Important military idea

Henrik · February 12, 2001, 14:32

Although I do think morale could be included I have to point out a few things: Germany did not conquer france becouse of morale (atleast not only by morale), the french army was at the northern belgian border, the germans struck through at the south end of the belgian border, the french army was encircled and most of the german army continued into france, while the french army could do nothing (this analysis was a bit short, I know)

bagdar · February 12, 2001, 16:36

Civ III's "leaders" could be a variant of this idea, who knows?

JosefGiven · February 12, 2001, 17:16

quote:

Originally posted by Henrik on 02-12-2001 01:32 PM
Although I do think morale could be included I have to point out a few things: Germany did not conquer france becouse of morale

Yes, but the victories on the western front had an undeniable effect on the morale of the troops on the eastern front when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. I think this is one of the reasons for the initial successes of Operation Barbarossa.

I am all for the inclusion of leadership (player) popularity in Civ III. After all, in the first two Civs, we have the effect of civilian 'morale' simulated within the cities; why not have it simulated on the battlefield?

A well programmed military morale feature would force the player to think of his/her troops welfare before sending them off to a thankless death before the enemy's blazing guns!

Restrictive? Possibly. But remember that your opponents will be restricted in the same way, too; whether AI or human.

February 12, 2001, 18:33

I support this idea. Yeah, I like it.

Lung · February 13, 2001, 00:44

Sid did it in Gettysburg, so i wouldn't rule it out in Civ3. Units fled irrespective of your orders, so it made you consider them in such situations. This could specifically affect weakened units, so you're forced to use re-inforcements in order to guarantee that they won't vacate the city for your enemy to conquer

BRENNANonTHEmoor · February 13, 2001, 01:28

Examle: Fact - WWII when Germany attacked france France had a bigger army, more tanks, planes, and heavey artillery. But The population was deeply divided. The Germans with complete unity and faith in Hitler Rolled into Paris. Fact 2 - Italy Doubled The British Forces in North Africa yet where driven out of africa in a few months. Reason the army wasnt behind there leader.
Another example is The commmunist revolution in Russia 1917 in Which the Tzar was taken out of power because among others things was fighting a war that the people didnt want to fight. Therefore I propose that the popularity of the leader gives the attack and defend values of the units either a advantage or dis-advantage. For Instance, If I have a populatity of 80% then i would get a bonus against a leader that had a 60% popularity.

I feel that this should be in CivIII, it makes combat much more realistic!

Henrik · February 13, 2001, 02:48

Don't get me wrong I liked the idea. I just wanted to point out that in the mentioned case it wasn't as simple as BRENNANonTHEmoor made it look.

Joseph · February 14, 2001, 18:10

Firaxis said serveral months ago that there will be leaders in the game. They did not say how many or how long the leaders would live. Nor did they say if the human player or AI player would get to build some or all of them. Just think you are playing as the American and Caesar becomes one of your leader, btw they did not say which leader in history they would pick.

------------------

Zulu Elephant · February 15, 2001, 00:09

What about having a %chance that a unit will not follow orders to attack if there is a less than 1 in x chance of them winning. The % could increase if the war goes badly and a lot of other units have died recently

JosefGiven · February 15, 2001, 19:03

quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant on 02-14-2001 11:09 PM
...The % could increase if the war goes badly and a lot of other units have died recently

Yes! Introducing the morale concept is a sound, uncomplicated way of bringing the military side of Civ III bang up to date.

It wouldn't be the first time we've seen morale in a computer game...Shogun springs to mind...and what a game that is!

Of course, a counter-argument to including morale is that winning sides get stronger, and losing sides get weaker. But with improved tactical and diplomacy options, not to mention a dash of cunning; most players would be able to weasel their way out of any desperate strategic situations

[This message has been edited by JosefGiven (edited February 15, 2001).]

Roman · February 17, 2001, 09:36

I think the leaders idea Firaxis is floating will have to do with morale.

Sabre2th · February 17, 2001, 22:43

It has definately been proven that morale affects troop performance, we should include it if we can. If this is done, however, it will have to be kept simple to be effective.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison
[This message has been edited by Sabre2th (edited February 17, 2001).]