Fluctuating morale?

fortifications and infrastructure increases morale.

Maybe that area had so much fortifications. Somehow AI keep building fortifications.

Nn gg wrote:

fortifications and infrastructure increases morale.

Maybe that area had so much fortifications. Somehow AI keep building fortifications.

NoobNoobTrain wrote:

I don't really understand the math behind this that creates an 'island' of low morale when it's surrounded by friendly provinces with higher morale. As I understand the rules, its morale should go up???

100 morale -> +2;

90-99 morale -> +1;

70-89 morale -> 0;

60-69 morale -> -1;

50-59 morale -> -2;

40-49 morale -> -3;

30-39 morale -> -4;

20-29 morale -> -5;

10-19 morale -> -6;

0-9 morale -> -7;

soitwasatleastwiththeoriginalcow1.0

Restrisiko wrote:

NoobNoobTrain wrote:

I don't really understand the math behind this that creates an 'island' of low morale when it's surrounded by friendly provinces with higher morale. As I understand the rules, its morale should go up???

Each own neighboring province (these are the neighbors in the trend display) influences your own provinces at / with:100 morale -> +2;

90-99 morale -> +1;

70-89 morale -> 0;

60-69 morale -> -1;

50-59 morale -> -2;

40-49 morale -> -3;

30-39 morale -> -4;

20-29 morale -> -5;

10-19 morale -> -6;

0-9 morale -> -7;

soitwasatleastwiththeoriginalcow1.0

If I have a cluster of 4-5 provinces and most of them are in the 40ies, they should all have the same penalties, right? Why does ONE of them end up in the 20ies and falling? If they are all neighbours, they should all have like 100-3-3 -3 -(distance).

And the point of all this is, that the 20ish province will in time pull down the morale in all its neighbours. After some days it will drag an entire region down. And then rebellion starts to kick in in provinces, that used to be OK. I mean, if you conquer a province and it quickly improves to 40ish, it shouldn't plummet to 20ish for no reason.

And what I'm getting at is, that it feels like something is wrong. I'm not arguing with the rules. They make sense. I just don't think it looks like the game always calculates it this way.

Btw. this is 1.5

Spies can also lower morale, you may have identified the base of operations of your enemy intelligence network.

Yes, that could be. But rear area, ressource empty provinces are not likely the worh of spies.

And if a spy lowered morale, it would not say 'falling' and keep falling, right?

Maybe it would actually be more fair if the neighbour impact was an average. Not a gross impact.

It doesn't seem logic that a province with many neighbours should be more discontent than one with few.

And the problem is, as I already wrote, that one bad apple can start a chain of declining morale. I don't think it's fair that the game has a slippery slope mechanism at this point when the effect comes from the map design and not the players' actions.

NoobNoobTrain wrote:

If I have a cluster of 4-5 provinces and most of them are in the 40ies, they should all have the same penalties, right? Why does ONE of them end up in the 20ies and falling? If they are all neighbours, they should all have like 100-3-3 -3 -(distance).

NoobNoobTrain wrote:

And the problem is, as I already wrote, that one bad apple can start a chain of declining morale.

Did you read all the reasons each of the provinces gives when you click on the i next to morale?

Yes of course.

And as Restrisiko illustrated, the problem can be narrowed down to how the maps are designed: provinces with many neighbours risk becoming the cancer that will spread to your entire empire.

In 1.5 the only tool is infrastructure, which is pretty feeble and takes a long time to a high cost.

The only viable option is a garrison. I don't think that's an improvement to the game.

NoobNoobTrain wrote:

Yes of course.

And as Restrisiko illustrated, the problem can be narrowed down to how the maps are designed: provinces with many neighbours risk becoming the cancer that will spread to your entire empire.

In 1.5 the only tool is infrastructure, which is pretty feeble and takes a long time to a high cost.

The only viable option is a garrison. I don't think that's an improvement to the game.

Capital boost is just a temporary solution. The effect will wear off.

NoobNoobTrain wrote:

Capital boost is just a temporary solution. The effect will wear off.

Of course you are correct that it is like a game of musical chairs, and you don’t want to be left without a plan when the music stops.

...and my problem is more in the mid to late game. Conquering capitals each day isn't always an option.

NoobNoobTrain wrote:

...and my problem is more in the mid to late game. Conquering capitals each day isn't always an option.

I realized that I should make something clear: this is me speaking from experience on the 22 and 25 maps, so I really can't speak to how things work out on larger maps.

I plan ahead and rigorously defend the minor AI’s next to me at the beginning of the game and this way I save their capitals for later.