Morale and battles

[1stvermont]

I just lost 6 morale from a single battle. My thought is does anyone else think that battles play to much a role i national morale?. I like that they do don't get me wrong, but it seems they play to large a role in the game. I think maybe national morale in battles be cut in half would sound better.

[Durk]

This is a great question to which, of course, I do not have THE answer, but I do have some thoughts. For most battles the NM swing is 1 or 2 NM. But when a truly devastating blow is inflicted or received NM did indeed suffer severely historically. Witness Southern morale after the double defeats of Vicksburg and Gettysburg or the Northern response to Fredericksburg. The army dos not get a NM loss of 6 from some petty squabble. Only a serious loss results in such a catastrophe. So for me, I think these huge swings add to the simulation (And to the danger and excitement).

[1stvermont]

Very true. However maybe than recovery should happen after certain time span. 6 still does seem rather large but in case of a Fredrickburg-Chancellorsville yes.

[Orphan_kentuckian]

Were any of your units completely destroyed? Most large NM hits happen when a division or so is completely decimated in a battle. I have had battles where a lone division was moving to reinforce a stack, starts a battle with a force entering the same region and get completely annihilated thus resulting a significant NM hit.

What were the casualties of the said battle?

[Durk]

Very true. However maybe than recovery should happen after certain time span. 6 still does seem rather large but in case of a Fredrickburg-Chancellorsville yes.

There is recovery each turn you are under 100 NM.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I don't know, I like the current system. Lose a big battle, and it can snowball against you. This game is only loosely about strategic objectives, it is really about winning in the field. The strategic objectives are there to prompt the sides into taking action, but how the battles play out in the field is what determines the outcome. The NM reward for destroying elements is a big part of how this is represented mechanically, and I for one, am happy with the dials as they are currently set. (In terms of NM; I am more on board with the OP's point in the other thread about VPs).

[1stvermont]

Were any of your units completely destroyed? Most large NM hits happen when a division or so is completely decimated in a battle. I have had battles where a lone division was moving to reinforce a stack, starts a battle with a force entering the same region and get completely annihilated thus resulting a significant NM hit.

What were the casualties of the said battle?

Yes i was wiped, caught retreing in passive mode 2 corps left alone from other army and sherman whipped me. Not sure just how bad the causalities were.

[Rod Smart]

The thing I find unrealistic is that after a battle its a net-zero result. You lost 6 NM, I bet the north gained 6NM. That's unrealistic. The North won Shiloh, but arguably took a bigger NM hit than the South once the casualty lists started coming out.



I found that old SSI 'No Greater Glory' represented this very well. The north could win a couple of battles in a row, but actually LOSE political support due to the massive casualties.




I'm not sure it would make sense to implement that into the game engine, but it would accurately reflect reality.

The attachment 18491h.jpg is no longer available

[1stvermont]

I just won a battle 9 morale, know that is too crazy. I do like that morale is recovered at least.

[B0rn_C0nfused]

My list favorite part is NM seemed to be mostly gained from lost units. I would like to see casualties be the measuring stick. Also, I think only the winner gains the NM from destroyed units right?

[1stvermont]

My list favorite part is NM seemed to be mostly gained from lost units. I would like to see casualties be the measuring stick. Also, I think only the winner gains the NM from destroyed units right?

I agree, unit destroyed should not matter. The other I am not sure but seems so.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I like the "swinginess" of the current system. I don't think I would like NM rewards to be directly tied to hits lost. You already pay a cost in resources to replace hits; to have a direct correspondence with NM loss on top of that would feel a little too mechanical IMO, and encourage steamrolling by piling advantage directly on advantage. At least once a game I win a battle by 1000 hits or more, and gain as much as 10 or 12 NM. If the NM loss were linear you would still get huge NM swings from these battles but also get the onesies and twosies from all the smaller battles.

NM for elements destroyed (and it isn't 1 for 1 either, there is a percentage chance when an element is destroyed) means that a big hit differential usually correlates to NM gains, but sometimes you still don't get that much because you have to hit a pretty high threshold before you start to get NM (actually eliminating elements is quite difficult when everything is formed into divisions). Tying NM directly to hits would not solve the problem of overly weighting combat losses (if you think this is actually a problem) but instead magnifying it.