100 Player Games - Issue with Morale

Their nicknames?

I dont think it is appropriate to give these. Why are you asking?

just wondering if they know them and if I don't I know them, it's good to know for the future. You showed us the names of other players before in your screenshots.

do you play on NL/B server?

obviously, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't bother asking.

I guess it won't hurt anyone...

Only 1st eleven still active

That would be 70% of the players.

Kalantigos wrote:

I would disagree with you there, I think this is a pretty good mechanic, it limits the number of people you should be fighting at any one time.

Note that no-one fought the nr1 at that point. It was just a coordinated diplomatic effort, on which the nr1 had no influence whatsoever.

The result, nonetheless, was devastating:

10 x 5% morale-malus = -50% morale... even the capital's morale could no longer be maintained at 100%. Add the moral issues in food provinces - with 10 wars ongoing- which were devastating to food supply and thus adding to morale issues.

Basically, the nr1 was already completely destroyed before he was invaded (after a week) by only 3 of the 10 war declarers, purely as a result of the diplomatic actions...

That, after all, is a bit stark, isn't it?

_Pontus_ wrote:

Kalantigos wrote:

I would disagree with you there, I think this is a pretty good mechanic, it limits the number of people you should be fighting at any one time.

In one game, the nr1 country (at 900+ VP at hat point in 100map) was destroyed by a cumulative 10 declarations of war, declared on him by 10 other players.Note that no-one fought the nr1 at that point. It was just a coordinated diplomatic effort, on which the nr1 had no influence whatsoever.

The result, nonetheless, was devastating:

10 x 5% morale-malus = -50% morale... even the capital's morale could no longer be maintained at 100%. Add the moral issues in food provinces - with 10 wars ongoing- which were devastating to food supply and thus adding to morale issues.

Basically, the nr1 was already completely destroyed before he was invaded (after a week) by only 3 of the 10 war declarers, purely as a result of the diplomatic actions...

That, after all, is a bit stark, isn't it?

purplepizza117 wrote:

_Pontus_ wrote:

Kalantigos wrote:

I would disagree with you there, I think this is a pretty good mechanic, it limits the number of people you should be fighting at any one time.

In one game, the nr1 country (at 900+ VP at hat point in 100map) was destroyed by a cumulative 10 declarations of war, declared on him by 10 other players.Note that no-one fought the nr1 at that point. It was just a coordinated diplomatic effort, on which the nr1 had no influence whatsoever.

The result, nonetheless, was devastating:

10 x 5% morale-malus = -50% morale... even the capital's morale could no longer be maintained at 100%. Add the moral issues in food provinces - with 10 wars ongoing- which were devastating to food supply and thus adding to morale issues.

Basically, the nr1 was already completely destroyed before he was invaded (after a week) by only 3 of the 10 war declarers, purely as a result of the diplomatic actions...

That, after all, is a bit stark, isn't it?

Maybe that's the problem, that you should try not to get too much aggressive expansion as so people don't coalition you.

In 1 worldmap I have been at war with 10-8 players for over 2 weeks now. 8 of them are in the same alliance (War Fighters I) and if you look up their stats they arn't really any good. My morale is 27% on average with only 273 provinces left. My morale rises if I lose more provinces. The declaration of war drops my morale and with that my economy is 50% of what it could be. I can't make peace with an alliance of 8 players. And with such a bad eco I need to kill like 5 units of them for every one of mine (I have an ally, so if he would do the same we could survive). So far we don't have that much luck, but we have 70% morale in core despite lvl 5 fortresses.

On the other worldmap I got into a war with another player that was about my size after 2-3 weeks of playing. He crossed my borders, so I didn't start it. We were with 4 countries quite a bit bigger than the rest (1 was my ally). I won easy since his armies had weaknesses and his ally wasn't that good either. The other 2 big countries went inactive unfortunately, so, after the war, I was 2 times bigger than the next active player en 3 times bigger than the next one. One player noticed and decided to mobilize as many players as possible to sabotage my core provinces and prepare for war on me. A spy of mine intercepted one of his messages in which he told another player the troop positions of the #2 of the world that was attacking him. I told the #2 and he decided to not attack me, delaying this massive "coordinated" attack. But later on he still did and the maximum of enemies capped at 9 at it's peak moment (a total of 12 different players attacking me, including my new ally turning on me). My morale dropped to 47% at lowest, only to be kept that high by conquering a capital once in a while. I am winning the war and back at 77% morale average, but that bloody morale penalty because of the war declarations did hurt way more than fighting some army controlled by less skilled players.

IMO Pontus is right on this one, declaring war with a whole group upon someone and just wait is extremely powerfull. Even if you don't attack.

And yes, I will try not to conquer players to fast in the future as long as massive war declaration has such a big impact.

And thanks for the name list Pontus, I know some of them, but so many not. Still don't know who rocked as colorado or finland, but probably not someone that I know.

Azkazan wrote:

IMO Pontus is right on this one, declaring war with a whole group upon someone and just wait is extremely powerfull. Even if you don't attack.

Diplomacy has to be started early and entails building relations early. This also means you will be stuck with some players that are no help at all later on. Further, IMO, the only thing that will keep relations intact, is being a good ally yourself and having an excellent reputation (i.e. never back-stab etc).

Nevertheless, it is completely unrealistic, that a country that has won every war until then and grew to be the biggest on a map, would get demoralized because of other countries declaring war on it.

I have only profited from this feature until now, but I do think it is not right it works this way.

I tried to make some peace and win players for my cause, but some rather help that aliance to attack me, while they turn on them one by one. I made peace with 2 players, but they are all very incapable in doing some effective warfare and it's just waiting untill thye attack with an overwhelming force.

My morale a long time ago:

http://postimg.org/image/wqsaicbjp/

Current morale:

It would indeed be more realisic if you wouldn't lose morale if you are totally destroying your enemies.

Below is a list of casualties between me and my current enemies. Borneo for example shouldn't give me a -5 morale penalty, but a morale boost of like +50. It's unrealistic that I lose morale to someone who is getting slaughtered.

This is something I agree upon totally. It is beyond 'funny' (in the not funny sense of the word) that success is rewarded with a penalty.

It is okay that there is a 'break' on unbridled expansion, but this game mechanic also puts a break on the entire game, needlessly prolonging maps.

Needlessly prolonging maps makes players quit the map or even the game.

Having a large number of enemies isn't always because a player is the aggressor. If you can get 10 players to declare war on anyone, the morale effect of -50, does a lot of economic damage especially in provinces far from capitals already.

Having 10 declarations of war against someone may not happen that often but does show an expoitable feature.

Even 4-6 declarations of war can devastate a player's economy. And destroying the enemies can be difficult at best if some of them are far away.

On top of that if someone can destroy this player's captial even temporarily, the player will lose -10 morale in every province and -40 in the daily morale calculation for having no capital. Basically the poor player has provinces revolting left and right. I have been on both ends of that. Someone destroyed another player's capital and his provinces revolted and started joining my country.

Even -4 per country would be a big improvement over -5 when large numbers of countries declare war on a country.

Often I'm not the one declaring war.

The -5 makes sense if you are declaring war on a bunch of countries but that usually isn't the way it works.

It is usually a bunch of countries declaring war on someone else. So they experience -5 and the defender has a much higher morale drop.

The problem with a cap for this is that an aggressor could exploit that his morale would max out at some value for number of enemy countries.