100 Player Games - Issue with Morale

It is certainly an issue that needs to be looked over.

VajraEX wrote:

Azkazan wrote:

_Pontus_ wrote:

build fortresses and the problem is largely solved

so you suggest building 500 fortresses in 500 far away periferal provinces? how much iron/goods/money does that cost?

Quite a lot.But, as your nation gets bigger, so does your iron output. We should be happy that iron is not consumable.

Nevertheless, I was simply pointing that out.

I personally feel that this is a generally bad idea. The amount of micromanagement required to wait and upgrade each and every province would drive anyone insane.

That comes to the correct conclusion from Purplepizza that it has to be looked into.

I fully agree.

And hahah, that correction, though. :3

It is definitely not profitable to do it, which is really ironic, because in order to actually win this 100-Player map right now you have to attack speedily to even think about winning. It is a paradox– you have to attack as fast as possible to win, but the provinces you conquered are not profitable, which lowers your resources, which lowers morale, which disables you from conquering any more.

Yes, correct Pizza.

I quickly checked on 1 of my 2 worldwar maps. I have conquered a province that is like 20% of the whole worldmap distance away from my capital and has a -33 morale penalty for it. It makes me gess that provinces that are exactly on the other side of the world have like a -83 morale penalty (luckily I'm Roemania and not madagaskar or the north-south diference could make the penalty even worse).

This moral discussion is I feel closely linked to the food discussion on another topic on this forum. Can you guys please check that out as well, also read all that's in my spoiler (it's a lot and likely to be skipped I think) and respond with your thoughts in that toppic please.

Food Issues on the 100 player map

Yes, I have recently checked that thread and commented on it.

doing it all the time... it means you have to manage your resources, moral and other issues. it is called 'playing the game'.

it really is not thát difficult.

of course, you have to afford the time to think about the issues at hand....

purplepizza117 wrote:

It is definitely not profitable to do it, which is really ironic, because in order to actually win this 100-Player map right now you have to attack speedily to even think about winning. It is a paradox– you have to attack as fast as possible to win, but the provinces you conquered are not profitable, which lowers your resources, which lowers morale, which disables you from conquering any more.

playing my 1st 100map, holding a 110 provs, stretched wide from north to south. no problems yet. ofc, moved capital, built roads etc. no need for bunkers yet...

I am interested at which level it is no longer profitable?

_Pontus_ wrote:

I am interested at which level it is no longer profitable?

1. Who your neighbours are and what resources they have
2. If you are willing to spend gold or not

Azkazan wrote:

_Pontus_ wrote:

build fortresses and the problem is largely solved

so you suggest building 500 fortresses in 500 far away periferal provinces? how much iron/goods/money does that cost?

In my first game I had indeed a lot of extra resources. Because I faced only complete noobs and AI and had fairly slow progression for facing no resistance. Still finished it in 33 days.

i don't see how industrie is so limited, i build/repair like 50 and expand airbases and infrastructure on them. forts are to fortify your position in certain key areas.

Have you already managed to get #1 in army, economy and victory points in your world map?

Azkazan wrote:

In my first game I had indeed a lot of extra resources. Because I faced only complete noobs and AI and had fairly slow progression for facing no resistance. Still finished it in 33 days.

i don't see how industrie is so limited, i build/repair like 50 and expand airbases and infrastructure on them. forts are to fortify your position in certain key areas.

Have you already managed to get #1 in army, economy and victory points in your world map?

IMO the food and moral issues discussed as problematic seem to be more related to lackluster management than anything else...

if I wouldn't have to care about food and moral and the required investments, I would own every map in 1 week (should I have the time for it), including the 100map ffs...

however, I am only playing my 1st 100map, so maybe I will have to adjust my views. I keep that open.

Nevertheless, now, with an empire stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Artic Sea, 178 provinces, the 4th largest army, 2 ongoing wars (-10% moral) ... I still don't have even a shade of a food or serious moral issue.

_Pontus_ wrote:

if I wouldn't have to care about food and moral and the required investments, I would own every map in 1 week (should I have the time for it), including the 100map ffs...

_Pontus_ wrote:

however, I am only playing my 1st 100map, so maybe I will have to adjust my views. I keep that open.

salbalkus wrote:

No, but I've done it multiple times in 22 player, so it should be even more feasible in the world map. By industry, I meant industrial complexes not infrastructure/airbases

_Pontus_ wrote:

Nevertheless, now, with an empire stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Artic Sea, 178 provinces, the 4th largest army, 2 ongoing wars (-10% moral) ... I still don't have even a shade of a food or serious moral issue.

_Pontus_ wrote:

if I wouldn't have to care about food and moral and the required investments, I would own every map in 1 week (should I have the time for it), including the 100map ffs...

_Pontus_ wrote:

IMO the food and moral issues discussed as problematic seem to be more related to lackluster management than anything else...

And I can promise you, that your review at 1000VP will probably have changed your mind.

You are right. That is why I practically win every game I enter...

If you want to discuss my play style, feel free, but not like this.

You might want to consider that a regular working dude with a moderately interesting international job, can even be away (regularly) for a number of days, only logging in 10 minutes a day via a tablet on a shitty connection, to not go inactive.

Those days in early game - for instance - can happen to force you into an alliance with neighbors, as to simply survive those days in early game. And since I never-ever backstab and only cancel an alliance if the player goes inactive or proves to be a total liability and utter idiot, that determines a lot.

Once you come back from absence, you have a lot of resources, but lack development and it it is friggin' hard to get back on top.

The fact that such a dude comes back from 19th place to 4th in a week (provincewise; VPs don't matter when you dont win wars), means mismanagement to you...?

=> Hence, as long as you are totally clueless about how and when someone is playing, don't criticize the results, as you just did.

I still maintain, until proven otherwise, that the core root of the problems experienced by most, is mostlikely defined by the following formula:

(lackluster management x too fast expansion) / (too much time) = lots of VPs + tons of issues

Day 21 - Indochina - 209 provinces/4th - 299VPs (but they don't matter for now ... I am at war with 4)

Army: 1 day ago shared 4th @ 4% (nr1/Texas/army 6%@518 provs ... he had no meaningful opposition in North America and I pray he has those food issues)

Currently 4x -5% for 4 wars ongoing (2 will hopefully end today)

And that while having been abroad, multiple times, working and travelling 14 hours a day, often only a few minutes online via a shitty and frightfully expensive GSM connection on a tablet.

_Pontus_ wrote:

And that while having been abroad, multiple times, working and travelling 14 hours a day, often only a few minutes online via a shitty and frightfully expensive GSM connection on a tablet.

sales of industrial solutions in the field of polymers and silicones in SW Europe and North Africa.

_Pontus_ wrote:

1) You are right. That is why I practically win every game I enter...

2) If you want to discuss my play style, feel free, but not like this.

You might want to consider that a regular working dude with a moderately interesting international job, can even be away (regularly) for a number of days, only logging in 10 minutes a day via a tablet on a shitty connection, to not go inactive.

Those days in early game - for instance - can happen to force you into an alliance with neighbors, as to simply survive those days in early game. And since I never-ever backstab and only cancel an alliance if the player goes inactive or proves to be a total liability and utter idiot, that determines a lot.

Once you come back from absence, you have a lot of resources, but lack development and it it is friggin' hard to get back on top.

The fact that such a dude comes back from 19th place to 4th in a week (provincewise; VPs don't matter when you dont win wars), means mismanagement to you...?

3) => Hence, as long as you are totally clueless about how and when someone is playing, don't criticize the results, as you just did.

4) I still maintain, until proven otherwise, that the core root of the problems experienced by most, is mostlikely defined by the following formula:

5) (lackluster management x too fast expansion) / (too much time) = lots of VPs + tons of issues

6) Day 21 - Indochina - 209 provinces/4th - 299VPs (but they don't matter for now ... I am at war with 4)

Army: 1 day ago shared 4th @ 4% (nr1/Texas/army 6%@518 provs ... he had no meaningful opposition in North America and I pray he has those food issues)

Currently 4x -5% for 4 wars ongoing (2 will hopefully end today)

7) And that while having been abroad, multiple times, working and travelling 14 hours a day, often only a few minutes online via a shitty and frightfully expensive GSM connection on a tablet.

Good quality post, but I don't fully agree, no surprice there I think. Interesting look into your private/working life. I only play these games wenn I have time on my hands, the moments I have to work I don't, because I'll be knocked out within a week because I won't be able to manage everyting.

1) You win almost every game, not every game. It is a difference, but you still lose. You may agree with me that 95% of the players have no clue of what they are doing and therefor make many victories not so special. Most do some random researches, use an army that doesn't suit the way they try to play and most likely having an obvious weak spot in the composition. Often also using only little economie expansions.

2) Even if you are 24h/24h first 2 days it will still be nearly impossible to survive attacks from more than 1 player. The strategy and tactics you can use with mass soldiers vs mass soldiers is simply limited. An alliance may be needed indeed. I also keep my allies till the end. I'm not so keen on the "show me your map, I'll show you mine and attack you as soon as your army is away".

Good job on coming back from 19 --> 4, but I have to say... I can't really say that you manage things well by not playing for days. No offence in there, but it's just not good managment and therefor it is a form of mismanagement to me. We can always discuss the definition, but I don't feel like it.

3) For 21 days of playing your country really hasn't expanded much Stating as a fact, regardless of how much time/gold you spend on it. It's not the circumstances than matter to me (same as above), but the result, regardless of how it is accomplished.

I promise you I never play games like this wenn I work (usually around 60hours/week), because I won't be interested (helps vs boredom) and because I know I can't play it under good conditions (= lack of time and timing) and therefor won't reach the results I hope too.

4) Well, I still think it's the second major factor and that the first major factor is the miscalculation from Bytro labs with the food use of the civillians. My new strategy is to stop invading players untill they maxed their food production so I can conquer it with the best food production possible.

5) Completely right regarding the formula. Now please do some maths about the food instead of just looking into your game to see if there is a + or - and post your food production. Like how much food do the civillians in the core-provinces of indochina consume? And how much do the core food provinces of indochina produce if you accoun them as non-core provinces with 100% moral and no buildings. Is there a gap in production and consumpion? How much? If you are short, by how much % do you have to rise the production by building buildings? All it takes is 5 minets if you use excell.

6) Indochina has only 2 foottiles if I counted well. At 500 VP I think you will start to notice the food problems for sure as have other players who already have expanded big.

7) I tried the smartphone once, I don't think I even managed to move somthing, so I have to admire you for that one.

ad1&2. When having the time to play, I think I never lost Being able to react and counter-act is the key factor of winning any of these games ... provided one has a clue to what this game is about. Concerning the 95% of players, I think you are right, except that it might be even worse....

ad3. While I cant exactly predict when I can play and cannot, I still join games and just make the best of it.

For me, playing the game and achieving the max result is more important than winning per-sé. It just so happens that I do win a lot.

21 -/- days absent + having to help allies (defending their cities + giving units) doesn't help growth. It also depends on how much resistance one gets. Texas had none and has been able to grow as if fighting AI (or even easier: fighting those 95%) ... but now I am nr 2 in provinces. It has been a busy day.

ad4. It is possible that ...correction...it is a fact that:

a. lots of things are bugged on the 100map (routing!!),

b. the moral issues are large

and it is possible that food consumption is indeed a problem (have to experience that still)

From my point of view we are still in Bèta with CoW.

ad5. I am no good at math! It just looked like a simple way to put it

Food production: 30.723/day

Units: -/-5.000/day ( a lot died the past few days ... but as long as more enemies died, it is ok!)

Upgrades: -/- 200/day

Population: -/-19.223/day

=>Total consumption: 24.423/day of which 19k for the population.

Note:

- that I do not have developed my grain provinces (25). Only 2 with factories, rest has a lvl1, 2 or 3 road.

- IMO 2 food provinces per 10 provinces conquered suffices early game and close to homeland. This must become a higher % with expansion, due to less output from the new provs.

Solutions that work till now: don't conquer empty enemy provs (even if they have points) + go for the grain provs as targets + add capitals with right timing for the moral bonus. VPs dont produce anything, until the battles arte done. Who will be the winner late game: the one with most VPs or the one with the resources?

ad7. The mobile game version is a horror. Try it on an iPhone 5s... impossible.

Indochina - Day 21 - 225 provinces/4th - 299VPs

Army: 1 day ago shared 4th @ 4%

Currently 2x -5% for 2 wars ongoing (2 just ended today but adding 1 tonight)