Podcast #2

[Martok]

CA has put up their second podcast (http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?page=/us/newsandpress/index.html&nav=/us/5/http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?page=/us/newsandpress/index.html&nav=/us/5/). This time they speak with Ingimar Gudmunsson, James Russell, and Jack Lusted about the morale system in Empire Total War.

Some interesting changes have been made this time around. Will comment more after I'm done listening to the whole podcast.

[Csargo]

The link doesn't work for me. Weird.

[Martok]

The link doesn't work for me. Weird.
Odd. Perhaps try linking to it from the actual page (http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?page=/us/newsandpress/index.html&nav=/us/5/) instead?


Anyway, here's what I took away as the major highlights:


Enemy armies & navies can now reach a new morale level of "Shattered", which is beyond simply "Broken". Enemies that are shattered have virtually no chance of rallying, and are pretty much out of the fight for good.

Ships can surrender if their morale is low enough.

Morale penalties can vary according to what type of enemy fire your troops are being subjected to (small arms, cannon, etc.).

Units that are "stressed" (suffering from low morale and/or fatigue) will exhibit noticeable combat effects, such as poorer accuracy and longer reload times. More experienced units will generally react better to being "stressed".

I may be interpreting too much here, but I get the impression that the death of a general or admiral in combat won't be quite as devastating as in previous games. It'll still definitely have an immediate effect (especially in terms of shock factor), but apparently it will fade eventually fade over the course of the battle.


Again, I may be putting words in CA's mouth, but it sounds as if the morale system in general has been adjusted so that hopefully victory will generally be more a result of getting the enemy to retreat/surrender (which is certainly more realistic), instead of having to slaughter an entire army/navy.

[Divine Wind]

Works fine for me. :yes:

The stress and fatigue factors were certainly very interesting, and how they link to morale.

[CBR]

The "shattered" thing seems to be just putting a name on what some routing units did anyway in older titles. But ok it is more intuitive as the player can now see it.

I did not get the impression the death of the general is that much different than before: a big shock right after and then it goes away after a while but ok it might be slowly fading in ETW instead.

I'd have to listen to it again but it seemed like units could be lingering more at wavering before routing instead of all those insta-routs.

One morale state I have always wanted was something like say "shaken" or simply increasing the morale range of wavering with added elements of not being able to advance and even slowly withdrawing when fighting with an enemy (or engaging in close range firefight now that we are in the era of muskets)


CBR

[Martok]

The "shattered" thing seems to be just putting a name on what some routing units did anyway in older titles. But ok it is more intuitive as the player can now see it.
I concur -- both with the fact that units in previous TW titles could already be "shattered" (but there simply wasn't a name for it until now), and that CA are adding it in ETW to make it easier for players to tell just how "broken" a unit really is.



I did not get the impression the death of the general is that much different than before: a big shock right after and then it goes away after a while but ok it might be slowly fading in ETW instead.
No, I don't think there's a huge difference either. I think the main change is just that the "death effect" tapers off now (instead of lasting for a certain number of minutes and then ending).



I'd have to listen to it again but it seemed like units could be lingering more at wavering before routing instead of all those insta-routs.
Really? I didn't get that impression myself, although I certainly wouldn't mind if you were right.



One morale state I have always wanted was something like say "shaken" or simply increasing the morale range of wavering with added elements of not being able to advance and even slowly withdrawing when fighting with an enemy (or engaging in close range firefight now that we are in the era of muskets)


CBR
I'm not quite sure if I understand what you're getting at. Are you envisioning a morale model where units that are shaken/wavering have more of a variable factor as to when if/when they actually run away? Or are you more talking about being able to do fighting retreats?

[CBR]

Really? I didn't get that impression myself, although I certainly wouldn't mind if you were right.
Nah nevermind. It was the difference between broken and shattered they talked about.


I'm not quite sure if I understand what you're getting at. Are you envisioning a morale model where units that are shaken/wavering have more of a variable factor as to when if/when they actually run away? Or are you more talking about being able to do fighting retreats?
Instead of running it would be more like walking backwards. From a player perspective an involuntary fighting withdrawel if you like. Something that would make units stop up if recieving too much fire and if enemy is too close or morale penalties too high the effected unit would start a slow withdrawal.(working more like skirmish mode to use a TW example)

You could say more or less the opposite of impetuous units.

I just like to see a more gradual effect from low morale instead of the all or nothing system we currently have.


CBR

[pevergreen]

On morale, a feature I dont like from M2TW is that when you withdraw a unit on the battlefield, they flee, but you can stop them.

But if you lose, they will likely die as well. If i tell a unit to run, I expect them to be away safely, given enough time.