PDA

View Full Version : Morale



BabyShambles
11th May 2005, 02:12
Could someone explain this to me . It's from the FAQ's thread :

** Will there be a morale system for units as well as a fatigue factor?
Fatigue has never been planned. Morale has been planned, however, but it looks like it never made it into the game. That isn’t to say that soldiers fight to death though; when they think the situation is hopeless they will retreat and flee from the battlefield. You then get the option to pursue and try to capture them, but you might get ambushed.

Ok so there isn't going to be morale , but it says :

That isn’t to say that soldiers fight to death though; when they think the situation is hopeless they will retreat and flee from the battlefield.

Isn't that morale ? Where a soldier runs ? So is morale in this game ? Thanks for any info .

Sol Invictus
11th May 2005, 02:22
Morale seems to be the great mystery in this game. If it was intended, I can't imagine why it was left out. Most military games have a morale system. Then again; as you state; it seems that it does indeed have a morale system, sorta. Curiouser and curiouser. If it doesn't have an "official" morale system for whatever reason, I certainly hope this will be included in the first patch. This game sounds like it could be very fun; even if not a Napoleonics sim, but it needs some fleshing out in the tactical game. Nothing huge, just a bit more realism for a somewhat more Napoleonic feel.

Oststar
11th May 2005, 03:22
Morale seems to be the great mystery in this game. If it was intended, I can't imagine why it was left out.

If you don't know yourself then don't pass your assumptions onto others. Morale is in the game as is fatigue, look on the site "Weather affects your soldiers will to fight, mud, snow, rain and sand..." etc. Jaycw has said directly that morale is in the game. Details are sketchy though.

Khornish
11th May 2005, 06:42
If you don't know yourself then don't pass your assumptions onto others. Morale is in the game as is fatigue, look on the site "Weather affects your soldiers will to fight, mud, snow, rain and sand..." etc. Jaycw has said directly that morale is in the game. Details are sketchy though.

Reread the new FAQ.

Seems Morale really isn't in there like it was originally planned after all.

Oststar
11th May 2005, 13:11
I read the FAQ, but why did Jaycw pull me up on it if it really isn't in there? I can't find the damn quote now, but he said that morale is in there, and the site www.imperialglory.com has in the blurb "Weather effects impact your units will and ability to fight" or thereabouts. Either pyros lied pointblank about both or the FAQ is wrong.

jaywalker2309
11th May 2005, 14:29
Reread the new FAQ.

Seems Morale really isn't in there like it was originally planned after all.

Read it carefully. its IN there but not as originally planned, ie not as complicated/complex as would have liked.

Khornish
11th May 2005, 15:34
Read it carefully. its IN there but not as originally planned, ie not as complicated/complex as would have liked.

Yes, that's pretty much what you quoted me as saying.

jaywalker2309
11th May 2005, 15:43
Yes, that's pretty much what you quoted me as saying.

I know but i think some people were taking it as `its not in as planned` as in not at all when there is something there

BabyShambles
11th May 2005, 20:39
Read it carefully. its IN there but not as originally planned, ie not as complicated/complex as would have liked.


So basically we have Pyro Studios morale ? Uncomplicated and unfinished morale . That's annoying i was planning a preorder of this game , but i may wait for a patch or two before i do that . But i will be buying this game as i enjoyed the demo alot , but without PROPER morale it's not going to get me off playing Rome:TW

saddletank
11th May 2005, 22:26
Read it carefully. its IN there but not as originally planned, ie not as complicated/complex as would have liked.

A great pity. Something for a patch maybe? I think the concensus from the community here is most would like to see a more robust morale system in there. Those who don't want one can be given an 'off' toggle possibly.

Hannibal-Sun
12th May 2005, 00:54
I agree and have said it before - I will not be purchasing another game that may look as brilliant as freakin wack Rome: Total War - I am a great fan of graphics but a greater fan of realistic playability and nothing has been able to match Creative Assembly's engine.

Personally, I am about tactics and battling, not playing a single-player for days or doing a campaign with jacks that leave the game suddenly (for whatever reason) -- check out the Empire Earth II game to see how annoying it gets. At least it's easier to set-up a game than RTW. Although Empire Earth is really sick with the graphics, but there is no morale so that is the reason I will get what I can out of the MP demo and wait for a "morale boost".

So, I really hope these Eidos cats do a good job and upgrade the game to include morale so they can get my 30-40 dollars and so I can get a good next two or three years of crazy battles with the rest of the guys/gals that went to RTW. If you make it right, they will definitely come. I doubt any of the old-school total war series ppl are big fans of RTW and are searching for that next realistic Real time war strategic game with a fine multi-player system (ease of game set-up) and real players that enjoy battling like I do.

Good luck!

Hannibal-Sun

[BlackBirdy]
12th May 2005, 01:45
I'm against the morale system.

It will bring nothing to the tactical part of the game.

On the contrary, it may reduce the tactics due to its unclear origin and its unpredictable effects.

Two examples of bad morale system:

- the boring chase after the runaways who have to be killed. There is no strategy in that. This is just a waste of time and completely unrealistic.

- the case of the units fleeing behind the lines and when able to fight again, they are well-placed to destroy the soft spot of the army (the cannons for example). This situation is unfair and unrealistic: how fleeing units can suddenly become infiltrated units able to destroy the weakest but fundamental part of an army?

BabyShambles
12th May 2005, 02:23
']I'm against the morale system.

It will bring nothing to the tactical part of the game.

On the contrary, it may reduce the tactics due to its unclear origin and its unpredictable effects.

Two examples of bad morale system:

- the boring chase after the runaways who have to be killed. There is no strategy in that.

- the case of the units fleeing behind the lines and when able to fight again, they are well-placed to destroy the soft spot of the army (the cannons for example).

You really don't get it . Im not going to start explaining why your post is completely wrong . It would take me forever .

jaywalker2309
12th May 2005, 07:01
You really don't get it . Im not going to start explaining why your post is completely wrong . It would take me forever .

Wouldnt take forever.. here's why morale is needed in one sentence.

Without morale you are just playing a computer player, morale adds a sense of humanity to the game.

Dravin
12th May 2005, 18:39
It will bring nothing to the tactical part of the game.


Not so, having to worry and adjust for the morale of your and the enemy's troops ads an additional component to the tactical situation, it's a matter of wither you want that extra component or not (kinda like having limited ammunition), and thus think wither it's a good or bad thing.



On the contrary, it may reduce the tactics due to its unclear origin and its unpredictable effects.


It may does not equate to it will, and who says it's unpredictable, sure the players may not know the exact mechanics of the system (though with a little help from the developers that can be changed, or even people willing to dig into the game files depending on how the game was put together), but a little feedback on screen combined with experience will give one a feel for just how far one can push their troops.

As for reduced options, adding morale gives you additional options and it's something you can use to your advantage and the enemy's disadvantage. True, you can't charge 5 militia men into a solid line of 500 Black Watch but that's a good thing, just like not having access to close air support in the game technically limits your options (you can't napalm the French) but that is a good thing.

Also consider that you can use the enemy's morale as a component of your tactics, not just his physical situation, that would be an increase in tactical complexity and options.



the boring chase after the runaways who have to be killed. There is no strategy in that. This is just a waste of time and completely unrealistic.

the case of the units fleeing behind the lines and when able to fight again, they are well-placed to destroy the soft spot of the army (the cannons for example). This situation is unfair and unrealistic: how fleeing units can suddenly become infiltrated units able to destroy the weakest but fundamental part of an army?


Do I utilize my unit to run down these routing men and not be able to use them in another part of the battle or do I risk those men reforming and potentially coming back to bite me in the butt? What if this is a clever feint and/or ambush, That sounds suspiciously like more options and an extra layer I must consider with my tactics than just fighting to the death.

In the case of chasing down men when a whole army routs, nothing requires you to chase them down. Also, a time compression feature or being able to automatically calculate your chasing down and harassing the retreating army can be done.



Without morale you are just playing a computer player, morale adds a sense of humanity to the game.


It goes beyond that, it adds to the realism and historic component of the game, which depending on ones view is a good thing, morale plays a role in battle in real life, I want it to play a role in the battles I play in the game, having troops that all fight to the last ruins the immersion for me and others, it sticks out like a horrible sore thumb, and has been pointed out many, many times it's easily disabled, enabling not so much so.

saddletank
12th May 2005, 20:03
']I'm against the morale system.

It will bring nothing to the tactical part of the game.

On the contrary, it may reduce the tactics due to its unclear origin and its unpredictable effects.

Two examples of bad morale system:

- the boring chase after the runaways who have to be killed. There is no strategy in that. This is just a waste of time and completely unrealistic.

- the case of the units fleeing behind the lines and when able to fight again, they are well-placed to destroy the soft spot of the army (the cannons for example). This situation is unfair and unrealistic: how fleeing units can suddenly become infiltrated units able to destroy the weakest but fundamental part of an army?

The above post staggers, amazes and even frightens me with it's total misunderstanding of a morale system and how essential such a system is to an authentic game based on the battles of Napoleon.

I'm speechless. In fact the above can't be a real post at all, it has to be a troll.

And if it's not a troll I really pity people who have no concept of warfare and tactics.

[BlackBirdy]
12th May 2005, 22:08
The above post staggers, amazes and even frightens me with it's total misunderstanding of a morale system and how essential such a system is to an authentic game based on the battles of Napoleon.

I'm speechless. In fact the above can't be a real post at all, it has to be a troll.

And if it's not a troll I really pity people who have no concept of warfare and tactics.

Please keep your troll and your pity for yourself...

I've just exhibited the facts showing a moral system is difficult to apply ... and you... instead of being frightened or speechless, you should give some valuable arguments or try to convince me...

I wonder who is the troll here??

Sieur_Drewry
12th May 2005, 22:12
saddletank needs to know when to shut his mouth. He speaks like he is above everyone else.

Oststar
13th May 2005, 06:00
saddletank needs to know when to shut his mouth. He speaks like he is above everyone else.

Despite that he had a valid point, though if he'd expressed it the way Dravin had it would have been better.

So congratulations to Dravin for destroying BlackBirdy's arguement like French Cavalry at Sedan. :)

saddletank
13th May 2005, 08:30
I felt no need to explain why a morale system would be better since Dravin had already done so.

Oststar
13th May 2005, 10:55
I felt no need to explain why a morale system would be better since Dravin had already done so.

I got that impression, I think common practice in that situation is to quote the best arguement or give them credit somewhere in your post. Just suggesting it as I can see an arguement brewing in the near future.

da_snada
15th May 2005, 11:17
lo all :)

i think a moral-system is a MUST, because it offers interesting tactics.
an example:

two armys are engaging each other:

a huge british army and a smaller prussian one. the prussian have a higher moral, so they would fight even if their lines are taking more losses.

some of the prussians troop are hidden in a nearby forest - and suddenly the came out and charging the left flank. the british troops (with a lower moral) become nervous and the left flank collapses. this is disastrous! the whole british line is collapsing!
this "flanking" is a good tactic in RTW

without moral ist just another RTS-i have more soldiers-i win-game

greets da_snada


-and sorry for my bad english :) -

Picotrain
15th May 2005, 12:58
Is there any way to edit the title of this thread so people stop misspelling "morale".... there's an "E" people!!! A moral is a lesson learned from a narrative.

Mike_B
15th May 2005, 18:01
If that's what makes you happy..done.

BabyShambles
15th May 2005, 18:18
Is there any way to edit the title of this thread so people stop misspelling "morale".... there's an "E" people!!! A moral is a lesson learned from a narrative.

Yes i did try when i realised my mistake , but it wouldn't change it .


lo all :)

i think a moral-system is a MUST, because it offers interesting tactics.
an example:

two armys are engaging each other:

a huge british army and a smaller prussian one. the prussian have a higher moral, so they would fight even if their lines are taking more losses.

some of the prussians troop are hidden in a nearby forest - and suddenly the came out and charging the left flank. the british troops (with a lower moral) become nervous and the left flank collapses. this is disastrous! the whole british line is collapsing!
this "flanking" is a good tactic in RTW

without moral ist just another RTS-i have more soldiers-i win-game

greets da_snada


-and sorry for my bad english :) -

No your English is good , you explained why we need morale perfectly there . If there's no morale then what chance has a smaller army got against a big army ? It just would be stupid . I just hope the devs start to understand the importance of it .

screamingpalm
15th May 2005, 18:26
And the "morale" of the story is......


Yes i did try when i realised my mistake , but it wouldn't change it .


:D :D :D