Thoughts on Morale/Experience - would the game engine allow this?

[Damocles]

Historically, raw recruits tended to break rather than fight, unless they were either superbly trained, superbly motivated, or superbly led...and often, they broke anyways without all three. (Ancient sources tell us that enemies of Rome often fled after the first pilum volley, scattered by the war cries and charge...But that's hard to model in a TW game...or the fact that IRL, 9 out of 10 times, armies only fought pitched battles when both sides believed they were on the cusp of an easy victory).

I don't know about anyone else, but regular line units and 'encouraging' units tend to take about the same kind of punishment before fleeing. Currently, that is a ton of punishment. A unit has to suffer far, far in excess of the casualties they would put up with in RL before breaking. That's in a way, an unavoidable hallmark of any video game, but in DeI, the effect is extraordinary. I'd prefer more easily upset units, both my own and the enemies.

Ideally, I'd like to see a system where raw recruits with zero chevrons of experience, had much degraded morale. This morale would jump up to something like their 'normal' amount, by the time they reached three copper chevrons.

This would give much more use to unit types that currently aren't incredibly vital (like units with the 'encourage' ability). It would make sense then, for the triarii to be there keeping the hastati and principe in the fight. Or to rely on naturally high morale units like naked warriors...Although, naked warriors in DeI are about as sturdy as platemail-armored knights (all units are).

By the time a unit reached silver chevrons, their morale increase would be small (currently what it is now), but they'd get get a much bigger bonus to their lethality.

Then by the time they reached gold chevron, they could start getting a sizable bonus to their defensive ability. I think this would make gold chevron troops not only more impressive, but once a player finally manages to acquire them, to have them be enduring. Currently, outside some gimmicks such as a Drillmaster, and a large province full of martial temples, and a full time champion...The only way to get even silver chevron units is to never autoresolve a battle.

Currently, I don't notice much difference at all in the exp of my units. Part of the reason is because all units in DeI are extremely resilient, to the point where the battle is always decided by a rear attack. A flank attack won't do it. I've noticed a lot of units will fight to the death without being taken in the rear.

It's a far more noticeable observation, if you play Caesar in Gaul more. The hollow square ability of the legions ensures that they will fight practically to the last man. I've only ever had a hollow square unit break when circumstances or immense casualties forced it out of formation.

Thoughts? Is this feasible?

[tybor87]

Nice idea!

I would gladly see it implemented.

I think all we need to do is to lower the overall morale of units and add a bigger buff when the unit reach higher ranks (db/unit_experience_bonuses_tables).

Actually this buff is lowered in DeI compared to vanilla. (growth_rate is the same but growth_scalar lowered from 1.25 to 0.5)

[loukylouk]

I would love to see this in play.

[Summary]

Historically, raw recruits tended to break rather than fight, unless they were either superbly trained, superbly motivated, or superbly led...and often, they broke anyways without all three. (Ancient sources tell us that enemies of Rome often fled after the first pilum volley, scattered by the war cries and charge...But that's hard to model in a TW game...or the fact that IRL, 9 out of 10 times, armies only fought pitched battles when both sides believed they were on the cusp of an easy victory).

I don't know about anyone else, but regular line units and 'encouraging' units tend to take about the same kind of punishment before fleeing. Currently, that is a ton of punishment. A unit has to suffer far, far in excess of the casualties they would put up with in RL before breaking. That's in a way, an unavoidable hallmark of any video game, but in DeI, the effect is extraordinary. I'd prefer more easily upset units, both my own and the enemies.

Ideally, I'd like to see a system where raw recruits with zero chevrons of experience, had much degraded morale. This morale would jump up to something like their 'normal' amount, by the time they reached three copper chevrons.

This would give much more use to unit types that currently aren't incredibly vital (like units with the 'encourage' ability). It would make sense then, for the triarii to be there keeping the hastati and principe in the fight. Or to rely on naturally high morale units like naked warriors...Although, naked warriors in DeI are about as sturdy as platemail-armored knights (all units are).

By the time a unit reached silver chevrons, their morale increase would be small (currently what it is now), but they'd get get a much bigger bonus to their lethality.

Then by the time they reached gold chevron, they could start getting a sizable bonus to their defensive ability. I think this would make gold chevron troops not only more impressive, but once a player finally manages to acquire them, to have them be enduring. Currently, outside some gimmicks such as a Drillmaster, and a large province full of martial temples, and a full time champion...The only way to get even silver chevron units is to never autoresolve a battle.

Currently, I don't notice much difference at all in the exp of my units. Part of the reason is because all units in DeI are extremely resilient, to the point where the battle is always decided by a rear attack. A flank attack won't do it. I've noticed a lot of units will fight to the death without being taken in the rear.

It's a far more noticeable observation, if you play Caesar in Gaul more. The hollow square ability of the legions ensures that they will fight practically to the last man. I've only ever had a hollow square unit break when circumstances or immense casualties forced it out of formation.

Thoughts? Is this feasible?

That is a nice idea, but then there should also be a feature to lose chevrons from casualties, after a person in the unit is dead, the replenished troops get more fresh recruits, so the chevron should remain at the same levels. This means if a gold chevron unit is only the verge of being wiped out but somehow survives, they replenish completely in a few turns but lose the gold chevron to something less. This would mean that a defeat also affects the units morale and fighting prowess and men would obviously be low on confidence after a defeat, even a seasoned unit!

[Damocles]

That is a nice idea, but then there should also be a feature to lose chevrons from casualties, after a person in the unit is dead, the replenished troops get more fresh recruits, so the chevron should remain at the same levels. This means if a gold chevron unit is only the verge of being wiped out but somehow survives, they replenish completely in a few turns but lose the gold chevron to something less. This would mean that a defeat also affects the units morale and fighting prowess and men would obviously be low on confidence after a defeat, even a seasoned unit!

From what I've observed, units do lose experience when they take casualties. In fact, I've dealt with it repeatedly throughout my campaign. That's why autoresolve is a surefire way of ensuring your units will rarely advance.

It's one of the more annoying things about the drillmaster skill. You see, even if it lets you recruit exp 3 units, after a few battles, their exp will begin decreasing rather than increasing, as exp 0 recruits join the ranks. It's especially noticeable if you have +exp technology, since all new recruits to a replenishing unit are treated as 0 exp no matter what.

That's why drillmaster, should, IMO, provide a continuous Champion-like benefit to the exp of an army, rather than a one time boost. And why I've stopped bothering with it on my generals. The only way I can keep those units at a high experience, if I carefully husband them by fighting each battle.

Ideally, experience levels would be easier to acquire in battle, but that would be made up for the fact that our current DeI units fight like gold chevron units. By having units start considerably worse than they do now, their increases from gaining experience would be more dramatic.

I'd like to see armies that have fought a couple successful campaigns, hover around 3 copper to 1 silver chevrons, even when autoresolving. And having drillmaster changed to act like a Champion would help to bring raw recruits up to snuff. There are many times where with a rank 3 drillmaster, I was better off disbanding and recruiting new units rather than letting the old ones replenish...and that's just no good (shouldn't the surviving veterans be passing on some hard earned knowledge to the new recruits, like in real life? Yes, the overall experience of a unit should lower, but never to where it makes more sense to disband them.)

[Phil2]

Excellent ideas there! I'd love to see it ingame!

all units in DeI are extremely resilient, to the point where the battle is always decided by a rear attack. A flank attack won't do it. I've noticed a lot of units will fight to the death without being taken in the rear.

Absolutely. Might be the only dark point of DEI actually to me.
And furthermore, some ennemy hoplite doesn't care rear attack...

[KAM 2150]

First versions of DeI were working like this, but people were constantly crying that their levies can't hold the lines etc, so it was changed to what we have now.

[Damocles]

First versions of DeI were working like this, but people were constantly crying that their levies can't hold the lines etc, so it was changed to what we have now.

Were these the same people crying about the Romans being too challenging as enemies?

There have been a couple great posts in this thread. I hope the DeI team reads it.

[FlashHeart07]

First versions of DeI were working like this, but people were constantly crying that their levies can't hold the lines etc, so it was changed to what we have now.

Something that seems to be a big "problem" with this mod and I suppose any other mod. People have different opinions and a different level of skill with the game. A newb would want all his troops to have a higher morale and the pro or realist would want as this thread kindda suggest, a lower overall morale only increased with battle experience.
Good thing we have the PFM to actually alter the mod to our own liking instead of telling the creators to constantly change it. I remember Selea being somewhat irritated by this.

[Faldor]

I think that if the AI would recruit more professional armies (in my current campaign the only enemies who fielded more challenging forces were the Boii and Rome), the idea of weakening levies would surely work.

What annoys me is just that the team made so many gorgeous higher tier units for this mod, yet you mostly get to fight levies throughout your campaign. I'm hereby not complaining about the difficulty, an overwhelming force of levies is a challenge no less, but in decisive battles I'd rather fight against more professional units, especially if the opposing faction has the means to sustain them (most powerful AI factions just keep their excess money on bank accounts it seems). I understand that the beginning of the campaign is usually played out mostly by levy forces, as it is in every total war game (even though I think it would sometimes be more realistic to have smaller, yet still capable forces in early campaign), but I don't like seeing armies entirely consisting of levies in turn 200.

I think the new reform system offers a great form of unit/army-development throughout the campaign, forcing you to adapt your tactics and such. But wouldn't it be more realistic for e.g. the successor states to begin the campaign with a reasonable amount of "professional" (at least better than levy) pike units, and the ability to recruit a limited amount of Agema cavalry. The same goes for garrisons, who are your opponents in the majority of battles. Of course levies are realistic at that time, but shouldn't there be some more fully equipped hoplites in Greek cities, or thureophoroi at a later stage (instead of 6 different levy units, and some mob rabble). I understood making garrisons advance with reforms is impossible as of now, but perhaps making a more universal set of garrison units for every subculture (like the Rorarii for Rome, but than in another, culturally appropriate sense for other factions) could solve that problem. I haven't quite made out if this is due to them having stronger "mobs" and such, but I think the Celtic factions always seem to have a pretty consistent, capable garrison force. They do not at all have the same mishmash of different garrison units as the Greeks, or the weakness of the Eastern garrisons, but to my general experience they have more consistent force to defend their homes, and I enjoy/have a harder time capturing their settlements.

Anyway that is to say: I think with the AI's current recruitment behavior, the current garrisons and the current availability of higher tier units, do not really allow for weaker levies, since then battles would be way too much in the player's advantage (and just not fun IMO).


Furthermore I like the OP's suggestion concerning the Drillmaster trait. I think recruiting high chevron units is both "useless" and unrealistic (they can have impossibly gained actual battlefield experience in the barracks), but using general traits and champions, and if possible victories (however awesome that would be it seems almost impossible to do), you should be able to maintain the unit's achieved experience, so that you can have gold chevron units (and keep them relatively "high-chevroned") if you use them wisely, and support them with the necessary traits.

[juanplay]

I think that if the AI would recruit more professional armies (in my current campaign the only enemies who fielded more challenging forces were the Boii and Rome), the idea of weakening levies would surely work.

What annoys me is just that the team made so many gorgeous higher tier units for this mod, yet you mostly get to fight levies throughout your campaign. I'm hereby not complaining about the difficulty, an overwhelming force of levies is a challenge no less, but in decisive battles I'd rather fight against more professional units, especially if the opposing faction has the means to sustain them (most powerful AI factions just keep their excess money on bank accounts it seems). I understand that the beginning of the campaign is usually played out mostly by levy forces, as it is in every total war game (even though I think it would sometimes be more realistic to have smaller, yet still capable forces in early campaign), but I don't like seeing armies entirely consisting of levies in turn 200.

I think the new reform system offers a great form of unit/army-development throughout the campaign, forcing you to adapt your tactics and such. But wouldn't it be more realistic for e.g. the successor states to begin the campaign with a reasonable amount of "professional" (at least better than levy) pike units, and the ability to recruit a limited amount of Agema cavalry. The same goes for garrisons, who are your opponents in the majority of battles. Of course levies are realistic at that time, but shouldn't there be some more fully equipped hoplites in Greek cities, or thureophoroi at a later stage (instead of 6 different levy units, and some mob rabble). I understood making garrisons advance with reforms is impossible as of now, but perhaps making a more universal set of garrison units for every subculture (like the Rorarii for Rome, but than in another, culturally appropriate sense for other factions) could solve that problem. I haven't quite made out if this is due to them having stronger "mobs" and such, but I think the Celtic factions always seem to have a pretty consistent, capable garrison force. They do not at all have the same mishmash of different garrison units as the Greeks, or the weakness of the Eastern garrisons, but to my general experience they have more consistent force to defend their homes, and I enjoy/have a harder time capturing their settlements.

Anyway that is to say: I think with the AI's current recruitment behavior, the current garrisons and the current availability of higher tier units, do not really allow for weaker levies, since then battles would be way too much in the player's advantage (and just not fun IMO).


Furthermore I like the OP's suggestion concerning the Drillmaster trait. I think recruiting high chevron units is both "useless" and unrealistic (they can have impossibly gained actual battlefield experience in the barracks), but using general traits and champions, and if possible victories (however awesome that would be it seems almost impossible to do), you should be able to maintain the unit's achieved experience, so that you can have gold chevron units (and keep them relatively "high-chevroned") if you use them wisely, and support them with the necessary traits.

I have seen the same poor quality AI´s armies even in late game (turn 309) in my new 0.9 roman campaign, problem is that not every enemy faction gets their tier 4 barracks, some stay at level 2 (as is currently the case for the ptolemies in my campaign) most get to level 3 and one or two manage to achieve level 4 (this normally happens to the seleucids or the spartans). Now this is mostly a problem for the hellenic factions, because celtic, germans and nomads better develop their military, however given that AI does not replace their armies when a reform is achieved (unless their armies are destroyed) its hard to find high level armies when the AI factions somehow stabilize and stop conquering early on, which means the player will have to fight levy and medium tier armies for most of his campaign or selectively destroy AI armies without conquering their territories and hope for the AI to build advanced armies. One solution would be to follow roma surrectum or europa barbarorum policy for the "barbarian", "nomad" and "hellenistic" armies, that is, either give them from the very beginning their full roster or at least their tier 3 troops (as is the case with eb). The romans could keep all their reforms because their core units are really good and a challenge early on, also to support this idea it would be necessary to provide the capitals of the provinces (at least for the AI) with advanced military structure so that they can build good armies (not necessarily elite ones) from the beginning. Sadly this approach would mean to ignore the beautiful and hard work the DEI team put in their reform system.

[Faldor]

Sadly this approach would mean to ignore the beautiful and hard work the DEI team put in their reform system.

Not necessarily.

E.g. for Macedon I noticed how when the reforms first came out, most traditional, core units like Leukaspidai, Chalkaspidai, Basilikoi Peltastai and Pezhairoi were available since the beginning of the campaign (or at least since Thureos reforms). Now however most of them are only recruitable when the Thorax reforms hit.

I think these limitations are a bit pointless because 1) these units are not bound to the Thorax reforms/Thureos reforms in any way I know of (both historically and equipment-wise) 2) there still is the technology tree limiting the recruitment of elite units early in the game. Gameplay-wise it would on the one hand be logical to only get them later on, because of their elite status, but on the other hand I always found it immersive to have them from the start (if the necessary "technologies" are acquired), the Thorax and Thureos reforms focussing more on stronger/more flexible swordsmen and spearmen, and overall more modern equipment, to allow for new tactics and a historical depiction of the most important military innovations around the time.

I don't know if this goes for every faction (if yes, this could be the solution to the overload of levies by the AI), but seeing as this faction has higher tier units that perfectly fit the timeframe of the first turns, one would not be ignoring the reform system when allowing for more developed troops earlier on. I know the gradual build-up to better units is an important part of Total War, but I think the technology tree serves that purpose, whereas the team's reform system is meant to have a more historical development for every faction's military (at least that's my interpretation on the matter).

[Shaggy1973]

I'd like to see core troops (citizen types) have much more morale than AoR or auxilia type troops. You would then need to babysit less reliable troops with general and/or elites to get the best out of them. Too much morale = too forgiving.

Missile units should have more effect on low armour troops too.

[Durador]

Some nice ideas people!