Separate Morale from Discipline

[Ichon]

I've always been bothered that discipline and morale are a single stat value in TW games. If you read alot of ancient battles descriptions it seems to me at least that there is a big difference between those concepts.

Discipline is holding the line, fighting when pressed on a flank, obeying orders, etc.

Morale is how good a soldier feels about the overall situation and how likely to return to a fight despite being beaten already.

With two values skirmishers for example might have low discipline but high morale which means they might rout easily but also rally easily. Specifically a unit like Numidian cavalry might run easily with low discipline but rally and return to the battle with high morale.

A unit that has poor supplies, is unhappy about the commander, is fighting same culture (civil wars, mercenaries, auxillaries might be fighting 'friends') could have good discipline in that it takes quite a bit to rout but with low morale the unit resists morale shocks poorly and they are done in that battle and will flee off the field once routed.

In contrast a unit that has a good commander, has won some victories, and has full supplies will run only under high pressure if has high discipline but will also rally again and has a higher resistance to morale shocks like a rear charge, etc.

For multiplayer battles points could be spent on increasing morale for an army as the cost of fewer or less capable units on the field. Also points could be deducted from discipline to spend more on morale or units which creates a more unstable army but might give an extra unit or spent on higher morale give a slightly better boost to inspire.

This separation would be able to show some affects of supplies on armies without totally handicapping an army and also it is up to player discretion to advance faster but without supplies and rely on discipline or knowing the composition of an army has low discipline and not the best commander to advance more slowly to keep supplies high.

It would also better show differences between troop types and generals. A general that is hard on his troops might raise their discipline but less able to inspire his men and overall his army has lower morale.

In contrast a general who is friends with his soldiers and soft on discipline might have an army with high morale but units more likely to rout when faced with adversity but the general is more likely to be able to inspire/rally them.

So a German tribal army led but a fiery leader might have lower discipline but such a general could inspire his men to attack with more ferocity for a short time or rally those who are fleeing but facing a disciplined Roman or Greek army the battle swing one way, then another.

I'd also like to see an option where some leaders if they get into melee personally and morale is high can inspire their soldiers more than when standing behind the lines.

[Yomamashouse]

In EDU morale and discipline are different, although discipline still includes a morale element. I think 3 stats would suffice - morale (just a number), resistance to morale shock (a modifier for shocks), and discipline (ability to maintain formation and follow orders).

[Ichon]

In EDU morale and discipline are different, although discipline still includes a morale element. I think 3 stats would suffice - morale (just a number), resistance to morale shock (a modifier for shocks), and discipline (ability to maintain formation and follow orders).

Can we edit discipline, I thought it was just low or high? In MTW2 EDU discipline is a factor of morale so it is not really separate and morale shocks etc are lowered by discipline. I just want to extend that and make it more defined as well as subject to more factors outside EDU like commander, supplies, experience, victories, etc.

[Yomamashouse]

Discipline can be low (peasants), normal (men-at-arms), disciplined (professionals), impetuous (can charge without orders), and berserker (red flashing flags and uncontrollable).

To some extent discipline affects control, but it is still largely relevant to morale, which should be changed.

[CptAustus]

*players cant control units early in the campaign because of low discipline* *On the other hand, AI is the AI*

[Dago Red]

I fully agree, it's time for TW games to get more complex under the hood in terms of morale and discipline. They are not the same thing.

Discipline: is a matter of training and organization, usually the result of drilling and practice, to fight as a unit, stay in formation and hold the line/follow orders.

Morale: can be boosted by drills and practice but is not at all dependent on it. It's a measure of how easy or hard it is to break a unit into routing.

The obvious and nearly universal example for opposite values is the levy or milita rabble defending his homeland -- good morale, low discipline, and we can all drum up examples from across time and space. The usual opposite example is a similar levy/militia or untrained troops, not defending his homeland, but dragged about on some foreign campaign.

In general, we tend to think of any high quality troop as having both high morale and high discipline, but the truth is sometimes the wildly more complex (much like heraldry, and.... clothing colors). The easiest example is the typical European medieval knight of the early and middle, Middle ages. It's a bit of stereotyping, but examples come from nearly every country/state/kingdom from throughout the entire era. Knights, especially secular ones, tended to have very high morale, but very little discipline.

The typical story is a lance of knights (and their mounted men at arms) breaking out of formation and making ill timed attacks against the enemy, with the commander of the assembled force losing all tactical control over them. Since they were usually his most potent weapon (or one group of them) this impetuousness was often the undoing of the entire army. Knights of the religious orders were sometimes even more extreme in that their morale was through the roof, but they were impossible to control, completely lacking in any unit cohesion or discipline (though this changed over the Crusading era, and some of the orders ended up producing the most disciplined men).

The reasons for this behavior are varied, but well chronicled, and rooted in the social system shared by all of Feudal Europe.

Anyway, how often do you really lose momentary control over a unit, ie the "can charge without orders" attribute in the EDU? It is absurdly rare, and should not be (though it shouldn't be a constant thing, annoying the player either). It would be nice to see units with more complex behaviors based on a fully operational morale and discipline system.

[Yomamashouse]

Perhaps discipline can affect the crispness of the controls over a unit as well. In addition to charging without orders, ill-disciplined units should have a slower response to orders and not hold formation as well.

[master88]

Perhaps discipline can affect the crispness of the controls over a unit as well. In addition to charging without orders, ill-disciplined units should have a slower response to orders and not hold formation as well.

Agreed. They should have a faster response time to attack and a slower one to retreat (by mili seconds or seconds).

[Ichon]

Perhaps discipline can affect the crispness of the controls over a unit as well. In addition to charging without orders, ill-disciplined units should have a slower response to orders and not hold formation as well.

Actually I had a topic about that earlier but it seemed unpopular, perhaps I did not explain it very well.

Anyway, even if we don't use crispness of control there would be a chance for much more interesting effects and portrayals of units with discipline separate from morale.

[Davidicus II]

Perhaps discipline can affect the crispness of the controls over a unit as well. In addition to charging without orders, ill-disciplined units should have a slower response to orders and not hold formation as well.

While that sounds great on paper, there's nothing I (and most of us here, I'm sure) hate more than not having responsive control of my units in a battle. If the difference is minor (well, if it's minor, why put it in at all...), then it's not that bad. If it's major, then gameplay enjoyment can seriously suffer. However, I don't mind having looser formations, especially if formations will play more of an important role in Rome II (which seems to be the case).

[Nearby]

Somoewhere it was written that mercenaries are going to be controlled by AI and they can back stab you.. so this is something new and complex I guess

[Ichon]

I read that about mercenaries somewhere as well but I can't find any original interview about it. I would love for mercenaries to sometimes before battle be bribed or if they are fighting their own native land simply change sides or refuse to fight but it will be different having them under their own AI commander in a battle. As long as can give 4-5 basic orders like defend this location and follow this path to attack and most important- face this direction, halt!

[Condottiere 40K]

Separating the two traits would certainly make things more interesting; you can have cavalry destroying a flank but too ill disciplined to return to the battle until they've run down the routed units and/or looted the baggage train.

[denisvit]

Separating the two traits would certainly make things more interesting; you can have cavalry destroying a flank but too ill disciplined to return to the battle until they've run down the routed units and/or looted the baggage train.

Although I agree separating the 2 trait would be interesting, I think this example of a cav unit running down units instead of following orders would just annoy the hell out of me

Guess it could make things more realistic but isn't the purpose of a strategy game to be able to control your units instead of your units having a mind of their own.?

[daelin4]

Discipline sohuld jsut be one of many modifiers to Morale. I mean every unit starts off with high morale- its when the battle gets close that their morale metre tend to reflect their quality- peasant units will have their morale reduced much faster, whilst elite units would not.

So Discipline will likely be interpreted via stats that overall give morale modifier reductions. In other words, highly disciplined units will be more resistant to morale effects.

[Ichon]

Discipline sohuld jsut be one of many modifiers to Morale. I mean every unit starts off with high morale- its when the battle gets close that their morale metre tend to reflect their quality- peasant units will have their morale reduced much faster, whilst elite units would not.

So Discipline will likely be interpreted via stats that overall give morale modifier reductions. In other words, highly disciplined units will be more resistant to morale effects.

That is how it already is done. Just that poor unit might start at 4 morale and good start at 9. I would prefer to have that as well as discipline stat also which reflects how units resist in battle, formation order, and respond to orders possibly. Morale would be how quick unit rally, how responsive to inspire and warcry etc so low morale get less benefit from those but might still have high discipline if its a good unit. That way we can have morale tied to supplies, commander etc without creating such huge change in battle but still a noticeable effects. With experience units gain discipline but morale depends on situation. This way mercenaries and auxillia might fight well in battle but with morale be more likely to get bribed or desert before a battle.

[Condottiere 40K]

That would be integrity; some people have it, some don't.

[Condottiere 40K]

Cohesion might be another trait, how well the units still can function in their roles.

[Condottiere 40K]

Strategy is the ability to predict events and compensate for them, or just provoke them.

[denisvit]

Strategy is the ability to predict events and compensate for them, or just provoke them.

But if you include too much randomness then you can hardly predict anything. As long as this isn't implemented into unit behaviour in multiplayer I guess I'm fine with it. It'd just be really annoying if all your cav decide by themselves that it's a good idea to run down the units instead of rolling up the flank and just ending the battle ... and THEN run down all the units you bloody want