position long ago."
- Marshal Ney, 1813
and why a random factor? . It should be based on the size of forces involved and casualties... and other factor could be if it is fought in an important area....
The other day I won a battle with longstreest inflitcting 21000 casualties to the union and i only had 3000... this should be an Austerlitz... and I didn´t won NM, this is ridicoulus... and in the same turn i lost some town with a militia inside and i lost 1 NM......
sincerely, something must be done with this, at least for the napoleonic game....
. It should be based on the size of forces involved and casualties... and other factor could be if it is fought in an important area....
The other day I won a battle with longstreest inflitcting 21000 casualties to the union and i only had 3000... this should be an Austerlitz... and I didn´t won NM, this is ridicoulus... and in the same turn i lost some town with a militia inside and i lost 1 NM......
sincerely, something must be done with this, at least for the napoleonic game....
"... tell the Emperor that I am facing Russians.
If they had been Prussians, I'd have taken the
position long ago."
- Marshal Ney, 1813
Return to “Modding AGE engine games”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests