Morale in strategy / combat games.

[hexsane]

I'm looking into implementing morale is place of attack turns. Anyone doing this? Any good resources out there for the math and conceptual design?

[Chris]

Huh? I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but this is trivial... Every attack uses up 1% of morale (troops are geting tired outside of the garnison), every hour morale is regenerated by +10% (resting in barracks).

[hexsane]

Actually no. I'm looking more along the lines of troop strength calculations. The above is no better than attack turns. Think of: An attacking army 2x the size loses. That should decrease the attackers morale by far more than 1%. Is there anyone doing something like this?

[Zeggy]

a = Enemy army size / your army size
if a > 1.5 or a < 0.5 {
increase/decrease morale more than normal by dividing 'a' times
} else {
normal morale increase/decrease
}


Does that help? I've never used morale, and I'm not sure if that's what you want. I just made this up on the spot, so it's not a very complicated system. It could be extended a lot.

You'd also need to make sure to scale it properly so it doesn't get out of hand with more extreme values.

[hexsane]

Well... Yes and no. The basic math I can handle. I am actually looking for more complex design strategies and any ones opinion about using it in a PBBG. Do the players like it? Does it keep larger players from endlessly bashing smaller players? I want to attempt to remove size restrictions and allow completely open warfare among all the players. I really stink at explaining things without writing a novel...

[Chris]

Oh, I understand now.

Do the players like it? Does it keep larger players from endlessly bashing smaller players? I want to attempt to remove size restrictions and allow completely open warfare among all the players.

It is not gonna work. There are some players that play solely so they can crush weak noobs. Casualites on their side does not matter, reasoning does not matter. Sure, there are few of them, but enough to break the game.

[jannesiera]

Well... Yes and no. The basic math I can handle. I am actually looking for more complex design strategies and any ones opinion about using it in a PBBG. Do the players like it? Does it keep larger players from endlessly bashing smaller players? I want to attempt to remove size restrictions and allow completely open warfare among all the players. I really stink at explaining things without writing a novel...

Maybe you could write that novel? Because I really don't understand what you mean with morale .

[saljutin]

from Wiki - Close Combat game
"Mental condition: Close Combat used a psychological (morale) model for each individual combatant. The combatant's morale would be affected by factors such as: being near officers, being supported by other units, being under fire, taking casualties, and being left without orders . Troops would be Stable when they there were in no danger, Cowering when pinned down by enemy fire or Panicked when surrounded by dead comrades, wounded or near enemy flamethrowers. The use of a psychological model made certain tactics common in RTS games, where the units will follow suicidal orders, impossible in Close Combat. For example, attempting a "mass rush", in Close Combat, would result in units seeking cover, refusing to obey orders or even deserting."

so if connecting it to "RL", players with huge armies (top players) would have bigger morale then small armies. because big >>> small. so instead of morale you should think of some system like this:
lets say we have some modern strategy (scifi or present), attacker needs some sort of energy (gas, oil) to move armies to defender. If he has like 1000 tanks he would need 10.000 of oil to attack some smaller player, BUT he will gain like 500 oil. Now is this worth? Games are usually planed different, if A attacks B it only calculates casualties from A and B. So with A having huge money gain some casualties mean nothing...
I could talk about this forever but u understand where dog is pointing his finger

[jannesiera]

from Wiki - Close Combat game
"Mental condition: Close Combat used a psychological (morale) model for each individual combatant. The combatant's morale would be affected by factors such as: being near officers, being supported by other units, being under fire, taking casualties, and being left without orders . Troops would be Stable when they there were in no danger, Cowering when pinned down by enemy fire or Panicked when surrounded by dead comrades, wounded or near enemy flamethrowers. The use of a psychological model made certain tactics common in RTS games, where the units will follow suicidal orders, impossible in Close Combat. For example, attempting a "mass rush", in Close Combat, would result in units seeking cover, refusing to obey orders or even deserting."

so if connecting it to "RL", players with huge armies (top players) would have bigger morale then small armies. because big >>> small. so instead of morale you should think of some system like this:
lets say we have some modern strategy (scifi or present), attacker needs some sort of energy (gas, oil) to move armies to defender. If he has like 1000 tanks he would need 10.000 of oil to attack some smaller player, BUT he will gain like 500 oil. Now is this worth? Games are usually planed different, if A attacks B it only calculates casualties from A and B. So with A having huge money gain some casualties mean nothing...
I could talk about this forever but u understand where dog is pointing his finger

Yeah, that's a good way to do it. But you could also think more in a psycholical way. There are many ways to play around with this. It would take me to long to explain and to give examples. So in short: how well does a player take care of his soldiers? They could bribe to a player who takes care a lot better of his soldiers. Do your soldiers want do die for their country? Mercenaries will bribe a lot faster etc. But that's just about the whole morale thing, you can be creative. So I would say: be creative how to create a balance between stronger and weaker players.