Army Morale in Campaign

[ivan_the_terrible]

Total War have been one of the few strategy games that acknowledge the importance of morale in warfare (specifically, battles), which is great.

However, as the series progresses, I wonder if its time for CA to consider portraying morale in a more detailed and impacting way.
So far, while units have morale in battles and it affects their performance quite realistically, there has been no morale in the campaign map. Army morale while on the march, while camping, besieging and defending has always been extremely important and no less so in this time period (18th C). Armies would frequently suffer from disorder, desertions and general loss of fighting spirit in between engagements as well as during them.

I would like to see CA include morale on the campaign map, even if its someting as simple as settlement happiness. Numerous factors could contribute to it, such as the General's command rating, his personal traits, the army composition (quality of troops, culture of troops, mercenaries etc), the army's current location etc. In turn, the campaign map morale could influence other aspects, like desertions (like we have in M2TW with Crusades), marching speed (or range, depending on whether they choose a real time or turn based campaign) and should off course translate into the starting morale in battles.

I would understand if CA chooses to not implement this themselves because of time constraints, but I would nevertheless like to have at least the possibility of modding in this option.

[Roy Batty]

I was actually going to bring up morale in another thread.

What I would like to see is dynamic morale - morale that changes based on general's traits/ancillaries, yes but also on a basis of recent victories or defeats. Combining this with the necessety for supply routes being open, unhindered by a defending faction's efforts to interrupt them. i.e. the better the supplies, the better the morale, the less attrition (due to desertion) the army suffers. It could make for some interesting battles between small stacks, fighting to keep supply lines open.

It opens up whole new avenues. Defending armies getting morale bonuses for being on home turf, being properly supplied, well led, etc...

[ivan_the_terrible]

I agree 100%

However, I fear CA will not do these things because they're hardly the sort of spectacular marketing material that will appeal to most consumers and increase sales...
Unfortunate, but its the reality i'm afraid

[_TheChevalier_]

I agree 100%

However, I fear CA will not do these things because they're hardly the sort of spectacular marketing material that will appeal to most consumers and increase sales...
Unfortunate, but its the reality i'm afraid

I also fear the same, the idea of a complete morale system (inlcuding the campaign map) would be more accurate, and challenging

[Maréchal_Martin]

I would like to see troop desertion implemented when morale and supplies become low, but I don't want to see the whole army desert and then become rebels. I just want to see the number of soldiers begin to dwindle.

[Sol Invictus]

If CA introduces attrition into the Campaign part of the game, it could account for all of these drains on combat power and would make strategic decisions more important. Do you really want to start your invasion of Russia in December?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

You can already put in morale on the campaign map in a way. You can give characters on the campaign map traits that raise or lower morale when in battles. Its not quite what you're saying, but it can already be done in a rude way.

[chizabc]

i think its an interesting idea but it would be so annoying if you got a full stack of mint troops sent them to another corner of the world to take that huge city you've wanted for years only to find they all run away like babies tut tut

[D.B. Cooper]

These are all great ideas, but I think it would bring up a huge host of logistics that you would probably end up automanaging anyway. There will be army movement, army morale, army desertion numbers, on top of every other thing this game will bring.

[ivan_the_terrible]

It all depends on how well the feature is implemented, so it has the potential to be a micromanagement nightmare or a good addition to the game.

@chizabc,
Well, you should really prepare your invasion carefully then eh?
But really, i dont see why there cant be a compromise, with the option to turn off supply lines/in-depth morale completely...

@Maréchal_Martin
Thats exactly what I had in mind. Its not very realistic for deserters to form an organised force that would be hostile to everyone, so a system similar to the current crusade one is good. Although preferably not as severe..

[chizabc]

yeah if you could turn the bits you wanted on or off that would be good gives extra immersion for those who want it

[english tyrant]

I remember that in cossacks 2 for every unit that your unit killed it would get a little chevron on the unit card which gave it a permanent morale boost taht would be good

[Maréchal_Martin]

i think its an interesting idea but it would be so annoying if you got a full stack of mint troops sent them to another corner of the world to take that huge city you've wanted for years only to find they all run away like babies tut tut

They wouldn't always desert, if you manage it well, and you'd have to time your campaigns, and etc. I like attrition damage too, it just makes sense. It would also solve the army lingering problem, where they just sit in your territory forever unless you fight them, they should start losing men and etc. which would stir them to action.

[falloutboy14]

Since weather has been touched on, I had an interesting thought regarding the seasons. Previously there was a winter and a summer, and these would rotate every turn. So it's near impossible to plan a campaign around the seasons, which was as important as any other factor in the time period. No army would want to move around much in the December to February range.

So the idea I came up with was to have the game turn last 13 months. So it would be Jan 1700, Feb 1701, Mar 1702, etc. this way you could plan your schedule around the season. Campaign in the warm months, re-train and prepare in the cold months.

To cambat this negative effect, an army would have to be camped in a city or a fort (yes, we finally get to use them). Forts could possibly changed to require 2 turns to build, so that an army couldn't move, and build a fort to avoid the penalty.

The system could be somewhat similar to the desertion system involved with Crusades. When the cold is approaching, October/November, you get a notice warning you about the oncoming winter. Then when winter hits you start losing troops.

It could also be a sliding scale as far as effect. For example moving an army during the winter in Germany would have a minor effect, while doing the same in Russia could have a major effect. While campaigning in warmer weather, the Mediteranean region, Caribbean etc. could have no effect.

[Empress Meg]

I'd like to see a desertion factor, but as mentioned here, it would have to go easy. Then again, historically, desertion was a common problem for most armies. If you were caught, you were shot, but that harsh punishment did not matter to most. Many made a career out of it in fact. They would enlist, pocket the signing pay/bonus, hang around for the food and the booze and whatever other little perks they could aquire, and off they went when the going was good with equipment and all. The euipemnt was sold and the cash they had let was spent on the joys avaible to the lowly, common man. Whebn the money ran out, the soldier would re-enlist in another army, sometimes of that same nation, sometimes in another. If they were recuriting and there was a cash bonus offered, they would sign up.

This of course, could be controlled in a decent army. However, many of the nations that needed men fast would get them any way they could, thus recuriting practices were put aside for sheer numbers. There were higher numbers on the books due to the high influx of men, but there were also a higher number of desertion. That is why it was often a good idea to recurit and then move the new recurits away from their home in a rapid amount of time. For example, during the Frenc Rev., the peasant "volenteers" would be drafted into the newly form Republic army and then shoved out into the wide world to fight their enemies. When marching through their own homelands, these men, once the Republican fevour wore off, would just take their things and march home. There was no way to stop them they deserted in such droves. The only thing that new army could od was get them in the field and hope for the best. This of course, was an ill-made army and should not be taken as standard, but it does give an idea of what i was talking about.

There was also a type of desertion used against the enemy to enrich a nation. In Peninsular war, Spain had no cash to spend on reforming her shattered armies. In lieu of money and Spanish made supplies, men who wanted to fight against France (and there were many indeed!) joined the French army in Spain to obtain what their own nation could not provide at the moment. Once they were taken in and given their supplies, kit, weapon, uniform and so forth, they took of at their earliest convience. They were not only gaining the basic necessities to make war but draining their enemy of them as well.

So, after my long rambling remarks, desertion can play a major role in ETW if the dev's want it.

Devoirs The Empress

[molonthegreat]

One thing that i hope is in is the russian winter so if you are not well supplied you army will shrink fast.

[numerosdecimus]

I also thinking of the desiese factor, for instance, if you start to decrease the supply amounts of conrrespondent army in campaign then the soldeirs would start to get a lesser amount of food variety which could lead to the typical desieses of any army on a long campaign.

Another situation would be when making a long term invasion is that the seasons must paid attention, such as the case of the russian winter during the napoleonic invasions.

[Agent Provocateur]

Desertion would be a good one ot feature - if you can turn these kind of features off. Sometimes I don't want that kind of game.

Experience could decrease the base likelyhood of it. It would also allow faster drill on the battlefield. So an experienced unit is less likely to desert on the campaignm map and can perform different manoeuvres faster in battle map. Win-win, and realistic.

So morale isn't just "I am happy/not happy" but also impacts the effectiveness of a unit. French ships had lower "morale" than British ones in this sense, performing worse in large part because they didn't get as much seatime as the British because of their blockade - a vicious circle and useful if you can initiate it.

[ivan_the_terrible]

It seems to me the majority here would like more detailed morale (and various potential effects) to be included.
Hopefully someone from CA reads this thread.
And hopefully its not too late to implement at least some of the features discussed.

[Empress Meg]

^That wuld be nice yes. In fairness to what i expect from the morale system though, so long as CA keeps morale in the game I'll be a happy camper. No lemmings for me thank you.

Devoirs The Empress