Neighboring Province Morale

I agree that their are way too many negative factors for morale.

I like your suggestions except for the negative morale modifier for losing a lot troops. If you're losing a lot of troops, your morale likely sucks already. I think reducing the distance to capital penalty would help a lot.

DISTANCE TO CAPITAL: If you are at extreme west or east of the map, the distance to capital can really suck for much of your empire till you can move to a more centralized location.

ENEMY NEIGHBORS: i suggest reducing this from -5 to -4 per each enemy neighbor. That would help a lot.

If I can do it safely, I also adjust my capital location to be more towards center of empire. The problem is that this isn't always an option for capital safety reasons. You don't want a capital on or near a vulnerable sea coast.

If you don't have a your capital, you get -40 morale for no capital in the daily calculation.

If you get bombarded (air or artillery type, your morale goes down.

If you are negative on food production and your food supply is less than at least 8 hours of food supply, you get hit with a food shortage morale penalty.

If you are negative on non-food resource production, like goods or oil, and have less than some number of hours worth of that resource, you get get with a resource shortage penalty.

Hate getting hit with a nuclear contamination of -30. Any idea how quickly that fades?

The red morale malus numbers are for display only.

Witness:

Country with no capitol, 8 provinces at zero morale, at war with 3 countries.

Day change: no revolts, the 8 provinces increase to 5-6% morale.

Was there supposed to be a graphic with your post?

By clicking the morale "i" on a province, one can see the risk of revolt. If morale is rising that helps, If your morale is falling, you either need troops to reduce risk of rebellion to zero or near zero or be prepared to recapture if necessary.

Provinces with morale of 28 or lower and no armies stationed there tend to have some risk of rebellion.

If I can't bring risk of rebellion to less than 11%, I prefer to just recapture if needed rather than risk losing my units to a rebellion.

I'm actually more surprised about the fact that you have more than 1000 units in a world map. I've never had more than 300. What day are you on? I'm just genuinely surprised

@Lawrence Czl, thanks for reminding me of some more of the negatives. Yep, there are so many. Yet the positives are so few. It makes sense that there would be more negatives than positives, given that, in the real world, peoples' collective morale can plummet rather quickly over perceived problems. But the balance is tilted too far in the negative direction! Simply put, whereas the number of negatives are realistic, the number of positives is not.

Where is the rallying cry of a heroic leader whose call to arms spurs an overdrive of the economy? Where is that innovative spirit that a society might utilize to greater-than-average effect because of the noble and just cause of their nation's fight? Where is that lock-step unity of purpose of a people deceived by their tyrannical, yet enigmatic, dictator?

Where is that super production bonus which was achieved because one of your nation's wealthy industrialists has converted their automotive business empire into one that builds the latest and most innovative dive-bomber frames because one of his geologists discovered a new seam of aluminum ore and also because that tycoon's business rival's son just so happened to wed his daughter and so his competitor, of whom happens to own a massive smelting plant, is now willing to work with him to convert that aluminum ore into the necessary materials for that tycoon's automobile-turned-dive-bomber factory?

The point is that there are so many potential and realistic positive morale factors that aren't even considered whilst the negative morale factors have been carefully researched and added to the game. I mean, I love a challenge, but there is no fun in having a negative challenge without the potential to alleviate it with positive rewards. And farming your enemy's capitals isn't a realistic solution. "Yes, we keep deceiving our enemies into thinking that their war effort is going to turn around and we won't invade their latest capital...even though their army is gone, their leaders are in chains, and their factories have all been seized, ha ha ha!"

WayneBo wrote:

The red morale malus numbers are for display only.

Witness:

Country with no capitol, 8 provinces at zero morale, at war with 3 countries.

Day change: no revolts, the 8 provinces increase to 5-6% morale.

As for the 5% gain (or any percentage gain), the likelihood is that the province was pushed down to zero morale by other factors that are no longer true (i.e., a nuke was used previously but now is no longer registered, or maybe it had Interceptors or Strategic Bombers hovering over it all day and they've either since left the province sometime before you examined it or they're still there but fog-of-war is preventing you from seeing/detecting units in or above that province.

Regid wrote:

I'm actually more surprised about the fact that you have more than 1000 units in a world map. I've never had more than 300. What day are you on? I'm just genuinely surprised

In the match that I mentioned, I said that my empire pretty much spans the entire northern hemisphere. This isn't bragging, I actually have a gigantic empire...and it's not the first time for me. Yes, it took a while to get that far, and the match is about three months old. But I achieved most of my gains in the first couple months and then kinda back-burnered it when some special challenge matches were created and when my alliance had a couple team games.

But it's plunking on; I've got victory waiting for me the moment I decide to push my line forward in South America, and the fleeing forces who are "returning" to their homeland in Africa are being intercepted even as I type this. For all intents and purposes, the match is already over, but I'm toying with my opponent because he got on my nerves early on with some very unsporting behaviours that won't be discussed here. Like a cat with it's prey, I'm having a little fun while taking the time to improve my stats.

While you may be fascinated by me having 1000+ units, it is actually kinda embarrassing for me to admit that I've actually built several thousand units over the course of the match yet have lost so many as pawns in war. I mentioned that I'm trying to fix my stats. This is because the opponent that I'm at war with, presently, has actually taken out easily double or triple the number of forces that I've destroyed of his. And that's war. Some players worry about having the "perfect" stats...and to others like them, stats are "so" important in deciding who joins your alliance or in-game coalition.

But it's not about stats, as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in winning the fight than coming out unscathed. Sure, it seems a little tyrannical in terms of real-world casualties, but if you want to achieve victory, you have to be willing to sacrifice whatever and whomever that is needed (it is a game after all....those casualty lists are only numbers, not souls). Now, though I apply that principle in-game, I'm actually a very moral person and don't betray my allies. The reputation of a player's personal character means a whole lot more to me than their win/loss stats. And this is probably one of the biggest reasons why people like to have me on their team. I win at all costs, but I play fair and I play nice....aggressive, yet nice.

Diabolical wrote:

So, the following possible solutions can bring fair balance to this issue:

• Lower the median morale level for neighborly influence (+/-) from 80% to 50%.
• Add allied neighborly influence.
• Reduce the distance-to-capital morale influence.
• Add secondary "Forbidden City" secondary capitals.
• Add other buildings for positive morale effects (i.e., monuments, city halls, recruiting centers (which could also increase Manpower growth)).
• Add a way to naturalize conquered provinces (like in Conflict of Nations).
• Add hero/leader units that can raise morale like a portable capital.
• Add a regular unit that can increase the effectiveness of a fort's morale influence by a small percentage (cumulative up to and additional 25%, for example). Or allow existing units to automatically accomplish this by fortifying enough of them in a fortress.
• Add a "trending" morale modifier for players who are generally winning or losing in war in their troop counts casualty lists (e.g., if 20,000 of your troops die to 30,000 of enemy troops, it would give you a national positive morale modifier of +5; if 40,000 of your troops die to 10,000 of enemy troops, it would give you a negative morale modifier of -10). This could have a day-to-day spillover effect for overall trend across multiple days (older values would be weighed less against the overall modifier. Additionally, coalitions and teams could have an option to have shared combined values that can be turned on or off in the match creation.

TL;DR Let's add some more positive morale modifiers or reduce the strength of the negative morale modifiers.

And there should really be the option to have secondary capitals(in other words, buildings which act as de-centralized capitols for the region, regardless of actual name used for the building itselff), which give, say, 20% on the province they are on, and reset the distance to capital for all provinces in the 'effected' area. 4 or 5 could be built at the most, and building over that will either give a prompt to remove one of them, or removes the first of the bunch placed down.

Militia should be able to have that additional morale boost. Especially in cases where the militia was built in the provinces near the province in question, where it should give a larger bonus. Though the last part may require overly complex coding. Again, gives some incentive to make militia for its 'intended' role, which is defending provinces.

Diabolical wrote:

I would like to see the neighboring province morale influence receive a better balance treatment.

And if you want to keep your economy from going into the starvation death spiral (another negative morale modifier), then you have to farm a bunch of enemy and NPC capitals just to keep yourself afloat.

The micromanagement required to keep your economy up when you have a large empire is exhausting and totally takes away from the time needed to properly manage your forces and engage in combat.

I'm in a match where I have over a 1000 units and half the world's army, and yet...I keep losing units to my enemy's hit and fade tactics simply because he's online a lot more than I am.

Even if I used build queues with High Command, I can't stop the micromanagement necessary to keep my economy in the black....and I have an epic economy!

I think the morale system as it currently stands is perfectly workable. It provides a great challenging experience once you have beaten all your major enemies and are trying to hit the 2,025 points needed for a victory. Making it any easier will lessen the challenge. Why should Bytro Labs give you gold for winning, if you can't be bothered to put in the effort to beat the system and get the VP that you need to win a round?

No disrespect meant, but if your economy is going into the starvation death spiral and you have to farm enemy and NPC capitals just to keep yourself afloat, then you have not managed your Food production properly and are relying too much on morale boosts to keep your Food production up. If the micromanagement required to keep your economy up is so exhausting that it impairs your ability to manage your forces in combat, then you need to look for ways to improve your management of the economy. If you have over 1000 units and half the world's army and yet you keep losing units to your enemy, then maybe your enemy just happens to be a better player than you are. And if you can't keep your economy in the black even if you use build queues with High Command, you simply do not have an 'epic' economy in the first place, however many continents you might have conquered.

The game is perfectly winnable, despite the challenges of morale management and Food production problems. If you are having difficulty beating the game, the thing to do is to do some thinking about where you are going wrong, instead of trying to get the game system changed so that you can win. That is like changing the rules of Solitaire so that you can win.

MartinB wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

I would like to see the neighboring province morale influence receive a better balance treatment.

And if you want to keep your economy from going into the starvation death spiral (another negative morale modifier), then you have to farm a bunch of enemy and NPC capitals just to keep yourself afloat.

The micromanagement required to keep your economy up when you have a large empire is exhausting and totally takes away from the time needed to properly manage your forces and engage in combat.

I'm in a match where I have over a 1000 units and half the world's army, and yet...I keep losing units to my enemy's hit and fade tactics simply because he's online a lot more than I am.

Even if I used build queues with High Command, I can't stop the micromanagement necessary to keep my economy in the black....and I have an epic economy!

I think the morale system as it currently stands is perfectly workable. It provides a great challenging experience once you have beaten all your major enemies and are trying to hit the 2,025 points needed for a victory. Making it any easier will lessen the challenge. Why should Bytro Labs give you gold for winning, if you can't be bothered to put in the effort to beat the system and get the VP that you need to win a round?

No disrespect meant, but if your economy is going into the starvation death spiral and you have to farm enemy and NPC capitals just to keep yourself afloat, then you have not managed your Food production properly and are relying too much on morale boosts to keep your Food production up. If the micromanagement required to keep your economy up is so exhausting that it impairs your ability to manage your forces in combat, then you need to look for ways to improve your management of the economy. If you have over 1000 units and half the world's army and yet you keep losing units to your enemy, then maybe your enemy just happens to be a better player than you are. And if you can't keep your economy in the black even if you use build queues with High Command, you simply do not have an 'epic' economy in the first place, however many continents you might have conquered.

The game is perfectly winnable, despite the challenges of morale management and Food production problems. If you are having difficulty beating the game, the thing to do is to do some thinking about where you are going wrong, instead of trying to get the game system changed so that you can win. That is like changing the rules of Solitaire so that you can win.

What I did say was that the tediousness of the game's micromanagement gets old when you are playing long-term as I have. In the match that I was in -- and subsequently finished with a very high first place -- I did not shirk my "duties" as the supreme leader of my empire. It was tedious. It was boring. I had to let my enemy take random victories all over the place just so I could live my life a little. Did that mean that I was failing at doing the job required to manage it? Of course not! I simply had other priorities...like a different match that was more important to me within the time constraints that I could afford to spend on gaming. Once that match was over, I redoubled my attention and efforts on the match in question. That was when I brought about the push that would bring down my fleeing enemies once and for all.

It's not a matter of lack of skill...my player score will attest to that. It's not a lack of commitment...my two and a half years of battling through nearly a hundred matches will attest to that. It's not my lack of game understanding...my shear mastery of every trick and nuance of this game for most of that time is an incredible testament to my experience. The only thing that stands in my way -- that has ever stood in my way -- is my lack of the ability to afford High Command.

But even with High Command, with my years of knowledge and experience, I know full well that it's powers to automate some actions and build queues, etc., are insufficient to relieve the long-term needs of micromanaging a gigantic empire in one of the larger maps. It is by my experience that I can assuredly tell of the needs for better game balance. The lack of sufficient methods to alleviate the micromanagement is not an acceptable thing.

The lack of sufficient methods to counter the off-balanced negative effects of morale-manipulation factors are, in themselves, the biggest killer of big empires. It isn't a lack of skill that ruins the economy (though a smart opponent can exploit their size against them), it's the lack of sufficient counter-balance methodologies to maintain economic strength.

It is by my skill and experience that I do use NPC capital farming to maintain a massive economy. Indeed my economies usually are massively overpowered compared to my competitors. In fact, it is very rare for me to encounter ANYONE else who builds up their economy at least as high as I do without using copious amounts of Gold premium points to enhance their productivity. As stated many times in the past, I don't use Gold. I use careful manipulation of a match's relevant in-game elements so that I never introduce a non-mental external factor into game-play (I don't believe in using outside influences in a competition...to me, that's cheating).

Is my Food in danger of a death spiral when I play? Am I not building up my Food provinces sufficiently as you supposed? Of course not! Usually, by mid-game, my Food output is one of the highest in a match and I have seeded Industrial Complexes in copious numbers of non-urban Food provinces. In order to achieve that, I've already had to invest in growing my Rare Materials provinces. I am producing the various resources at levels that keep up with my needs.

It's all one massive plan that I create and implement in every match. No two matches are the same, but patterns emerge from playing multiple matches on a single map. As an example, for the World map, there are many patterns that can be used to build and grow, depending on innumerable starting factors like where you start, who are your neighbors, what alliances can you form, what are the early trends of the market, and so forth. But with experience, as I've learned, one can create many adaptable playing styles that can fit each situation. The key is to remain dynamic.

But, regardless of one's playing style or styles and starting position, and all the other various starting factors, some basic truths of the game remain the same. For example, for every map that isn't a specially-planned map (like an alliance challenge or a PL match) there are going to be some players that abandon right away. There will be some players that throw all their military into a one-front war while totally ignoring the back-stabber on their other border. There will always be some player or players that max out all available technologies as soon as they're available with Gold expenditures. And there will always be someone throwing bombs and talking smack with poor vocabulary in the World Herald.

So, there are things that are always the same. One of them, as I've pointed out in my prior post, is the economic issue. And, in case you didn't read my post more clearly, I was actually making my statements on behalf of the need of others in the community. I find the micromanagement tedious and I'm sick of it. But I continue to do it because I DO love this game so much. But if the dev team at Bytro were to heed my advice and implement some of my suggestions, not only would I be happy as a faithful CoW community member, but I'm confident that so too will a great many of my fellow Call of War community members be made happy as well.

NovaTopaz wrote:

Something to note: The second suggestion(add allied neighborly influence) would ONLY work out well if the first was implemented as well. Otherwise, in most cases, having an allied country would only make the morale problem worse, not better, and it would almost certainly be a burden on them. But if the first one is added, there isn't exactly much point in the second one. So yeah...

NovaTopaz wrote:

And there should really be the option to have secondary capitals(in other words, buildings which act as de-centralized capitols for the region, regardless of actual name used for the building itselff), which give, say, 20% on the province they are on, and reset the distance to capital for all provinces in the 'effected' area. 4 or 5 could be built at the most, and building over that will either give a prompt to remove one of them, or removes the first of the bunch placed down.

So, while one wants not just to have their capital (or capitals) positioned in a relative-center of their provinces, but they also need to space out their multiple capitals from each other so as to get the maximum-possible effect over wider areas. But, if they space them out too far from each other, their cumulative pulls against a province could have a canceling-out effect (a vector in one direction (positive) "minus" another vector in the opposite direction (negative)) that would actually make that province have an even-greater distance-to-capital penalty.

Now, if that last part seems a little harsh (and I think it is), they could make the accumulation vectors only add to each other and never take away from each other. But then the positives would be too great. If that were so, then it would make more sense to expand on the cultural idea and let foreign capitals have a negative influence on your provinces (their attractiveness as "cultural centers" would pull your people away from your own "culture"...which is, essentially, how the Civilization cultural feature works). Thus, having a foreign capital close to your border would actually lower your provincial morale near that border in a proportionate manner.

However, rather than cloning the Civilization cultural ideas, Call of War could have the diplomatic relationship status have a direct effect on foreign-capital morale modification. So, instead of just blindly having a negative effect on your morale, if you are allied with that other nation (Shared Map agreement or Shared Intelligence agreement with you and/or are a coalition or alliance member with you), their capital could act like a secondary capital to your provinces.

And, if they only have a Right of Way agreement with you, then their capital would have zero effect on your provinces (like the off-balanced neighbor morale of your own provinces (remember that 80% is the median between positive and negative neighbor morale (and I think it should be 50%)). If you have a neutral relationship, their capital would have a small negative effect on your provinces and the worse your relationship status is with that neighbor, the stronger their negative morale effect on your nearby provinces would become (although, to keep from breaking the game, the effect would have to have a smaller range and more-centralized strength within that range (a different gradient than your own capital's effect)).

I think this idea needs to be fleshed out some more, but it could really enhance the dynamic of the game and, if it becomes a successful new component of play, it could be added to other Bytro titles as well. (Man, I really need to get into game development.)

NovaTopaz wrote:

Militia should be able to have that additional morale boost. Especially in cases where the militia was built in the provinces near the province in question, where it should give a larger bonus. Though the last part may require overly complex coding. Again, gives some incentive to make militia for its 'intended' role, which is defending provinces.

This is kinda what I was thinking about the Fortress boost. I think Militia shouldn't be able to add morale just anywhere. But it makes sense that if they are in their ideal role (e.g., defending the homeland), then they should add to positive morale...upto a maximum. So, if you build a Fortress and man it with Militia, then it's positive morale modifier should increase up to double its original potential based on how many Militia are in it. Perhaps you need two Militia for every level of a Fortress to double its effect on the province.

Additionally, maybe Anti-Air and Anti-Tank guns could be a part of this. They are also defensive, so maybe having Militia alone aren't enough to fully-increase a Fortress's morale modifier. So, maybe Militia, by themselves, can only increase the morale effect of a Fortress by 50%. But, by adding either an AA or an AT, that morale enhancement grows by 75%. And, if both an AA and an AT are present, then that morale enhancement grows by 100% (the doubling).

So, then this would be an example of how the effect would work:

Mod

(%)

Morale

Value

(%)

Mod

(%)

(M)

Morale

Value

(%)

Mod

(%)

(M/AA)

- OR -

(M/AT)

Morale

Value

Mod

(M/AA/AT)

Morale

Value

I think it might make more sense to reduce the effect of the morale increase in non-core provinces. So, if in a non-core province, then the effect of adding the minimum necessary Militia and Anti-Tank guns to a Fortress would only increase the Fortress's morale effect by half of their normal increase. Thus, for a Level 4 Fortress, instead of a positive Morale Value of 40 (which is 20 x (100% + 100%)), the Fortress would have a positive Morale Value of 30 (which is 20 x (100% + 50%)).

"Brevity is the soul of wit." ---- William Shakespeare

"Brevity is something else beside the soul of wit. It is sometimes a great relief and a rare treat." ---- Helen Rockwell

@Diabolical: Chief, you need an editor.

brevity is dumb

Diabolical wrote:

brevity is dumb

MontanaBB wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

brevity is dumb

See? Now everyone knows what you think, and it only took 3 words, 5 syllables and 12 characters.

"Don't tug on Superman's cape." ---- Jim Croce (1972)

don't spit into the wind

Don't ride a horse bareback after eating cabbage and beans.

Don't mean to interrupt your little excursion into wisdoms of the world guys, but have a few thoughts about the initial topic:

First of all yes, having to expand your borders far from home towards the end of the game - knowing the new provinces will bring you nothing but costs, but you need the victory points - sucks.

On the other hand if this was changed, games would lose their tension sooner: The largest country would quickly become unstoppable.

Anyhow, what would think about an option called "grant partial autonomy" (or similar). A concept like the Vichy government that Germany implemented in Southern France. The province would remain yours, but you would gain much less income (I think about a reduction to 50% or even to 25% for workforce, money and ressources) and you'd no longer be able to produce troops there. As a benefit, the distance to capital malus would be removed for this province, since it now has (more or less) an own government. And you would no longer have to pay sustenance food & goods.

I'd make it irrevertible - once granted partial autonomy you cannot take that back.

Displayal on the map might be changed hatchures of the province, or maybe increased contrast of the stripes.

Yet my favorite solution for the problem: Change the costs of infantry units - including militia, motorized and mechanized infantry - to less food and more manpower.

This would make manpower much more valuable. You'd then usually want to use up all your manpower for infantry (instead of letting it decay on a giant pile, as everyone does now), because all of its other costs would be very low. Which would realistically represent the relation large nation <-> tall army. Also strategic decisions would become more interesting, because with manpower there would be an additional parameter you'd have to consider (no longer only money and ressources). For example, you'd then have to ask yourself where to build barracks for gaining further manpower (currently, answer to this is always: nowhere... plus always deactivate them if currently not recruiting infantry).

Now why I post the idea in this thread: With manpower being precious, one would then have a motivation to conquer also provinces far away from the capital, cause manpower income is not affected by the morale.

Last not least this would make infantry more attractive. Which would very much help making this game less fictive. Tanks, rockets and airforce were not as dominant on WW2 battlefields as they are in CoW. At least infantry heavily outnumbered heavy weapons. Would be nice to see more infantry in CoW.