National Morale

[The High King of Ireland]

Hi everyone, I was just looking to see how people would feel about the idea of a 'national morale'msystem in Rome 2.

I've always been interested in seeing this implemented, and i know that to a certain extent it has been implemented with the 'glory' PO bonus.

However what I would like to see (if possible to implement) would be a system whereby a recent victory would buoy an amy and give them a morale bonus into their next fight, a seris of victories would raiseall armies morale and give some poitive PO effects, and great (heroic) victories would lead to some very large morale and replenishment bonuses in hat army and increased movement points etc. Likewise a series of crippling defeats would cause negative PO and morale bonuses nationwide, similar to how the population at large and military personnel are affected by success and failure in real life.

Opinions please? Feel free to discuss

[Hanomean]

I feel 'meh' about this. I think, first of all, the factor time should be a part of it. So you would get a morale bonus for your next battle in for example 10 turns with the same army. Second of all, the experience system kind of covers this. If your unit is victorious, you get more experience and thus become stronger.

P.S. What is a PO effect?

[The High King of Ireland]

Public Order, sorry xD. And well yeah it would fade over time, similar to the implemented 'glory' system of course/ Having super morale for the rest of the game would be silly. Also whilst I agree the experience bonus works similar, its more about combat experience and power, the way i mean it is wider ranging so it effects even units freshly drafted into the army, they won't have increased combat skill, but they will have a morale bonus for a while due to general confidence in their commander etc...I'm finding it hard to describe what I mean.

[Petroniu]

You can't talk about nationalism yet. Nation wide joy for victories abroad. That's something that didn't happened yet for that time frame.

[Evalation]

You can't talk about nationalism yet. Nation wide joy for victories abroad. That's something that didn't happened yet for that time frame.

LOL? Im pretty sure the Romans (Citizen and military) were overjoyed all across italy when they heard Carthage fell to their boys.

Or when the Greeks drove back the Persians? They built monuments about that victory. I know the Greeks were seperate at that time and its not right to call them a nation, but when they heard Persia had been defeated at Thermopylae and Platae all of Greece rejoiced, save for the ones who fought with Persia

Alexander conqureing Persia? He became the greatest conqurer of all time after his campaign. Theres monuments everywhere that show nations coming together to rejoice their recent victory so i dont understand your statement at all.

So i agree with the op that there should be a national morale increase or penalty for certain defeats or victories.

[Savoyard]

LOL? Im pretty sure the Romans (Citizen and military) were overjoyed all across italy when they heard Carthage fell to their boys.

Or when the Greeks drove back the Persians? They built monuments about that victory. I know the Greeks were seperate at that time and its not right to call them a nation, but when they heard Persia had been defeated at Thermopylae and Platae all of Greece rejoiced, save for the ones who fought with Persia

Alexander conqureing Persia? He became the greatest conqurer of all time after his campaign. Theres monuments everywhere that show nations coming together to rejoice their recent victory so i dont understand your statement at all.

So i agree with the op that there should be a national morale increase or penalty for certain defeats or victories.

What about the Persian statues when they subdued the known world, lol?

[atheniandp]

You can't talk about nationalism yet. Nation wide joy for victories abroad. That's something that didn't happened yet for that time frame.

Yep. It's anachronistic. I could see some kind of proto-national consciousness of the sort working for Republican Rome and some of the Greek poleis but it simply wasn't the same its Modern form. For starters it surely wasn't an imperial idea, but rather a municipal one.

So no, it shouldn't really be in the game. And if it is it should purely be cosmetic and not decisive in any way as to offer some kind of magical morale bonus.

LOL? Im pretty sure the Romans (Citizen and military) were overjoyed all across italy when they heard Carthage fell to their boys.

Or when the Greeks drove back the Persians? They built monuments about that victory. I know the Greeks were seperate at that time and its not right to call them a nation, but when they heard Persia had been defeated at Thermopylae and Platae all of Greece rejoiced, save for the ones who fought with Persia

Alexander conqureing Persia? He became the greatest conqurer of all time after his campaign. Theres monuments everywhere that show nations coming together to rejoice their recent victory so i dont understand your statement at all.

So i agree with the op that there should be a national morale increase or penalty for certain defeats or victories.

Yeah, because Rome was 'merica. Their 'boys' went in there and killed some ragheads.
I didn't know monuments are evidence for nationalism either. Thanks for the insight.

[The High King of Ireland]

Yeah but for example, you cannot tell me that the people and military's morale wasn't affected when the republic/empire was repeatedly, soundl defeated by generals such as Hannibal and Attila? Or that the armies under these great generals and even fresh recruits wouldn't have had increased morale from confidence in the proven skill of their commander. It's human nature.

[Point_Man]

Yeah but for example, you cannot tell me that the people and military's morale wasn't affected when the republic/empire was repeatedly, soundl defeated by generals such as Hannibal and Attila? Or that the armies under these great generals and even fresh recruits wouldn't have had increased morale from confidence in the proven skill of their commander. It's human nature.

Yes they were affected by the defeats, but that never stopped them from raising more armies to invade Carthage and commit to the Fabian Strategy...

[Petroniu]

Yeah but for example, you cannot tell me that the people and military's morale wasn't affected when the republic/empire was repeatedly, soundl defeated by generals such as Hannibal and Attila? Or that the armies under these great generals and even fresh recruits wouldn't have had increased morale from confidence in the proven skill of their commander. It's human nature.

People were affected but you see, in the case of Hannibal, Rome was worried, that's it, the other cities allied to Rome were just waiting to see what's their next move and if they should continue to support them or not. In the time of the Republic each city looked after itself, nobody cared if the Romans win or lose as long as they weren't affected. In the time of the Empire, things changed, every general that had victories became a threat to the emperor, not the empire itself. Each defeat was a shame for the general that took it, but the empire wasn't a big country fighting for its survival. The Greeks never cared that the Romans were getting their asses kicked by the Parthians. You should check this kind of things and you will know they are true. There was no sense of nationalism man. The first ideas of nationalism came up in the Hundred Years war in England when the English began to see themselves as a separate people with a different identity than the French. Check your history facts man.

[The High King of Ireland]

No, the idea is that the military would though.

[Petroniu]

No, the idea is that the military would though.

Well, legionnaires were attached to their general so if a general scores a victory only the legions under him would get a morale bonus, while other legions under other generals shouldn't be affected by this. But that might work. It's realistic for soldiers to get a morale boost after winning several victories. Maybe we will see something like this, considering that now they want to give traits to armies too.

[Taran.]

People were affected but you see, in the case of Hannibal, Rome was worried, that's it, the other cities allied to Rome were just waiting to see what's their next move and if they should continue to support them or not. In the time of the Republic each city looked after itself, nobody cared if the Romans win or lose as long as they weren't affected. In the time of the Empire, things changed, every general that had victories became a threat to the emperor, not the empire itself. Each defeat was a shame for the general that took it, but the empire wasn't a big country fighting for its survival. The Greeks never cared that the Romans were getting their asses kicked by the Parthians. You should check this kind of things and you will know they are true. There was no sense of nationalism man. The first ideas of nationalism came up in the Hundred Years war in England when the English began to see themselves as a separate people with a different identity than the French. Check your history facts man.

Well, there has always been a form of nationalism, people simply prefer their own people over others. And the English have always seen themselves as different from the French, which is quite obvious, since they speak different languages and have a different history.
But you are indeed right when you say that nationalism as we know it today didn't exist yet, because nations as we know them today also didn't exist yet. People simply cared for their own region.
I think that a morale system based on victories/defeats for your armies would be a really great idea, but not for the ordinary population.

[The High King of Ireland]

im not saying the bonuses should make a situation unsalvageable, just make every successive defeat harder to recover from without a change of tacics i.e stop engagin the experienced, high morale army and go for an enemy weak point a la the 2nd punic war

[The High King of Ireland]

Well the way i was thinking was that a series of victories/defeats has an impact on all armies of the 2 warring factions who engage each other i.e. if the greeks lose several battles to a roman army, they'll have a morale deficit and the romans a bonus in any engagement between any roman and any greek army, however the armies that have actually fought the victorious battles will be able to carry he morale bonus into battles against other factions as well, although it will be greater against factions they have actually won against. If that made sense.

[Wowwars]

Well this would make sense for Hannibal's Campaign a bit, just think about it You have 1 Decent Army with Hannibal as your lead General and than you have all those possible Italian, German, Swiss, Barbaric, and Gual poetential allies, maybe CA should make this an expansion? kinda like how they did Alexander/Napoleon.

The morale could work like if Hannibal often beats the odds Old enemies of Rome start joining Carthage's Protection or allies. his Soldiers upgrade in stats and i guess morale due to surivivng/Winning/Experince through all those battles making Hannibal's Army quite Overpowered Late game.


Woah i got off topic their, but just imagine the United Anicent European (Sure Hannibal was a non european, but these are anicent times European didnt exist untill pretty much Medieval Crusades and like that) World forces Versus the Romans.

[The High King of Ireland]

It wouldnt just apply to Hannibal. Here's how I see it working
A roman army beats say, a greek army, gaining a general morale bonus for all battles (which becomes slightly greater against the greeks) that fades over time. It wins several more battles vs the greeks, increasing its bonus in general, and increasing the extra bonus vs the greeks. Because there have been several victories, all other roman armies now have a slight morale bonus fighting against the greeks (but only the greeks) whilst all greek armies now have slightly worse morale when fighting romans. Again over time the effect would fade. this means that morale bonuses are dependent on 2 factors, an army's personal morale bonus against all factions from its own victories, and an army's morale bonus against particular factions dependent on how their faction's war against the other is going. Make sense?

[Ichon]

Some earlier TW games had some of this like the traits in MTW2 where after winning some battles against a certain faction a general would gain a trait which gave +command/morale fighting those armies while a general who had lost feared the faction which had defeated him. The bonus was not faction wide however... which for balance I think is better.

[daelin4]

RTW's popularity system was sort of meant to portray faction-wide sentiment, although it ended up being very irrelevant and just a gauge to when you can march on Rome. And of course limited entirely to the Romans.

In Shogun2 global Clan Events represented faction-wide effects, although sentiment wasn't really one of them; most was local like a fire, and sentiment was usually the result of certain decisions made in the campaign, most of them military effects like recruitment bonuses. The Blessing of Ameratsu (sp?) was one of them. But the mechanics show that Total War is ready for this kind of feature.

I also like the decay effect: in Shogun2 your bonus lasted for X turns without any changes; giving certain bonuses a decaying effect would add some more realistic feel to it. A population doesn't rave about your victories the same way after ten years than on the first day, after all.

[ngr]

I like the idea of moral bonus. But it should not affect movement and repleniishment and should fade in time.