Introduction
Morale is a heavily under-utilised facet of warfare in strategy and tactical games. Even for those games which attempt to factor it in (e.g. total war series) it's poorly implemented.
In the pre-industrial age it was Morale more often than not that was the deciding factor once battle was joined. This is a broad generalisation of course but generally speaking armies did not fight to the death - one side broke and ran first. This is still true today but arguably to a lessened extent due to industrialised weaponry.
What's out there?
What morale systems are out there?
The Total War system allows for morale to be modified by buildings present when a unit is created, and for the commander present on a battlefield to affect it as well. TW also tracks morale in progress and has tactical modifiers such as flanks secured vs exposed, too many losses etc. When troops run out of morale they break and run.
However total war handles feedback to the player about morale on the battlefield poorly. There is no real indication of when your troops are about to break, and no really good way of communicating what's affecting morale in either the strategic or tactical vectors. Selecting an individual unit would display at most one line of text about one factor that was affecting morale, and no indicator bar or anything similar was present.
The Gettysburg System is much better, and it's the example I will hold up until someone thinks of a better one. In Sid Meier's Gettysburg morale was the main element of play and was very well indicated. Each unit had a series of flags displayed indicating how much total morale it had. For a green unit this base value was two, trained had three, veteran four and crack units had five. These would act as a morale status bar, and change slowly to red from left to right as morale was consumed.
When something was positively effecting morale such as the unit's General within the correct range for his skill/experience level, an extra flag would appear. Other things which affected morale positively were other units to the flanks, other units behind and from memory being dug-in had a positive. Hovering the mouse over these flags should display what they were there for, quickly teaching the player how to boost and maintain morale.
Things which consumed morale were forced double-speed marching (in this way in Gettysburg morale doubled as Endurance, an idea I don't particularly like), losses, nearby units breaking, being outflanked etc. When all of a unit's flags were coloured red, it broke and ran. If surrounded when that happened it would generally surrender.
The really cool part was that temporary flag-boosting things could take you well past your unit's original number of flags. For example a Veteran unit which had friendly units flanking it and an artillery battery directly behind, with the general in range could have seven flags. If this unit got up to 6.5 flags red you knew you couldn't move the battery, the general or the flanking units or they'd break and run. This meant morale was a deep tactical element and I count that a success.
Other systems... what else was out there? Pirates! had an interesting system but no more advanced than Gettysburg and I can't think of any game that did it better. Does anyone else have a good example? I can't think of a single 'RTS' or even turn based strategy title that did this really well.
The ultimate?
Gettysburg's big downfall was of course it had very little in the way of actual strategy. It was a strictly tactical game - you didn't build or equip units and you arrived at the battlefield with your pieces dictated from the outset. It was a wonderful tactical game but really it only brushed on strategy when you decided when you would commit your reserves.
What would be great is some combination of Gettysburg's tactical morale effects and display (modernised of course - screens are bigger now and interfaces have moved on) with Total War's strategic ability to increase the base morale of a unit at creation time with buildings and other factors.
Interface
I think some system similar to the gettysburg flags but shown per unit so you can highlight several units. I'm sure you could show 2-8 little morale bars over a single unit on today's huge monitors and still have a hundred units on the screen. (mmm, 2560x1600). Of course a selected unit can show more details and hovering over each little bar should tell you why it's there - e.g. flanking, general's presence, losses inflicted on enemy etc.
Maybe you can make each 'bar' a little symbol instead for why it's there, like a little tree for cover, a helmet for general, double horizontal lines for friendly troops behind, double vertical for flanking... Some way of telling at a glance how good your whole army's morale is would absolutely rock, and being able to just cast your eye down the line and see all the effects would give me a nerdgasm.
In the strategic game it should be clear at all times what the base morale of any unit you tell a city to create will be, as well as the effects which a given building can have on morale.
Tactically
Some examples of the tactical effects on morale are below. +X means a number of flags or bars is added to the total morale available to a unit, -X means this number of flags is consumed. Any unit with all flags or bars consumed breaks and runs. As you can see in the case of an organised army with flanking and rear units this can lead to a cascade effect leading to a complete rout - which is higly realistic.
+1 General in range (can be +2 and/or wider range for better generals)
+1 Friendly unit on my flank(s)
+1 Friendly unit behind
+1 Dug in
+1 In cover (e.g. trees or rocks)
+1 On a hill facing down
+1 Hero present and in range for morale boost
-1 Have taken significant losses (say 15%)
-2 Have taken serious losses (Say 30%)
-3 Have taken massive losses (Say 50%)
-4 Have taken horrible losses (Say 75%)
-1 Being attacked on the flank or by an enfilade ranged attack
-1 Being charged by cavalry
-2 Being charged by Bear cavalry
-2 Attacked from the rear
-2 Cut off from the rest of the army
-1 A frightening weapon, creature or magical effect is being used on us
-2 An especially frightening weapon, creature or magical effect etc
The positive effects can come and go as whatever causes them arrives or leaves, whereas the negatives can consume morale which then recovers slowly over time. So being charged by cavalry and then bear cavalry would be bad, but less so if there's five minutes of standing on a hill looking mean in between.
This introduces yet another variable of course being the regeneration rate for morale. Should this be a percentage of total (I would say yes to avoid penalising more experienced units) and can it be effected by the presence of heroes and generals? Why not!
Strategically
Things which can permanently increase the morale of a unit at creation or upgrade:
+1 Shrine present
+2 Temple present
+3 Cathedral present
(working on the theory that religion makes you fear death less)
+1 Basic training
+2 Intermediate training
+3 Advanced or heavy training
+1 Some experience
+2 Moderate experience
+3 Veteran unit
+1 Channeler was present during training
+1 a Hero was present during training
+1 Channeler's morale effect (can be a skill pick or something?)
Summoned and created creatures
Of course a big plus here is that you can give magical creatures a great advantage without touching a single other stat. For example, one advantage of undead units could be that they have no concept of morale and always fight to the destruction (since they are already dead). Another could be they're terrifying and anyone facing them suffers -1 morale. So you could make undead units relatively weak in terms of attack, defence, hitpoints, yet they will remain deadly. To continue this example, this will make players facing undead adopt a strategy of doing maximum damage while conserving morale (tight formation, defensive tactics, keep the general and any heroes close to troops, best troops on the flanks etc).
In this way Morale can be a strategic element for Magic in Elemental.
Regards,
Kul
Edit found an older post with some more morale ideas: https://forums.elementalgame.com/329500
edit2: added effect of experience on permanent morale
I like it! The Gettysburg morale system seems pretty good from your description. Combined with a strategic system I think it'd work very nicely.
Oh and:
This is a very nice post and I really hope that a system with this depth is implemented as I think it would really add a lot to the game. My worry is that combat as a whole won't be that complex (given that in the dev journal thread on unit creation they've said that there'll only be attack/defense/hitpoint stats for each unit) and if that's the case then it might be hoping for too much to want such an awesome morale system layered on top of that. At this point I'm just hoping that features like unit orientation (and thus flanking), zone of control, attacks of opportunity etc have a place in tactical combat at all regardless of any morale effects that they might also ideally involve.
Jonny, this is still early in the dev process and Stardock opened this forum because they wanted ideas to consider as they prepare for the public beta. I generally favor the idea of keeping combat mechanics simple (at least at the UI level), but I think it reasonable to consider adding Morale as a fourth basic stat for non-spellcasting units.
Also, I believe that including morale in the core unit stats would really help strengthen the fantasy feel of the game. How many of great rallying-cry scenes have there been in your favorite fantasy novels? Quite a few, I'd bet. Plus, even if we don't have officer units, I'd really like to see champion units be able to act as morale-boosters (a famous Paladin) or destroyers (a Lich Lord).
Oh yeah I totally agree, I want combat to be as involved and deep as possible. My point was that any morale system such as the above would be contingent on the mechanics existing in the game which would realistically affect morale (e.g. getting flanked) being included in the combat system at all at a basic level (i.e. giving a boost to damage when attacking from a flank). I just wanted to point out how much I want at the very least that level of complexity in the tactical battles, so even if the devs don't add a morale system I think not having flanking etc in would really detract massively from the game. As such I would like to make clear that, though I'd love the morale system above, I would still be able to play the game and accept it if the devs didn't include it, however the basic concepts underlying tactical battles (again flanking etc) I consider abolsutley vital and I would implore them to dedicate time to putting them in place as one of my absolute priorities for the game. I think there's a real danger if they're not included then tactical battles could become uninteresting and then any developer time spent on them becomes a waste (from my point of view anyhow) as I probably wouldn't play them.
One other thing I thought of would be a -1 strategically going into a battle for any unit that has 0 experience. This has several good effects:
The more I think about this the more I like it. It totally underlines and maximises the value in separating the concepts of training and experience and could really bring out elemental's tactical game while adding strategic depth. The hardest part to code (in my head, with very limited game-coding experience) would be the interface bits
Anything which makes those otherwise annoying "small wars" more valuable to the player will make the game more interesting and break out of the "build up and steam roller" mould for 4X games. Throw in the unit strength regeneration rules... Having the built-up horde of your enemy smash itself piecemeal on your smaller but more experienced army that can just keep rebuilding its numbers because you're fighting on your territory and therefore in-supply? Priceless.
cheers,
This is exactly how I imagine something like a moral system to work.
Scary things like bear cavalry and demons and stuff would just generally just have an additional "-1" that would stack with "is cavalry" rather than bear cavalry getting a special catigory "-2", it would get 2 predetermined "-1"s.
You might also get a +1 for having such creatures on your side. If that +1 for friendly unit on flank is a huge fantastic creature or a legion of bear cavalry, then that would boost moral I'd think by another +1.
Another fun modifier could be getting a temporary boost to morale for taking down an enemy Big Scary Monster. So not only would your units (at least nearby) no longer be negatively affected by that unit's scary presence anymore, they would also receive an extra morale boost on top of that. And/or maybe have the opposite effect if one of your own Big Scary Monsters falls.
Think about it. You're fighting a powerful army, which also happens to have a dragon. Things aren't going so well and defeat seems inevitable; but then you manage to kill the dragon. Your troops rally - if they managed to take down a dragon what are some fools with swords? And the enemy ranks would be demoralized - the paragon of their forces just fell.
It also means sending in individual powerful units straight into the front lines not only means risking losing said unit, but risking demoralizing your own troops
Well, then I bring up the idea of having more than 2 sides in a battle. In AoW, battles could and would include multiple players with none of them being on the same side because when a battle would start, if any additional armies were only 1 space away from the battle, they too would be joined. I'd like to see that because it added an interesting dynamic, but I would forgive if it did not because it does make things a bit complex and I'm not sure exactly how it would effect things like moral.
I am not sure how it would work in a 3+ player FFA battle. Since if green saw blue take down red's big beast... .what does that mean for green? yay! red doesn't have a big beast, but blue is obviously powerful enough to take down such a beast... but blue must be weak now since there is no way that red's beast could have not at least hurt blue's forces. Very strange situations might appear.
I do not believe MoM ever had a situation where 2 different armies could exist in 1 stack, but it lacked a multiplayer element so it wasn't really needed. However by modern terms, It certainly would be expected that 2 factions could exist on the same tile (as allies). In such a case, do you think if that say, blue channeler's forces brought down Red player's big scary monster, how will green react? Green might be blue's friend, so will they react exactly as if they were part of Blue's forces? or will they be abstained since it wasn't specifically green forces through brought down said big scary beast?
I don't know. But I think that with enough thought and testing that problem could be resolved without excessive difficulty. Off the top of my head I'd say that allies' morales would be affected in the same way by events during battles. The case of battles with more than two sides is harder but not insurmountable. But I agree, I liked the AoW system, where any armies within a tile of the battle take part in the struggle; although I'd like players to be able to choose which of their armies will take part in a battle (like Medieval II).
Sounds good, but will such a system of numbers have enough randomness to it? If I can hear the dice rolling in the background you need to make them a little more subtle. In other words, morale is not a thermometer. Or if it is, its one full of air.
- x for being attacked by a scary UNKNOWN monster
+ y for beeing attack by a scary KNOWN monster. Yeah, our army knows the weakness of the monster and all our weapons are equipped with kryptonite. Hehe, come to me, sweet monster.
(the size of x and y are depending on the monster type)
I'm thinking of Hanibals elefants while attacking rome. Rome didn't know how to handle these beasts and the soldiers saw elefants for the first time. It took a while, several months or years, but after then, the romans knew, how to deal with elefants. They found the weak point of these elefants, and the battle was a disaster for Hanibal. Hanibal trusted too long in the frigthening of the beasts. After Hanibal, no one really used elefants anymore.
This will work well on monsters with a weakness, like the elefants. A big dragon without any reasonable weakness will cause fear if it is already known.
That's not hard. High morale could mean a slight boost to stats or whatnot, in addition to making it very unlikely that they will rout. Low morale might result in a slight penalty to stats and a very high likelihood of routing. The key here is likelihood. Just because your troops hit -5 morale doesn't mean they will immediately rout; maybe they won't even rout at all - but in all probability they will break and run soon.
I'd like this if it weren't so universal. Just because I'm aware of Big Scary Monster and maybe even I know some of its weaknesses, I'm not going to be happy to see it burst into battle against me, I might just be a little less terrified. But, if we can specially equip or train units to be particularly effective against specific Big Scary Monsters, or types of them, then those units should be resistent to those Big Scary Monsters' morale reducing effects.
Yeah, I mean its like if at the end of Star Wars: a new hope somebody burst in and said "HEY GUYS! You have to destroy another one!" I don't think they would be nearly as happy as they were when they managed to destroy the 1st one. Because it wasn't easy! A known monster could make it worse because you do know its weakness... and that is to have a super titanium + 5 sword of ethereal bane. And you don't have one of those right now, so you might as well bend over.
Using my own personal experiance, I know the weakness of air elementals in MoM. But more than once I've encountered them being unable to pull out my weakness (all too often it is 1st turn I cast a spell. 2nd turn they appear and attack my guys, but now I can't cast any of my enchant weapon spells. Or just didn't have any enchant weapon spells) They were a known monster, and that actually made it worse because now I knew I couldn't kill them if I wanted to.
I think morale should be a bit like sisyphus and his boulder.
The morale of your units can be imagined as those units pushing a boulder up a slope. The boulder will naturally want to roll down the hill, this is unavoidable. A disciplined unit will have no trouble keeping the boulder moving along. When things start to affect morale they can take many forms. Perhaps units pushing the boulder could get tired or the hill could be getting more and more steep. The harder your units have to work to "maintain morale", the closer they will come to losing control of the boulder.
In this way you can visualize the point where morale simply *BREAKS*. When your units lose control of the boulder, it lingers on the tipping point for a moment before going crashing down the hill. This tipping point is your only chance to halt the backward slide. Once that boulder gets rolling and builds momentum against you the task of recovering morale becomes exponentially harder.
This works both ways. If your units are very strong and disciplined they can keep that boulder under tight control and give it lots of momentum as it rolls forward. Once that boulder gets rolling it becomes that much harder for that morale to falter.
--
What that means in game terms is that moral should never break in such a way that you were unaware of the situation or couldn't see the problem coming. There should be no "cause fear" buttons that can send elite units running from the field with the press of a button. Likewise having some random mook of yours shouting a few words and raising a banner should not instantly rally broken units back into formation.
Props for the Sisyphus reference. You remind me that morale's another case where some non-numeric values in the UI might help strengthen the fantasy flavor of the game--say the angle of a morale flag instead of how many flags are in a morale indicator.
I agree with this last bit, *except* in cases of the right spell being available (and perhaps units failing their saving throws). If I've got a Dark Paladin working for me, equipped with a cloak of invisibility and able to project a large Terror Aura, that champion most certainly should hvae a chance to pop up like a death's-head mushroom in the middle of your fancy elite formation and promptly cause all bladders and bowels to cut loose.
Well yes, to be more specific I mean that such skills shouls not be the end of the story. Elite units will stand thier ground to various degrees while raw recruits might run away on sight.
All those modifiers might not affect everyone equally. Bear cavalry getting charged by bear cavalry would not have any negative affect. Both sides have bears, they cancel out!
Actually, if one side's bear cavalry are standing still while enemy bear cavalary are bearing down on them, the ones facing the charge maybe should face a larger morale hit than the charging ones. Mere presence shouldn't be the only thing affecting morale; actions should count at least as much.
KILLER bunnies: Any soldier who sees a bunny the first time, will laugh about it. The morale goes up. His job, to sly bunnies is a great job. It's funny and bunnies taste good. As soon as the soldier know, what bunnies are able to do, he will never trust a bunny anymore, not even a normal bunny.
Once burned twice shy? Yeah that works.
I don't know... both sides are pretty much F***'d by definition. I'd be peeing my pants no matter who's side I was on in that case.
Hmm. This is the 2nd topic where I get to talk about Squad Leader. SL and it's successor, Advanced Squad Leader had a focus on (as the game name implied) leadership and it's tactical impact in combat situations.
This was factored into gameplay through 'Elan' (a stat for the squad leader units representing the leadership ability of those units) and 'morale' (a stat for all units, representing their willingness and ability to fight effectively). Low morale and lack of effective leadership had many game impacts, but those factors boil down to whether or not a unit remained a cohesive fighting force - or became a 'broken' unit that ran from battle and/or no longer responded to leadership commands (essentially making the unit ineffective and ultimately removed from gameplay as if they were destroyed in combat).
Morale therefore was, I believe, a defining feature of a game system that fans consider to be the most comprehensive WWII table-top wargame. It wouldn't make me sad to see unit morale have a real impact on Elemental gameplay.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
