Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 105

Thread: Morale and how to harness it.

  1. #21

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    Fully agree with OP!
    Some kind of morale is a must to be added, else the game will fail to deliver Civil War feel.
    Making coulrs bearer ability of "healing" and "boosting" morale for friendly soldiers will give this class realistic role. "Boosting" morale by following officers' commands and by staying close to teammates, while losing morale facing enemy alone - this will prevent "ramboing" in proper way.

    Thanks OP for one of the best posts here!

  2. #22
    David Dire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    America
    Posts
    680
    On artillery, Hooker literally had to hand the army over to someone else thanks to a single shell which did not physically wound him, so artillery "flinch" effects are pretty good as of now, I feel.
    http://i.imgur.com/STUHVb8.png

  3. #23

    USA Captain

    Takerith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    45
    OP preach!

    As far as I know, the devs have only really given vague descriptions of how morale will work later in development. I'd love to see a fully fleshed-out system like you described. Otherwise the line battles here will be too similar to NW or N&S.

  4. #24
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Takerith View Post
    OP preach!

    As far as I know, the devs have only really given vague descriptions of how morale will work later in development. I'd love to see a fully fleshed-out system like you described. Otherwise the line battles here will be too similar to NW or N&S.
    Thank you all for your suggestions. Not to worry, there will be mechanics in place as we have stated quite a few times.

    - Trusty

  5. #25

    CSA Captain

    Wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    West Riding of Yorkshire
    Posts
    410
    I don't think we have to worry too much about WoR game play style going into a lone wolf type thing.

    currently, Game play makes it already hard for lone wolf's, I've done some lone wolf stuff whilst playing and every time I've done it I was destroyed easily. The only exception was last night when me and a flag bearer were sent to distract some rebels and they got flanked so we charged and I killed 4 of them easily xD. But in a game where you have only one shot and it takes 15 seconds to reload your gun, And if you have a revolver you only have 6 shots a life. It's kind of hard to just flank the enemy and then destroy them from behind all on your own. The game gets boring and way to hard when people start playing lone wolf too, Compared to when you get huge lines of people. Lines never look perfect but I like that because during the Civil War lines only ever started perfect, By the end of a battle I'm sure a normal line would be turned into a group of skirmishers lol, I think the Devs are doing it right at the moment because the style of fighting is very unique, And actually useful. Other more modern tactics are not really useful at all with the weapon mechanics etc.

    One thing the dev's have done intentionally or unintentionally I don't know, But they made dying really annoying. Because you have to wait for a long re spawn time, Then when you spawn in you have to reload. So people don't want to die. So lines get destroyed by people worrying about having to deal with all that and hiding and stuff. I know for a fact that I have abandoned lines and ignored officers just so I didn't have to deal with the annoying death system lol.

    I'm guilty of just charging out of being so confused, And yeah I do agree people should stop doing it, But when you're covered in smoke and can't see anything, Sometimes charging forwards is the only option you have. I'm sure some soldiers during the Civil War made stupid mistakes like that all the time. I mean "785,000–1,000,000+" people died. Mistakes were made. All the time.

  6. #26

    CSA Sergeant

    AP514's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    46
    As the OP said Some type of mechanic should be in place.
    I think something to keep the 12 yr olds from running around in the rear area--("Im-agunna kill me a Enemy General")Also to keep them in the spirit of the game will be needed.
    I too have been in a few Alphas myself and believe me as soon as Beta arrives so do the ASSHATS..(pardon my french)
    The kiddies will start pouring in...they will not give a RATS backside about Formations, or anything else. You will get the "I paid my daddy's money and I am going to do what the BLEEP I want".
    If you say something to them you have a 50-50 chance of them Tk'n you.....It is sad but a real fact.
    (just an example)
    A moral bar when on your own would make players keep to groups more..even a group of 2-3 (Skirmishers spread out in groups of 2-3)would still lose moral but slower. This would force Skirmishers to fall back to the the Battalion/Flag group to rotate out once in awhile.
    Last edited by AP514; 07-29-2017 at 10:15 PM.

  7. #27


    I guess you'd have four parts to a morale system. You'd have bonuses, penalties, hits, and effects.

    Effects would damage your ability to move (especially 'charge'), shoot (aim), and possibly reload as well. They are mainly immersive. Heavier breathing, faster exhaustion, increased heartbeat, fumbling, trembling, visual distortions: blurryness...tunnel vision. Even freezing up and unable to effectively operate in meelee. You can be creative. They'd wear off over time when you aren't taking as many hits or have more bonuses.

    Bonuses would effect how quickly you recover and how resilient you are to getting the effects in the first place. The main and, in my opinion, the only bonus should be proximity to friendlies regardless of type or rank.

    Penalties would be from the proximity of enemy troops. We're talking close quarters combat or about to be hand-to-hand. 15-30 yards away, whatever is deemed a sure thing for meelee. Every enemy whose in your radius negates the effects of one friendly's bonus. This means if you are outnumbered and you are closing in or have closed in then you're as vulnerable to hits as if you were alone. This could vary depending on how far the enemy is.

    Hits would be from enemy fire and losing comrades. A hit is more severe based on the proximity of the bullet or the comrade going down. Or the direction the hit is coming from. So if an enemy doesn't fire (or stab) at all.... there are no hits. Charged bayonets could also act as a hit every so many seconds. You just aren't going to stay around for that.


    For the individual player it adds a currently-nonexistent incentive to fire in the direction of the enemy. Something critical to ever having a real firefight.

    Some of the concept and assumptions are based on the real world principle that an individual soldier is more likely to not fear his own death if enemy fire is not effective or if it's not close to him. Therefore the opposite should be true as well. These should be the same across all warfare, not just 1862. Soldiers always have a tendency of grouping up under fire, not spreading out. Back then it was by design. Less effective firepower so you've got to mass it to make it more effective. It only makes sense that a friendly touching your shoulder should be a positive, if he goes down - that's a negative. If a bullet zips by down the line it's a negative. If it whizzes by your head or hits the fence post at your legs - that's a negative. If the enemy is at charged bayonets in your face that's a negative. If you have more enemy around you than your own side you have no bonuses at all or they are diminished.


    Hits will be more effective if they are coming from the flank or rear of a player. Keep in mind that the proximity of friendlies in the formation is a different matter than this. An individual player taking bullets from his side should be more effected than if he was a single player taking bullets from his front.
    directional.jpg

    The fire should also be proximity-based. Obviously a close miss is much more for someone closer. The illustrated effects are before morale bonuses.
    directfire.jpg

    The bonuses should be solely based on how close you are to how many friendlies. It doesn't need to be more elaborate than that at all. Though it should probably encompass a larger area than illustrated but should be greater when you are almost touching a friendly player.
    radius of morale.jpg


    So of course for optimal morale bonus you would be inches apart in a blob. While having large numbers of friendlies die near you will have severe hits.
    Optimalmorale.jpg

    Flanking Fire should incur extra hits for all who have the bullet pass near them especially if you are the last on the line. Although, like I said, you don't need to measure whether someone has a player to their left or right when taking flanking fire. The very fact of being at the end of the line means you'll have less friendlies in your radius than when you are at the center. Proximity to friendlies is all you need.
    FlankingFire.jpg

    Charging

    Enemy in close proximity (perhaps especially with bayonets fixed) should incur penalties which essentially negate the effect of nearby friendlies until the point you are essentially operating like a lone wolf and, after taking further morale hits, autosurrendered. The aim is not to make meelee impossible by any means but simply to make it more about numbers and less about "I think I can bayonet two guys before I get killed myself." The outnumbered loner should be swept aside entirely without even a chance to fight, that's why I think autosurrender should be a thing. I'm not aware of any yankee letters home talking about the fanaticism of individual rebs charging into their lines with a bayonet at a full sprint.

    One danger I don't illustrate is that if you are monkeying with a players ability to 'charge' you need to still enable a players ability to sprint or 'rout' (away) or else retreat is simply not an option if you'll be outran anyway.

    Closing into meelee should be a calculated risk not a first resort because of frustration. Keep in mind the morale radius and that the radius should also take into account enemy within it.
    failedcharge.jpg

    With an emphasis on numbers and withdrawing. Basically... it's a game of who can mass the most men and make it an uneven contest. This doesn't mean that a numerically inferior opponent will always lose it means they stand less of a chance of winning the more lopsided it is, but they really shouldn't stay in most cases anyway.
    successcharge.jpg

    Without morale.... if you're in meelee with 40 guys vs 20 you're going to have around 21-23 left. The defenders will do their job and be just as effective going down to the last man almost all the time. It's very hard to get results different than that if there's no reason you wouldn't.

    The skirmisher with loose support is more resilient than a lone wolf to some shots but not to sustained shooting. As the enemy closes in, the obvious choice is to withdraw.
    skirmishers.jpg

    It only makes sense to bring a friend and for morale bonuses to help offset enemy fire.
    loner.jpg

    About the best you can hope for in any game is players moving together. You don't just hope or assume it works or players will naturally do that. That sounds like every other realism community out there I run into. With something like this you are setting people up who work together for success. That doesn't mean people will march from spawn to the battlefield in whatever elaborate wheeling motion you want but it does mean there may be an advantage to first coming under fire in something closer to that.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 08-09-2017 at 09:45 PM.

  8. #28
    When it comes to my examples on charging it should still work even in real-life examples where numerically inferior opponents drove away numerically superior ones. The additional loss in morale from losing the support bonuses of even some number of friendlies in your radius should make a battered player more vulnerable to further hits anyway. You'd of course need a strong time variation on an autosurrender feature as well as consideration for rare scenarios or enemy penalties not effecting bonuses in your immediate (touching) radius with the goal being a smaller but strong formation not getting wrecked by a couple morale hits in close quarters to a larger one putting out little firepower.

  9. #29

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    2,626
    Obvious question: the coding and the likes to get this all to work and function smoothly, how easy/hard is it?

  10. #30
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravescot View Post
    Obvious question: the coding and the likes to get this all to work and function smoothly, how easy/hard is it?
    The amount of tracking and calculations based on player positions & actions as outlined above is both very hard work (we have a single full time programmer who is very much busy working on regimental/class/weapon limitations, engine upgrades, flag bearer spawn systems at the moment) and taxing on the server (lower player counts). I'm not saying something like it or parts of it may never happen - it most likely will at some point, but not in the foreseeable future.

    In any case - thank you for your detailed suggestions!

    - Trusty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •