TARGET morale issue need to be solved [Archive]

Yagyu Emissary Kensen

08-17-2001, 06:22

I seem to be in the minority in this, but it's my opinion (and much of my clans as well I think) that the morale situationhas improved and it now MUCH more realistic. In the old STW namely in MP, you could be destroying the enemy, when suddenly a cavalry unity to the rear of your general sends your general to his grave and all of your missile units running. The sight of a dead general, 240 running musketeers and some 200 bodies makes the other 600 men uneasy. WHY? Any battle hardened warrior knows that death is a realistic expectation, so samurai simply march over to the offending cavalry and impale a few ponies, enemies will is broken, the day is one, and most likely, the captain of the surviving unit with the most valor assumes the newly vacated general position. In WE, I've actually had some wonderful pulse pounding battles. On totomi Emperor Akechi, as a defender beat me by a total of 30 some men. EVERYONE was killed or the unit ran off in 1's and 2's. THAT's realistic. He had 26 nag cav left and 8 naginata or so, and I have 35 musketeers...hmm..do they run and expose their backs to charging cavalry...NO!, they do the only sensible thing, and shoot like they've never shot before and hope they bring down enough cavalry to save the day. I've had other battles, where it was literally fought down to 5 or 6 men on each side. Is this realistic? In some ways, yes, in others, no. But is it fun??? YEA! It's fun to know that your troops aren't gonna run even though they have 55 men left, just because a stupid archer unit got decimated. furthermore, If you're embroiled in battle, you don't tend to notice if your general, most likely way behind you is killed. Dead generals, do only, and SHOULD only affect rallying. I tend to take exception to the notion that battles being decided by army selection and rock paper scissors is a BAD thing. Face it, bringing the right army is an important! part of warfare. Also I don't feel as though it's paper rock scissors. Granted, there's a certain degree of math involved in the enginge, and just figuring out the battle calculations, but these calculations affect real life. If I win a battle it's because I brought the righ army. In the aforemention battle against emperor akechi, he had like 3-4 cav archers, had i brought 2 more samurai units instead of NO Dachi, the day would likely have been mine. But, that's part of the fun, not knowing. To say that strategy no longer plays a role is ludicrous. What you're really saying is, "it's no longer possible for me to ressurect my army form earlier strategic erros on my part by rushing the enemy general. More so now, you must win though STRATEGIC army deployment, and STRATEGIC flanking and rearing. Guess what, if you rear a general now, he won't run. But, you still butcher him. It's his rear! The fact remains now, that you have to bring 16 units. Because you cant just rout the enemy anymore. This is true in real life. Numbers rule. Even the most honourable warrior has a back. Please not that all of this argument refers ONLY to multiplayer, and if you have a beef about campaign, eh you're probably right, in campaign it is stupid for morale to be so high when you can just retreat to a neighboring province.

MagyarKhans Cham

08-17-2001, 06:57

hmmm may isuggest that the real fun lies in a fact that someone has a better composed army to fight yours but still looses since u found a way to break him. som ein here arent suggesting that the old things were right as well but as things are now it is just plain stupid especially with higher honoured troops. I have h4 archers seeing battling to the last men when complete surrounded and attacked by hardhitters.

I would suggest it must be somewhere in between, between what we have in stw1 and what we have in stw2.

[Won-Ton] Atlus

08-17-2001, 08:31

i agree with kensen, i think the morale is fine. people still run on me (those pansy a$$ wankers...) and i dont think that anything has to be done about it. maltz, its not that big of a problem if it is one at all. so buy the game NOW!!!

Alastair

08-17-2001, 09:27

Yagyu, that may be realistic in modern warfare, but when you have untrained peasants with a spear stuck in their hand and told to FIGHT! they rout pretty easily. Same with guns and crossbows. Samurai just out of the training area (read H0) also rout pretty easily. Samurai hardened by many battles (read H5) might fight to the fifty-fifth man, (60 man units) but that's obvious and the way it was in STW. Now it is ludicrous. If you're a peasant with a spear stuck in your hand, then if you see cavalry charging at your flank, you RUN!

Lord Aeon

08-17-2001, 10:00

I am also of the opinion that nothing needs to be changed. Furthermore, i'm confused as to which tactics have now become 'useless'. What are you having trouble doing now that you could do before?

Seems to me that the game has not become less complex, but more so. IF all the old strategies are nullified (and, mind you, i'm saying *IF*), then now we're all forced to use different strategies when engaging the enemy.

Also, i can't help pointing out that if units routed more easily, there would be more of a disparity between the effectiveness of charging Mongol cavalry and sitting yari samurai. As a result there would be *more* whining about how tough MHC are. I'm of the opinion that you guys can't have it both ways.

I think it's too EASY for one to just charge cavalry and rout the entire army... I have had armies rout just as easily in the ex-pack SP campaign as i did in the original STW campaign. So i agree that it is a bit too early to make blanket changes like this. Play the game awhile first. Get used to the new setup. THEN complain.

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

Yagyu Emissary Kensen

08-17-2001, 10:12

Let me address some of the arguments put forth. Whoever said peasants with spears would rout is absolutely right. They do rout in WE, in fact Ashigaru rout around 20 men remaining. This makes sense, because they are not gonna run with over 30 men left. Why? They'll likely be killed by their general/daimyo for running dishonourably with over half their force left. I've routed ashi's constantly. Secondly, Do 0 honour troops rout? YES! I see it all the time, 15 0 honour samurai running like crazy. They're not peasants and there quite by choice. Now, someone said they were upset by the fact that their archers fought to the last man, well consider this: if you're winning the battle, and see many of your own flags still around, you may not notice the others dyign around you. At the moment you're a little concerend with slapping at that spear with your katana. Also, someone was upset because h5 troops never routed. Hmmm, Duh! Guys, think about it, h5, means you are a hardened elite force. In terms of the game, where most troops are new at h0, you are h5, and fully inact as a unit, meaning collectively, you've seen much battle, are well trained and most likely fearless. You would never run from 120 0h monks, because you are samurai, it is the way of the warrior. Furthermore, it is much preferable to the japanese non-ashi warrior to die honourably with a spear/sword to the chest, than to die dishonourably with a spear or hoof in your back. Frankly, I'm right. No matter how you look at it, the new morale makes sense. I don't care i you disagree about that though, what irks me is the notion that somehow the game has now been tactically cheapened?????? HOW????? Now you have troops who will actually hold their lines long enough for you to execute your strategies. instead of, OH LOOK< I HAD 180 MONKS IN THE TREES, rout the general. If the enemy still has 500 capable troops, they wipe tears from their eye sfor their lost general and avenge his death on the monks. Point is, dont say it doesn't require strategy. It just requires REALISTIC strategy.

DragonCat

08-17-2001, 11:04

Although I believe more research needs to be done, I find I tend to come down on the side that it is better now, even in multiplayer. I have sold my honor down in some battles, just to see them rout on me. But buying them more honor makes them fight much more tenaciously.

I also find that once enough men have been killed and enough tactical position has been gained, then units WILL break and rout.

But no longer am I seeing my whole army run early in the battle because of a domino effect of bad morale multiplying across the field.

If there is a change to be made back in the other direction, it should be a VERY subtle one- but if its either keep this or go back to the old, I will keep this.

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

Alastair

08-17-2001, 11:23

Ashigaru should rout before 20 men. They should rout after two morale penalties, i.e. fighting Samurai and getting flanked, or a height disadvantage and fighting Samurai. They don't now. In modern terms, 20 men is about the right number to rout at. In medieval (read WE) terms, 50-55 is more like it for ashigaru. Also, Lord Aeon said that if units routed more easily, then there would be more of a disparity between charging MHC and dug-in YS. HUH? How does that follow?

[This message has been edited by Alastair (edited 08-17-2001).]

Lord Aeon

08-17-2001, 13:04

LOL, i thought it was fairly simple, but let me try and explain:

Right now the reigning idea is that MHC are too tough to beat. The best unit for the money to combat them seems to be Yari samurai with upgrades, right?

Follow me so far?

Now, if i understand it correctly, a charging cavalry unit gives the defending unit a penalty for morale, causing them to be more prone to rout. Right?

OK. Now, if units begin to rout more easily, e.g. Yari Samurai would rout still having greater than 20 men, then they would be at a disadvantage to charging MHC.

If you INCREASE their (YS) susceptibility to routing, that means that charging MHC would be even MORE deadly than before, because they would be able to make samurai rout easily when the samurai could just as easily stand and fight and perhaps win.

Have i explained it clearly enough? I'm being serious, because i know it's sort of difficult to work out if you haven't thought about it. I can try to state it more clearly if i take more time. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

MagyarKhans Cham

08-17-2001, 14:21

besides the lowest kokus with units on honour 0 i didnt see any realistic routing.

even an hardened soldier will rout if surrounded by 4 times same number of hardenen soldiers

1 giant will run if he sees 4 others coming for him.

now i see h4 units fight till the death.

the thing is changed to give more -new-people a change and to stop the routing domino effect. but it would be better to keep it as it was and raise the koku amount. but the downfall for that was that most people took all monks...

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-17-2001, 14:56

I am not sure which morale setting is more realistic the original one or the new one, haven't participated in medieval samurai battles myself, just a tad before my time. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

We can guess and check out historical battles, but even history can be quite twisted about the rendering of "what really happened". So this type of debate can be quite endless not to say pointless.

So i guess it comes down to what i prefer, what i like the most.

Given the choice between the two, i like the new settings better, you may not and you are entitled to your opinion. But Here are my reasons:

-This game has always had a rock/paper/scissors factor in it (Except for the WM but this seems fixed now) and the results of battles can not be determined by anything else than mathematical formulas. So basically nothing has changed.

-Nothing pissed me off more than a battle that i was winning until one unit had a problem and routed, creating a domino effect. No fun at all. Now it will not happen if i have decent honor units. Good.

-The original settings gave a tremendous advantage to speed, the quickest "clicker" was the better player. I'm an old fart, i don't click fast. Now they do not have this tremendous advantage. I have more time to react and counter, no more one blow wins. Good for me! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

-Now i can spread out my army and really use the nice bigger maps TACTICALLY - the terrain features (woods, height) and climate features (Rain,Snow, fog). No more bland only summer/not to hilly maps for me anymore.
No more army that have to stay grouped because they will rout to easily problem. I can actually ambush, try to misdirect my opponent, set traps in my battles. Excellent! more depth, more options.

- I don't have to use only some specific types of units anymore because a good part of them we're useless in MP. The lesser impact of morale penalties, combined with the armor/weapons upgrades can make usefull ALL THE UNITS in some situations. More choices, more possibilities, more fun!

- A rear or flanking attack still gets you more kills, right? So that is a good reason to continue with those tactics. It doesn't make the whole army rout anymore because of a Domino effect? Very good, so know we have to work harder for a win.

The rules have changed and i am happy with those changes...

Swoosh So

08-17-2001, 17:41

They dont change the morale thing and im outa here thats how bad i feel about it either that or ill stick to the old foyer until they shut it down, its my belief thaat the inexperienced players will like the current morale but will get bored of the game as theres not enough tactical thought now

Swoosh

Morpheus Akechi

08-17-2001, 18:15

Guys this morale things makin me wonder if the expansion pack should be brought out in u.k at all until theres a patch or somit! I mean from what ive heard this sounds like its going to be more of an arcade game rather than a realistic battle game. True the japenese were apparantly renound for caring about honour and were supposed to of fought to the last man no matter what the odds , but it just means that the tactics are pretty much gone. Its just charge the enemy and hope u win! No more flanking in mid battle to the enemy rear to make them break. (Incase u havent read furys post shoggy x pac is out next week now!)

-Morpheus

Algesan

08-17-2001, 20:25

Yagyu, casualties in this era are traditionally lopsided with 90% of the casualties coming when one side wavered and fled. Although I'm not real sure about what is going on now with morale, sometimes units seem to be supermen and the next time superwimps. I've seen units rout for no good or apparent reason (i.e. - one on one fights against equal troops in evenly matched encounters) and I've seen one infamous YA stand under the assault of NI, ND and YC while half the unit died quickly until help could arrive.

DragonCat

08-17-2001, 21:19

In the new game, units do still rout- just not at the drop of a hat. They also don't have the ridiculous domino routing effect. Although as units rout, others will be more prone to do so, but it won't be automatic rout as before.

I think you should try it, and try it a LOT before you complain. I don't think I am a poor or newbie player and I like it a lot. And yes, you can spread your army out more to try more varied tactics. But guess what, I have still lost due to a high honor rush- although I felt I had at least a little bit of a chance to fight it out.

I say give it a month of everyone playing a lot and then let's see.

As with the MHC at first everyone was crying and wailing and gnashing their teeth that they were sooooo unfair. Now everyone seems to accept that they are good, yes, but unbeatable or grossly outbalanced, no. I think the same will be true of the suppossed morale crisis. It is far worst in its apprehension than in its reality.

That's my opinion, I could be wrong.

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

Magyar Khan

08-17-2001, 21:32

still there should be a mongol vs mongol option...

Khan7

08-18-2001, 00:24

Well, I haven't played the expansion enough yet to have a relevant opinion on this point.. my only comment is to Yagyu:

You have gotten WAYYY ahead of yourself. You are making claims and arguing with an agressiveness that you cannot possibly support with your verrrrrrrrry limited knowledge of military history and theory. This is something that I often do (despite my rather impressive knowledge of the aforementioned), so I'm just telling you this as one stubborn hothead to another. But you really frankly don't quite know exactly what you are talking about (no offense intended-- it's just a frank observation).

But I will have to explore the expansion more extensively before I can really comment on the question at hand..

------------------
Khan7

JAG

08-18-2001, 00:38

i am with swoosh and all the others who feel strongly against this. . .one of the main things which took me so long to grasp as a newbie was the morale and y suddenly i lost and all ran away. . .it is one point about the game which has given it such long life! i have been playing this game since the 1st day it was out (only bout 10 months online), and still on the odd occasion i get it wrong just with 1 unit and against a good player i am punished and lose! this is what i love. . it makes even when u r clearly winning the game tense! knowing that if u allow some1 to flank u even if it is a ashi it might be the end of the battle! i am extreamly dissapointed more so than i could put in words at this new invincibility which has been created http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif one of my main reasons for sticking with the game has gone and one of the strategies in a fight http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

------------------

Watch out for that. . . . . Dam too late!. . . the story of my life!

WarlordWarrior

Nelson

08-18-2001, 01:16

I see no problem with morale in the SP campaigns at this time. Units have been routing with regularity in my games. Granted, I haven't played every campaign but then... I've only owned the game for a week! Jesus, within days of its' release the sky begins to fall after a few guys rush to get online! "The MHC are over powered! Morale is busted! Newbies will like the changes! (A BAD thing?! Why? Because it takes 10 minutes to defeat them instead of 5?) MP will never be the same! Woe is us!"

Please, some semblance of perspective is in order here. I'll say right up front that I haven't been online with MI yet so I am willing to concede that all of the abovementioned gripes about MP are true and MAY need correcting. I believe you can take what Puzz3D says to the bank. That said, I'm just like thousands of other purchasers struggling to find time to play the game BY MYSELF. Let's not allow MP myopia to cause any rushes to judgement, especially if those judgements disregard unforeseen or uncared about effects in SP. The concensus around here on the SP side of things seems to be very positive although, again, it has only been a week. I believe that the single player campaigns are the bedrock of the game. They are not practice for the "real thing" online. They ARE the "real thing". MP is something I do with friends for a diversion. So whatever changes are contemplated, they must preserve the balance and playability of SP campaigns first and foremost. Clamoring for big changes to the game will be fruitless if SP isn't considered. Here's hoping we can somehow all get what we want. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

celtiberoijontychi

08-18-2001, 01:32

This improved morale thing is happening only in Mongol vs Japanese games or in Sengoku games too?

Does it only affect multiplayer or Single player too, and then, in both campaigns or only in the mongol campaign?

I could understand that in the mongol game morale was improved, since it is a war between nations, and it is not the same to fight against an enemy clan than to fight for the survival of your beloved country...

DragonCat

08-18-2001, 01:33

I am primarily an online player and as I said before, I don't think there is such a cataclysmic problem as people are stating.

As for online play:
Against very good players like AMP, my armies are defeated and units are routed. I don't seem to stand a chance against him and I played him five times in a row just to prove it! My men ran like little girls.

Against newbies, I defeat them and rout their units like the aforementioned little girls.

Against people in my same league we have close, tough, hard fought, tooth and nail, fingernail biting combats that go down to almost the last man. This is because we are able to counter each others attempts. THIS is where the fun is.

I truly fail to see the problem. Unless all you are really interested in is using cheesy tactics to gain an unfair and unbalanced effect for a cheap win. Sorry, but if the shoe fits, you're going to have to wear it.

The battles I've had with the new game online are FAR superior to what went on before. (although I would like to beat AMP at least ONCE!)

By the way, I have more online comp games with the new edition than anyone else (except AMP who has just now crept ahead of me), so I think I do speak with some authority.

Maggy I ABSOLUTELY agree there should be Mongol vs. Mongol. One of the things I want to do MOST OF ALL is to contest you on the field for the Title of Mongol Warlord!

I love this forum and was really happy to come back. But I am dismayed and distraught over how easily people go way overboard based on so little information.

GET A GRIP, FOLKS!

OK, rant off.

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

Swoosh So

08-18-2001, 01:51

Actally amp has had 12 compeditive losses so far about 1 in 4 i think, yes he still beats me maybe its a mindset thing and amp learns games fast ala shogun hes def top 5 and populous, but i find theres no tactical play a flank u can get but it isent really rewarded, example i defend nagashima on the temple hill the guy (not amp) has an army of shock troops not all monks a mix nag cav nodachi monks now anyone rushing me on nagashima will lose but this wasent the case he charged and because his troops all kill better i am beaten even thou i got both flanks this isent tactical play??? in the old game this rush would have been suicide and rightfully so but here its going to be a fashion, whats the point of holding troops?? we will see less tactical play with this new morale system im sure in my opinion h0 troops are now like h3-4 troops!! even better, now if u like the new morale settings u could play high honor games ie 12000-20000 and get h5-6 troops but what of the rest of us who like the 5000-6000 koku gamesand the morale factor? if morale was dropped u could still play your 20000 koku games and i my 5000-6000, so in my opinion it has to be changed even if half like it and half dont. both can be happy with the settings you your 12-20000 koku games and the ones who want morale our 1000 to 6000 games. this is the only thing i can see to make both sides of this issue happy, its unfair to sit there saying theres not a problem because u dont mind, some of us do mind and this solution would keep both happy.

Swooosh

[This message has been edited by Swoosh So (edited 08-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Swoosh So (edited 08-17-2001).]

TakeshidaSo

08-18-2001, 01:52

I agree with all the comments that suggest not panicking, in fact if you have MI you are probably not going to, because panic is prohibited. I think the Morale structure of STW operated perfectly. Most ancient battles had few casualties up until the time the army routed. The greater number of losses occured during the pursuit. All the talk about "my enormous kills", often came from killing routing troops. The pursuit portion of the battles were just as critical as skirmishing, and the initial melee. STW has the realistic feel of ancient warfare. As a tabletop miniature gamer, for many years, I can say STW battles kept my armies in their cases. It doesnt matter if the tactical battles are Online or in the SP campaigns; MI shouldnt replace the realistic Morale system of STW with a more user-friendly one, just to make it more popular. In my long online experience, people who were willing to discuss and\or learn about morale factors, became better and better tacticians. I think this learning curve has been replaced with a need only to become familiar with the units, and how to match them up. The need to understand morale, and use it to your advantage, seems to be removed in favor of a more sanitized version of war. Maybe less realism will make the game more desirable, and make it more like a lot of other games I can think of. I know this could very well be the intention, but I dont have to like it. There is always talk of how "I was winning up until...", so let me ask; if you were winning why didnt the enemy rout instead of you? I tend to think its because you let the enemy rout a portion of your army, and the rest were close enough to be effected by it, and that you need to improve your understanding of morale's effects. Charging cavalry, or any charging unit, may make the target take a morale test, but it doesnt automatically lower that targets morale. The argument that the General's death shouldnt affect tired beaten up troops, who may also see routing friends, is unrealistic. The General's influence over your very real prospects of life or death were too important to you to just smile and be happy. You get a bonus if the General is nearby, and a minus if he dies, so you dont want to be nearby if he dies. You want a game thats not realistic, because its easier for you to do unrealistic things that you think you should be able to do. What is the Morale, or Fatigue, setting for? Why did most people play below 10,000 koku per player if they really wanted this kind of simulation? Why remove that flexibility from the game structure? Most everyone played some games with high koku or Morale and Fatigue settings off, at different times, and they are fun games. They just werent the commonly accepted games. Didnt STW's system allow for more flexibility, and more realistic options? Maybe you want to use settings in a different way than others do, but how can you defend the fact that others have had the lower end options raised, when the higher end options were never that popular before?

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 08-17-2001).]

Polar

08-18-2001, 01:53

Swoosh, can't agree with you more!
The moral issue sucks the most amoung other things. Moral was what made this game better than all other RTS. We can't just charge and hope for the best like we do in other games.
I think the devlopers just reduced the moral impact to please the the crowd audiance. How often do you hear newbies shout "Why my men all ran? don't you hate that?" WOW, cool! now I can play AOE with ten thousand men chopping!
I admit the xpac is a good game, but cant we do some little things to make it better? If the moral is not fixed with a patch, I don't see how I can enjoy the game as long as I did the original one. (maybe thats what the company intended to accomplish?)
I've never played a game for this long....

------------------
Polar the ugly

Polar

08-18-2001, 02:05

And Mongol vs. Mongol too.
Why do the developers have to tell us what we can or what we can't do? They don't even play the game!
We are the ones who play the game, and all we want is the freedom of choice. If someone don't like fighting their own race, fine, pick another race. For the rest of us, give us the option please!!!

------------------
Polar the ugly

Alastair

08-18-2001, 03:37

Polar, ahehe, the devs DO play the games. If they didn't, the game would be much crappier than it is now, because the devs wouldn't have any idea if their coding came out correctly.

Polar

08-18-2001, 04:21

LOL alastar, I know what you mean. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Of course they do play the game. In fact, they have to!

But are they enjoying the game they made? Are they playing online every night? Or they only test play the game before its released as their job?

All I know is that they didnt even find the F1 bug during their "test play".... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Polar the ugly

Target

08-18-2001, 04:28

Yeah, but we found loads of other ones http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

I don't know about the other guys, but I haven't played online at all. We had in office Shogun tournament when the game first came out last year, and I was one of the first to get knocked out. Still, I was up against the guy who worked on the battlefield AI, so it came as no surprise.

Polar

08-18-2001, 05:01

UHHHHHHH! Finally, we lured our target out http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Target, can you explain the reason of reducing the moral impact in the game, and whether the developers will consider changing it with a future patch??

We are curious http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Polar the ugly

Target

08-18-2001, 06:30

Morale was one of the combat stats that was tweaked when trying to balance the Mongol units. Most of the time, normal bog-standard units like the Yari Ashis and the Arquebusiers would take one look at the mongol units and leg it.

Morale drops rapidly when soldiers see their mates dying in copious numbers around them - and killing quickly is something the Mongol units excel at. The morale was adjusted so that the Japanese would at least hang around long enough for samurai to try and stick their yaris into the enemy - fine for battling Mongols, but it makes them a little more resiliant to the old units. We thought we'd hit a happy medium, but it looks like we might have been wrong.

Yeah, Polar, of course we'll consider changing it for a future patch if that's what the community wants, but the argument still seems to be raging on at the moment, and Europe still haven't got their hands on the XP yet.

MagyarKhans Cham

08-18-2001, 07:35

my targetting mate
feel free to email my Khan Target he will bring u a nice message...

btw we should combine quotes

------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]

Polar

08-18-2001, 08:01

Target, thx for the response, at least theres still hope http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

I think most vets played the game so far think the moral is a bit too high. Maybe somewhere in between the current one and the original will be optimal.

My suggestion is to give japanese units a moral bonus when they are facing mongol army. Because, they are fighting to protect their homeland, women, and children. Unlike in sengoku period, where they are fighting civil war for landlords.

Khan7

08-18-2001, 08:05

Here is another example of the new morale engine (originally posted in another thread):

>>So, all that said, back to the immediate topic: with the new system, you can have an honor 2 YS unit, ALONE, charge thunderbombers.. all but 7 guys get blown to bits.. those remaining seven are countercharged by a unit of ordinary Korean Spearmen.. the YS fights like mad to the very last man.. then the next YS comes up.. gets knocked down to 36 due to thunderbombs.. and fights like mad to the very last man..

Analysis: aside from the fact that thunderbombs are going to be wet-your-pants-all-through freeky for medieval Japanese troops who haven't been trained to go up against such things, and aside from the fact that just about anyone (even a well trained modern soldier) is going to utterly lose their will to fight if their unit takes 90% casualties in the first few moments of combat-- the plain fact is that IF a close-order melee unit were all alone and got THAT badly torn up by explosives so quickly, the survivors would be too disoriented and disorganized to go on fighting even if they really truly wanted to.

TakeshidaSo

08-18-2001, 08:11

I agree that the game needs to be studied world wide and enough feedback gathered before any adjustments are made. Couldnt the morale modifiers for heavy rapid losses be adjusted instead of the whole system? Since everyone is reporting a pretty easy time with the Mongols even after the attempt to strengthen the Japanese units, maybe some of the Mongols abilities to kill so rapidly is over-inflated. This fellow you mentioned who worked on the battlefield AI, where has he gone? Whether or not units with low honor and low morale fight to the death, and whether or not units ever rout with enough men left to rally again, are MP and SP issues. Online head to head play is the real test of whether or not the tactical engine is still functioning in a realistic way. What happens with higher koku valued armies, or when the armies are strengthened with Morale or Fatigue settings?

Swoosh So

08-18-2001, 08:36

Target i can understand what you are saying about the jap v mongol units but isent that what high koku is for? at the moment we have no choice its super units or old shogun, if it was set back the players playing v mongols could choose higher koku games and the jap v jap we could lower the koku is 5-6k the most popular online choice at the moment we are forced to play low koku games to get anywhere near the right morale effect and this means we cant use the weapon/armor upgrades and we cant have any 'crack units' unless we sacrafice not having the full 16, when all that needs to be done is for the people that want to face the mongols to play high koku games and people who want proper morale included in the games can play the normal 5-6k games.

Swoosh

ps. i really hope u guys can fix this i really like the new cmapaign single player but the online game just isent playable for me in the current state.

Trousermonkey

08-18-2001, 08:47

Though now I can only lend weight to the previous arguments, I agree that the moral change has reduced the fun of the game.
Charging into an opponents flank or quickly crushing the AI's ashigaru general to tip the scales enough to force a rout was the best part of the game. Even though I've only played the game for a week now I've noticed that many of these tricks no longer work and in most cases soldiers fight to the end when they should have routed. I'm not as concerned about obvious errors like the rout bug and the F1 key but gameplay issues like changing the moral system should be taken very seriously.
I will reserve my final opinion for when I've played the game more thoroughly but my gut feeling is that I won't change my mind.

DragonCat

08-18-2001, 11:14

I must respectfully disagree. I played several games today that turned on the morale issue.

I agree that the morale should be tweaked, but not much at all.

Lets say old morale sits at 1 on the scale and new morale sits at 10. Then slide it back to about 7.5 and it will be about right. Maybe 8. Certainly not to 5 or lower!

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

JAG

08-18-2001, 14:29

swoosh polar i agree with u guys 100%! plus target thnx for posting it is appreciated by all i think! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------

Watch out for that. . . . . Dam too late!. . . the story of my life!

WarlordWarrior

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-18-2001, 16:27

Dragon cat, i'm getting the same feeling as you ("I truly fail to see the problem. Unless all you are really interested in is using cheesy tactics to gain an unfair and unbalanced effect for a cheap win. Sorry, but if the shoe fits, you're going to have to wear it").

In my view , the outcry about morale changes are much more motivated by loosing an advantage on the battlefield that you worked hard for in the original game, than anything else.

Yes you worked hard to understand and refine your use of the games specific settings/mechanics and now they changed the rules and that pisses you off. That i can
understand.

BUT Less tactics in MI? No way, actually you can use much more like i stated in an earlier post in this thread. I mean, what tactics exactly can't we use anymore?

Less Reality in MI? if reality is such an important issue, why bother with Mongols attacking the japanese at all? It never happened! Why not complain as loud about the speed that units are moving now in MI? We all used the gun shooting through friendly units bug didn't we? How realist was that? Most of us deemed camping on a high hill as unhonorable, unfair, disdaining those "campers". But in a real battle, if you are defending using a high hill and other terrain features make sense , no? So defenders should always camp. Most of us want a mongol vs mongol mode, but is this historically accurate? How about the unit composition of our MP armies? Do they really represent what happened historically? Should't they be always almost all ashis? Don't forget the use of the red zone? Ok i will stop now. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Swoosh So

08-18-2001, 17:36

Kuma i find that reply dissapointing most of us here are capable players not looking for some cheesy advantage, actually i win alot with the new morale but thats not the issue the issue is some like the new morale some dont, but we who dont like it have absolutely no choice at the moment but to grin and bear it lowering the morale gives both sets of players the OPTION if you like the high morale theres no problem if its changed play high koku games! thats why the option for so much koku is there but we who like the lower morale games arent catered for its 900 takeda shingens or nothing, reducing the morale gives all the players the CHOICE of how they wish to play the game that is all may not seem alot to u, but it means alot to us, the option of playing either way SHOULD be there and currently its not.

Swoosh of grey wolves

MagyarKhans Cham

08-18-2001, 18:00

swoosh is right, we always had teh default koku value on 5000 koku and imo it was always not enough to have a good battle. lees than 5000were more and more unitgambles. i think around 10000 would be the best option, but sadly 10000 koku allowed the newbies who just visit online some days and move on to a next game, to buy 16 monks and gogogogo. and they even get some wins.

i sugegsted ages ago to have the option to set the def and att koku on a different amount. so u can play an hilly map 9000 vs 6000 koku or whatever

------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-18-2001, 18:24

Originally posted by Swoosh So:
"Kuma i find that reply dissapointing"

Yeah, i find it disapointing to, sorry http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
and i know that most of you guys are capable players who are honorable and friendly.

If you tell me that you don't like it the way it is now, you prefer the morale settings of the original, i have nothing to say about that.

I just can't buy into the "reality" or the "no more tactics" argumentation for changing these settings back.

As for no more option to play games we're morale are the most important factor, can you not play low koku games with all H0 honor units?

MagyarKhans Cham

08-18-2001, 18:29

yes kuma that is possible, but we cant lower it to -1 or -2 and thats the whole point.

let h2 be the standard as we had and for those who want to have a long standing samurai take battles of 20000 koku or more

imo there was a reason that people just ttok 4000-7000 koku as average. they want to make the enemy rout and chase him down.

TakeshidaSo

08-18-2001, 21:50

The facts of historical battles prove that it was not "realistic" for armies to suffer this many casualties, or ignore this many negative morale modifiers, before units began to rout. If you cant buy the "realism" argument, why not? Sure sometimes armies suffered high casualties and little was left to pursue, but that was rarely the case. In most of those cases, that I can recall, there were no other negative morale modifiers to be considered. The reason given for adjusting the Morale setting was that the Mongols caused too many casualties too quickly, so that the modifiers for sudden heavy losses routed the Japs too easy. Maybe that isnt "realistic". Maybe that one modifier should be adjusted. Maybe the "realism" of bombers and skirmishers isnt properly calculated. The destructive potential of Javelins is overblown I think, but Mongol costs and damage were decided because of SP game balance I believe. When the Mongols appeared to be too powerful, which many think is still the case, they bumped the morale system up. This wasnt based on "realism" I dont think. The "cheesy tactics" you refer to are what? You keep asking what they are, but define them as cheesy anyway? What are the new tactics that are now allowed to you? If you think units who are less effective, when they lose formation or become disorded, wouldnt rout when they are also flanked and suffering, tell us why not? It seems cheesy to me to be able to now do things that are against all the commonly accepted principles of Generalship. There's a list of suggested tactics, and there's also a list of tactics that should be avoided. To be able to use tactics that are often preached against, means that the attempt to simulate ancient warfare fell short.

Kraellin

08-19-2001, 00:26

i tend to agree with the folks that like the new system of morale over the old. the 'cheesy' tactic referred to is very simple; one flanking unit could rout an entire army...and that IS cheesy.

the funniest thing, though, about this whole discussion, is that NOTHING has really changed, at least not in results of who wins and who loses. the good players still mostly win and the weaker players still mostly lose. the ONLY thing that is changed about that is how long it takes for the good player to do it and trust me, the time is negligible. and if you stop and think about it you'll see why. ALL units had their morale raised EXACTLY the same amount. so, the only thing that affects in actual game play is WHEN a unit routs, not IF a unit routs. the tactics that worked in stw still work in xpack. if this is 'historic' or not is almost moot, because we established long ago that online play is NOT historic...dead arguement here.

the other major factor to all this is a point that someone mentioned earlier in this thread but has been almost entirely ignored in the rest of the thread. online play accounts for less that 1% of sales. you think i'm kidding? railroad tycoon ii sold over 500,000 copies! over 500,000! and is still selling. i played that game almost every day online for over a year and from almost the first day it came out. we almost never had more than about 20 or 30 folks online at any given time. now, granted we all come online at different times and from different times zones and so on, but even if you multiply that by 10, or even 20 to account for this time difference, it still only adds up to less than 1% of the sales worldwide. so online play is NOT the heart of the game. we here at the forum are online, so guess what, we're in that 1%.

now, another factor that hasnt even been mentioned yet, surprises me. there is more than one game style now! how many of you have played the king on the hill style so far? can you imagine playing this with the way the morale worked on stw? i dont think it would work at all. no one would ever re-capture the hill cause your units would rout before even getting close to the combat zone! play it and tell me i'm wrong.

frankly, i'm quite happy to see the 'entire army routing at the drop of a hat' thing gone. and i'd hate to see it re-instated. and i'm like dragoncat here about lowering the morale a subtle amount to test it out. going back to the stw mode just wont work in the new game unless you also do an entire replaytesting of the game and re-balancing of the units.

and as for the arguement of why dont those that like the higher morale simply play higher koku games...you've got to be kidding. i mean, come on, everybody here knows that high koku games were taboo, pariahs, and totally shunned by the main community. playing even a 7k koku game was looked upon as 'you newbie!'. so dont even bother with that arguement either. and of course there's also the very valid arguement about the monks, which others have already raised.

so, i dont really understand all this forlorn cry about morale being bad now. the good players are still good and still win. the mediocre still win some/lose some and the bad still mostly lose. the relative morale hasnt changed one iota. the domino effect is mostly gone, and the rout bug whereas still present has at least been somewhat lessened (i think).

the only valid arguement i can see is the one swoosh makes about wanting the range of morale back and even that one seems a bit moot to me given that all units were morale affected and thus simply rout later in the battle than sooner. if she wants it back to get the old domino effect then i dont agree at all.

bear in mind also that we can now change honor of ALL units ourselves and i dont mean by buying it or subtracting it with koku. i mean by altering the stat files. those are now available to us and the obvious thing here isnt to continue debating what shld be or shldnt be....let's just go change it the way we want it and let ca know this is what we think and then let them set that as the default in a patch. further debate is somewhat pointless in light of this ability. change the freakin stats ourselves and then let's debate THAT! ;)

K.

------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

MagyarKhans Cham

08-19-2001, 01:09

i have a nice troopstatfileeditor for u guys, and i am evemn updating my logfilereader now, the 2 basic tools for testing.

krae u agree with swoosh, so do i. but if u like it that the units dont rout that quickly why did u hardly play games over 10000 koku, from 20000 koku all units stand firm much longer.

i played all kokus and joined people hosting high koku games, just for the fun of it. the gameexperience i felt in those games is almost the same as in SP WE.

but ifw e can use the editor and all online diehards come up with (preferably) 1 or more defeault settings than it is ok by me, esp when there is nothing changed in the code about morale.

Roman Totale XVII

08-19-2001, 02:17

Must agree with most of TakeshidaSo's points but that's probably coz he's a mini gamer like me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

There are many rule sets out there that incorporate huge amounts of historical research in order to simulate a good semblance of believable outcomes. This doesn't mean players have to get bogged down with historical accuracy - it just means there is a convincing 'internal logic' to events.

Morale always forms a major factor of any decent rule set. To take examples from one well known set; unit morale can be enhanced by the nearby presence of a respected general or a special standard or seeing an enemy unit run for it closeby.

Morale can progressively downgrade when unbroken enemy units are seen close behind a flank; when particularly unnerving enemy units are close-by (eg bombers or high quality vs low quality); when unit is 'out on its own'; or a close friendly unit is routed; or if a unit in melee receives more casualties than it inflicts in a round of h2h.

Morale will take a big hit when 4% casualties are suffered in a single volley when under enemy fire for the first time; when twice as many are killed in h2h than are inflicted; or when infantry are charged by cav and they are not in all-round defence formation. Or when ambushed from cover; or a nearby general is disabled or routed. Or if attacked whilst fatigued; or an army standard is captured.

Units taking 50% casualties and standing are rare - usually far less but it all depends on circumstances. I can perhaps see a case for a 'defending the homeland' bonus to samurai against the Mongols ('we'll fight them on the beaches...'). The 'domino effect' of units routing was also very real. The death of a commander in full view of his troops always had a devastating effect.

Sorry, KumaRatta, didn't quite understand what you meant by; 'Why bother with Mongols attacking the Japanese at all? It never happened.'; Hmmm. What about the history books that say the Yuan Mongols of Kublai Khan attacked Japan in 1274 and 1281? And, yes, Mongol tribes did actually fight against eachother...

Swoosh So

08-19-2001, 02:35

So when all is said and done krae u would rather have us not have the morale feature we want at the risk of u being looked upon as a newbie for playing high koku games? come on... I dont doubt u like the way it is now but any reasonable person will see theres room for both in 99999 koku, i find it quite bad that because some players find the new morale fine they would argue for us not to have the choice to play the way we like comon krae its a new game would u really be embarrased to play 20000 koku????? at the end of the day thats what your playing right now just with the new morale setup

swoosh

Swoosh So

08-19-2001, 02:48

Also as magyar said ask yourself why in 1 year of shogun being out did 5-6k become the standard which by everyone who had played for some time used.

Krae u might not like low morale in games but if its changed noone forces u to play 5000-6000 koku games werent all tournaments by all the clans and the dread league run at this value?

Almost every victory ive had in the exp pack has been a dull game no satisfaction of winning for me, the only games where ive had satisfaction are the low koku ones, infact its so poor that when i see the opposing army i know instantly if im going to win or lose, about 30 games 2 losses should have been fun was boring.........

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-19-2001, 03:21

Takeshidaso: My point is , what reality? There has never been any reality in the original game in MP. The closest we got was those historical battles in SP. So no reality then and no reality now, no difference.

Swoosh So; So you agree then with Kraellin saying that nothing has changed, the better players still win and the weaker still loose. The problem is that you do not like the new morale settings.

Polar

08-19-2001, 03:58

Hmmm, swoosh got the point, 5000 koku did not become standard by accident.....

Right, units were too easy to route in the old system, it also piss me off sometimes when I see all my female ashigaru (sorry swoosh http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif) decide to take off. Its a good thing to adjust the moral. But moral in the new system is a bit too high.

In old system, I have to constantly check the moral status of my units, I have to move my units arround very carefully, and I can setup a trap to route a monk rusher.

In the new system, I can leave a single unit out in front without having to worry about it, I can set my missile units far ahead of my melee to avoid wild shots, I can send cheap low honor units well behind enemy line knowning they wont route, I can leave my gen in a dangerous area without the fear of causing my whole army to route. I find this not fun and not chanllenging at all.

You can disagree with me. I understand some people like the new system. You have every right to do so, but please, please, please, give the rest of us a option!

The fact is there is a lot of room above 5000 koku and honor 2, but so little below them. We can play low koku games such as 2000 koku, but then every unit has to be honor 0, there is no room to adjust the honor, weapon, and armor to fit our tactics. For example, with 5000 koku, I can have low honor missiles and high honor melee if I want to charge, or I can have high honor missile and low honor melee if I want to shoot, but with 2000 koku there is no choice.

So, I beg you, please, grant us who perfer the old system a chance to have a fun game! I hope no one is cruel enough to say that we can't even play a fun game. I wont call you newbies if you like to play 20000 koku games, I promise! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Polar the ugly

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 08-18-2001).]

Swoosh So

08-19-2001, 04:40

Kuma alot has changed because of the morale settings as polar says, but yes of course exp players beat newbies we can group move as a group, march like an army of crabs, we understand the units, we understand the terrain, geez i can even make my men dance hehe.

Swoosh SO

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-19-2001, 04:43

POLAR: Now this a valid argument for me...So if you are not having fun, you are right of course. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Please forgive me, i am a left wing bastard, it's my genes and cultural background. I can't resist but defend an opposite point of view than anything that sounds to elitist (WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU DON'T , SO SILENCE http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif)

I do understand that your Fun factor in MP has gone down. That for me is the only valid argument but it is very important for me. FUN FOR ALLLLLLL!!!

But before any tweaking is done, serious testing must be done thoroughly. No sense in balancing MP for one group and unbalancing it in SP and MP for another group, right?

Compromise?

I fully agree with that dumb guy Einstein "Everything is relative"

[This message has been edited by KumaRatta Yamamoto (edited 08-18-2001).]

MagyarKhans Cham

08-19-2001, 05:27

my Khan is happy to see all good statements in here.

morale just have to be changed back somehow. but the realeease of the game in europe will make more clear on that point

kuma, i think i make u happy when i say that a dedicated large group is spending a lot of energy to get a grip of the stats and possible future changes.

Polar

08-19-2001, 06:10

HEHE Kuma, you french communist http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Now we can share some understanding http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

You are right that it must be thoroughly balanced and tested if any change will ne made. I'm not pushing for a immediate change. I'm only persuing the developers to seriously consider the need for changing. I'm afraid if there is too many praises for the new system, the devs wont even think about it. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

Battles on all koku levels are fun to play. My best kills record was made in a high koku game. My least kills record was made in 1000 koku game when I routed the enemy with only 27 kills. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif I also enjoy the all cav game I played with 99999 koku. They are all fun to play. But different people have different preferences. Most of my games were played in 5k -6k games. I personally perfer 6000 koku. But since I cant host, I have to use whatever the host gives me. Now with the new game, the choice for some of us are really gone.

I dont think players are judged on how many koku they like to play. Like Magy perfers 8000 koku, but who thinks any less of him? Kurando loves 1000 koku, does it mean he's better than most others? Its true that most players new to the game like 20000+ games. And they can easily find other new players to play with them. No one ever blamed them, they have the right to choose. Now, we only want our right to choose, coz we dont even have a choice with the new system. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Polar the ugly

Koga No Goshi

08-19-2001, 06:32

Call me a newbie, a bad player, whatever.

Chain routing as a primary tactic was totally cheap and cheesy. Playing games of under 6k because all you needed to do was place your guns and shock troops correctly and you could get your whole enemy army to run with sometimes less than 100 kills was cheap, cheesy, and not fun unless you were someone who knew very well how to abuse it. Yes, abuse. I didn't like this aspect of the game, and never felt good about beating an opponent if I only did it because routing one unit routed his whole army. It felt cheap and without value to me. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree. The victories I felt truly proud of were the ones that were neck and neck to the very last minute. Many people who've spoken so far have said the same thing, yet are complaining at the same time that it's not as easy to chainrout their enemies anymore. That strikes me as cheap. Also, morale was so bad in the original that you could pretty much forget about rallying. It never worked for me on any serious level, though I saw a few people who pulled it off, I have no idea how they did it because mine would jsut continue running. (Even if the enemy had long ago broken off pursuit to concentrate on my ally or whatever).

Honestly once more people have the xpack and play on the xpack foyer, I plan to play only there (well, sometimes I might miss the old units and lack of kensai and go back to the original) because of morale. Yes, maybe that strikes people who learned to win primarily through chainrout tactics as newbie-ish but it has nothing to do with "easier wins" to me for lack of skill. It has to do with more gameplay and a bigger variety of tactics than just trying to chainrout my enemy.

------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Nandai"
Since time began
the dead alone know peace.
Life is but melting snow.

Polar

08-19-2001, 06:48

Hmmmm Koga....can't people live with different opinions?

You can play your way and I can play my way, but do we have to call someone cheap win??

Katsuchiyo

08-19-2001, 06:58

Thanks for the response Target. Good to hear an explanation for the change for morale. My vote is for changing it back to much closer to the original morale setting. If men are fighting til only one or two left then your dont have to worry about the moral of your men and morale isnt a factor in your battle tactics. Without morale the battle is less tactical. Its that simple. There just needs to be some sort of compromise between the two opinions.

DragonCat

08-19-2001, 08:54

I'm glad to see that it seems no one wants to go back to the total insanity of the previous morale. Some adjustment, a little adjustment at the most sounds right- which has been my position for days.

Also, if you want to play low koku games, you can. If you sell your honor down for 16 units, can you beat someone who doesn't and keeps his fewer units at honor 2. Have you tried this? If the fewer units can win, then doesn't that prove that morale is just fine? I think its time we had some tests.

And I totally agree, I quit playing the original game when it became a rout fest. My highest rank was 49 in the old game, so i consider myself to be a decent player. And I didn't have fun on EITHER side of the rout fest. Just didn't seem like a contest.

I am having better battles NOW all the time. I like to play in the 4000 to 8000 koku range. I don't like the high koku. I want to be in the range where you can't have everything, you have to make some choices. And I have to tell you, I am very happy with the way it plays now.

Anyways, once we get a larger base of online players and some decent testing that takes into account ALL the options, not just some vocal minorities, then I am willing to join the consensus to get things set up so they are best for everyone.

Till then, you can change my morale once you pry my cold dead fingers off of it ;-)

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

MagyarKhans Cham

08-19-2001, 09:34

lol dragon it is nice to see how the xpack blinded u. a sharp man like u should notice that most people want to change it back or at least in between somewhere.

if a 3500 koku in XP "feels" like a 7000 koku in old game, and u like a 6000 koku in XP that u had to play 10000 koku or more in the old game.

the rout fest is most of teh times happening in the low kokus, like 1000 to 2000 koku, where people try to buy 16 units.

many players avoided the 10000+ koku since the enemy could easily bring up a -monkey- rush army. the balance between good gameplay and a nice army with several options (16 units, some h0 some h5 units) in koku was between 5000 and 10000 koku.

the problem with the new morale setting stays for me that a 3500 koku army give a good "routing possibilty" feeling, but it lacks many other things. u cant lower morale further for some units to save koku for others. Keeping teh things as it was just gave more options. i hope i am wrong, i only tried costum battles so far....

btw i finished the troopstateditor for those who like to do the testing...

Yagyu Emissary Kensen

08-19-2001, 10:36

I have read many convincing, articulate and well thought out arguments, and I STILL stand by my point, and agree with DragonCat and KummaRatta. I claim no vast knowledge of feudal Japanese warfare. You're probably right, people probly saw 20 men died, ran like pussies and were cut down in a most honourable fashion. But what fun is that???? I need to address a few things. First, Swoosh i think it was, yes Mortog has lost 12. At leas 3 of those were games he through, and a 4th was against me, yagyuONI and HeroofJapan, and his partners were weak at best. Technically he has 6-8 REAL losses. I agree with KummaRatta, you're all mad because now you actually have to stand and fight, and have tension and can't just slaughter people, who have half an army left. If you wanna go table top game, go play warhammer, and have ur entire army rout when u fail your morale check. Let me say it this way, IT IS A GAME! People are supposed to have fun. A few things are now different. In the old STW, once I got trained I was like honour 95....10-17. Now I'm something like 23-13..honour 116. Granted I've learned, but it also means I'm finally able to use my armies and have thrilling exciting battles. You like the old system because it let your gorge your honour on newbies, who were then forced into the clan system to learn. But this is an interesting point, because newbies still have to be trained to be any good, that's why the current number 1 is a person who's only been playing a week and a half. Why? Because Oni was impeccably and rigorously trained, and because oni plays a lot, AND, because oni gets to beat the shit out of untrained newbies.

With regard to the supposed lack of tactics...i may be an unknowledgeable peoon hothead, but please, spare me. I've never rushed my troops LESS, than in WE. Let's not confuse what flank means, if you hit an unengaged unit from the side, NOT a flank. If you disagree, stand up from your computer, back away from your monitor. NOW, gturn sideways as fast as you can. There, that's how u stop a flank when unengaged. if you flank an engaged unit, or rear them, it's been my experience that u cut through them like butter with a hot knife. Aniother scenario..you flank an engaged unit, I then hit u with my reserves, YOU are now flanked. Just as bad as the unit you initially hit. i wont enter into a debate about the games historical inaccuracies, I'm not knowledgeablwe enough. But is it more fun for EVERYONE? yes. Does it make more sense, not historically, but logistically...yea. Point made...if anyone disagrees with the new strategies, come play. I'll abstain from any strategy you want, rushes, rearing, flanking..ANYTHING. If you win, you'll have proven your point. If you lose, then I fear I'm right. But the point is i spose that we're all right because it's really just a preference. I love the new system, but would be willing to accept a slightly modified morale system. Just to shut everyone up.

UglyElmo

08-19-2001, 11:16

First to Koga, you can sometimes stop some of your army from routing by selecting all and then selecting the rally button at top of screen. Hit is several times until it goes away. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

My biggest dissappointment with the add-on is: No mongol vs. mongol matches. Historical accuracy in single player is fine, but in multiplayer it is unneccesary. Since there is a perceived imbalance between Mongol vs. Japanese armies in multiplayer, the easiest fix would be to allow for everyone to choose the same army as their opponent. The morale issue is personal choice. I enjoyed the old game and will learn to adjust to the new game, but the usefulness of flanking has really been eliminated in the new game, whereas in the older game it held too much importance. If there could be a nice medium here, I feel that the game would be perfect. The problem with flanking being reduced in importance may be seen by a few of the matches in the new game. I have played matches, where my opponent just grouped all of his men together and charged as a group, all bunched up and no formation, just one big mob. I would spread out my army with support on each units flank and surround the enemy army as it approached. The enemy army stays around just as long as the one that is organized and has the morale boosting protection of units covering each flank. I am an old wargamer and also an old fan of Sid Meier's Gettysburg and the covering of one's flank is considered to be very vital to one's success on the battlefield. The current version of Shogun Warlord seems to have eliminated this very important item. Maybe the issue of routing is not the problem, maybe it should be that armies who do not have support on their flanks should lose men more quickly thus attaining that magic number of 10 or so before routing. I will play more and once the game is released in Europe we can have a proper discussion. But we SHOULD continue this discussion and find a proper way to handle everyone's concerns, so that each of us may enjoy the game as he/she likes it best. PS. For a proper perspective on the use of morale and routing, one should play the original version of Sid Meier's Gettysburg. This game, in my opinion, portrayed morale in a manner that was realistic and challenging.

TakeshidaSo

08-19-2001, 13:47

I would never have imagined this subject would come up as a discussion. I could never have dreamed that there would be this radical of an alteration to the heart of the game. I saw STW as a game that proved the developers understood ancient warfare, and how best to simulate it. That's the realism I'm talking about. The historical accuracy was in recreating the feel of real ancient armies, how they behaved and could be used. It seemed to compete very favorably with the best attempt so far to simulate it, the WRG miniature rules. It provided a wide range of possibilities for altering the simulation, with smaller weaker armies as well as an entire army of gods. The fact that online gamers have no clout because they are a tiny majority misses the point that they understood the tactical engine better than anyone else. Whatever options you wanted, to make it better for you, were available. The fact that you think routers having a negative influence on other friendly units is cheesy, because it spread army wide panic, is bigoted. To couch things in negative phraseology has only one purpose; to defame without any substantive point to make. The domino effect of routing was from accumulative negative modifiers, but are you saying the people who play the game online all the time have been fooled into thinking that the morale modifiers werent a good attempt at simulation? Didnt they have the options that would have let them "improve" it before? Or are you saying that you prefer not having to deal with the potential of your army to rout? You can say you dont want units to react accurately to negative morale modifiers if you want to. You can argue tactics or negatively describe other parts of STW. You can say that battles should be more often at higher koku, or with Morale turned off. You can say the bad players still lose. You can say the new units require a more arcade like game to function. You should really stop saying STW's morale system was cheesy, and that good players just want to maintain some advantage that they only had because of a poor game design. They will maintain their advantage in spite of one. This fact isnt gonna be helpful to the question being raised. Everyone played 4-7000 koku games because it meant you didnt have to field too many very low honor units, and couldnt have too many very strong ones. I always had to conduct a good pursuit of my enemy if I didnt want to fight him some more and have my pursuers routed, and I rallied and reorganized to win battles many times. Thats gone? My army fought, it didnt panic in ridiculous ways unless it got beaten or I made mistakes with it. I thoroughly enjoy STW because it reflects a game design I was already familiar with; ancient warfare in 3D, with realistic morale effects, and a proper understanding of the time and space needed to apply them. The statistical analysis of various armor, weapons, terrain, and Historical atmosphere also seemed to be not too unrealistic. I had all along hoped that many other armies from the same time period would someday be able to be included into this highly flexible game system. Instead, the flexibility has been removed, and the additional units have many restraints upon their use. Why wouldnt anyone ask how raising the minimum morale of this system might negatively effect it?

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 08-19-2001).]

Algesan

08-19-2001, 14:12

Yagyu gave me a thought. I am mixing eras somewhat, but still staying Napoleonic or earlier, and definitely not an Oriental milieu for combat. Most of the simulations (boardgames) most definitely did _not_ result in the mass routs I've seen in STW where the army uncoils from the intitial rout as units of similar qualitys (all Ashis, YS/SA, ND/WM/Cav) into a mass of fleeing men to be simply skewered as they ran. There were always "normal" units along the line that made the morale check, sucked it up and stood like rocks, stopping the mass routs and forcing my opponent to continue the assault, albeit at a distinct advantage. My reserves could be commited into the gap left by the units that did flee and when the routed units rallied, they could come back up.

The possiblility did exist for a mass rout as well as a mass stand, but it wasn't likely to occur and is not the near certainty it is in STW in a large scale meeting of battle lines. Most definitely you wouldn't have to sacrifice the routing portions to keep your fresh shock troops that are just "out of range" of the mass rout effect from routing. A more normal procedure would be to commit the shock troops (or cav) to a flank assault to disarray the enemy and buy time for your routing units to rally or escape off the field of battle. Instead, you sit and watch, maybe running some units out of the path of the train, while a battered unit or two of the enemy pursues half your army out of play and hope you can reform and steady your remaining troops down enough to continue the battle.

Kraellin

08-19-2001, 16:42

well, i've been fascinated by this discussion and i'm going to have to relent in one regard. swoosh, you are absolutely right about wanting options. i've argued for options for almost my entire stay on this forum and i forgot that others also want options which may not be the options i want, but fair is fair...so hang in there for a sec and keep reading. i'll get back to this ;)

one thing about the various arguements still bothers me a bit. and i'll pose this as a question, rather than a statement. the folks in favor of going back to the stw system want to see the enemy rout more whereas the folks that like the new system like to see the units die more, so, is there any real major difference here between having 50 men rout and 50 men dead? or 1000 men rout and 1000 men die? i mean, is there really a large difference in the overall outcome between the two versions of the game or is just that in one the enemy is routed where in the other the enemy is dead? i mean this seriously. is there really any difference in the overall outcome between the two and has anyone seriously tested this?

ok, that said, i may have something of a solution for everyone and it's so bloody simple that i'm a little surprised i didnt think of it before...specially since someone almost suggested it themselves. and here's what i was talking about, swoosh ;) why not simply allow for a negative value in the honor stat of units when you are buying them in multiplayer? someone in an earlier thread touched on this that they couldnt do this, but didnt mention this as a possible solution for everyone's tastes. think about it for a sec, if the honor of all units has been raised by 8-12 points as yuuki suspects, then why not simply allow players to adjust that stat back down by allowing negative values in honor stats? the obvious reply is going to be what do you then do with koku when a stat goes below 0? and the other reply is going to be why not just drop the stats back to stw values, but Target has already replied to that one. as for the koku, hell if i know...adjust it, leave it the same when it goes below 0?

we've all been talking about 'problems'. let's jump into solution mode here for a bit. there is an obvious division here between tastes in game play. we've established that and good arguements presented for both sides, so what's the solution which also takes into account what Target said and also taking into account single player custom and campaigns?

Target says they had to bump up morale because of the mongols. ok, so that somewhat eliminates going back to the old system, so how do we accomodate those that prefer to play more in the style of stw and still accomodate those that like the new system? we've established the problem. let's hear some solutions which take into account the givens and realities of the situation.

my solutions so far amount to two things, editing stats by ourselves and having the dev guys allow for negative values to honor. someone also mentioned something about the general and rallying. so, let's go. Take, you are obviously an intelligent person. it shows in your posts. and i already know magy and swoosh are, as are kuma and dragoncat and many others here. so regardless of what side of the fence you are on in the matter, what's the solution or solutions to make this a good game for all?

this has been a good debate on the PROBLEM and i applaud us for keeping it relatively flame/blame/name-calling free! so, in that same spirit of open debate, what's the SOLUTION?

can we simply move the honor points back to the way it was or will that screw something else up, especially with the mongols? do we want a compromise of lowering them partially? do we want to edit the stats ourselves now that we can and run more tests for balancing everything? does michael jordan really wear Hanes underwear? (just checking to see if yer still awake)

ok, anything more from me here and i'll just be repeating myself even more than normal, so, back to you guys :)

K.

------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

Swoosh So

08-19-2001, 19:49

I dont see editing stats ourselves as an option as it will split an already very small community, having honor -2 i cant see happening. There must be some other solution......

Swoosh

[This message has been edited by Swoosh So (edited 08-19-2001).]

MagyarKhans Cham

08-19-2001, 21:44

yep sids gettysburg was brilliant

DragonCat

08-19-2001, 21:48

I'm already on record for having a SMALL adjustment.

Interesting observations. I was in a multiplayer last night. 3x3- 60 man units. One of the newbie generals charged his h2 Yari Sams TAISHO unit out front. We had about four or five archer units then demonstrate what "pincushioning" is all about. At 19 men, the Taisho unit BROKE and ran. Hmmmmmm. . . . seems about right.

He was not pursued and rallied soon after he was safe behind his own lines. Hmmmmm. . . still seems about right.

So, if an adjustment needs to be made, (and I think fair debate has shown that maybe that is so to enlarge our options), then it does appear that the adjustment needed is very small.

Personally, I am happy as it is, but in the interest of the greater good, I would not object to such a small change.

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-19-2001, 22:52

Kraellin is on the right track , let's look for a balanced solution.

I think that this issue is personnal preference, it is not right or wrong, it is not a bug (in fact most of my nagging was to try to get this idea through).

Played some MP games yesterday, and for me the lagging (i tried another 3 vs 3, dumb me)gets much more on my nerves than anything else.

Yes, i saw the difference that the changed settings made. I saw routing at 7, 9, 14 units. But i also saw routing at 21, 27, 32 units, it was later in the battle, when the troops where tired. I also saw the domino effect of the rest of an whole army rout but that was when the fatigue showed exausted.

Yes flanking has less impact routing wise, but it still kills more.

So my conclusion is, Yes Target the morale issue needs to be solved but only for a part of the community (granted a very vibrant and active part on MP) but let's take our time on this, and try to find a solution that will satisfy both sides. Because a lot of us don't want to roll back and go to the original settings also.

So a lot of serious testing and prudence please.

Yagyu Emissary Kensen

08-20-2001, 03:06

Wow, even though I'm not technically allowed to acknowledge it, takeshida so makes a good point. It was verbose, and a tad overdone in terms of vernacular and diction, but a good point all the same. The good players still win. I win using the same tactics that made me lose over and over in STW, those tactics i watched great players employ. I PREFER the new way, because i dont enjoy losing a hard earned position because someone routed, but, they're gonna die either way. I guess....i just think this is more fun.

Polar

08-20-2001, 04:45

Maybe change the moral back and set the default koku to 10k or 20k and default honor 4 or 5?
So people who like the new system still play with the default setting, and leaves people who dont like it more room to lower it...

------------------
Polar the ugly

Koga No Goshi

08-20-2001, 05:00

Anyone who goes back and reads my posts here from first to last knows I'm in favor of tweaking too. I just don't want it to be pure unchanged STW morale. In the original, by the time the main h2h clash happened, major mass rout ensued within approximately 4 or 5 seconds. In other words, by the time the units were engaged there was little or no time to do anything to win or lose, the battle was already won or lost by what units you had and where they were (and sometimes who had more guns left). Do I want major mass chain rout? Yes. Do I want it to be the conclusion to every single game I play in Shogun? No. Am I open to middle ground compromise? Yes.

------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Nandai"
Since time began
the dead alone know peace.
Life is but melting snow.

Roman Totale XVII

08-20-2001, 05:48

Yagua Emissary Kensen:
'If you wanna go table top game - go play warhammer...IT IS A GAME! People are supposed to have fun'

I understand your point of view and agree that the over-riding concern is 'a fun game'. I don't think even the historical wargaming fans would disagree. Believe it or not miniature wargaming *can* be fun (well usually...). The appeal of table top games include the painstakingly painted and researched figures finally arrayed on a realistic looking landscape with a set of rules that hopefully provide the immersion of almost 'being there'. The big pain with a realistic set of rules is that that there's just too much calculation and cross referencing of combat resolution tables etc. Too many breaks in the action http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif That's where computers can provide the answer...
The dream of many a table top gamer is to have a computer simulation that takes the chore out of playing but also provides the visual spectacle of minis. Computers are now advanced enough to provide this where before we only had dull boardgame conversions (hexes and UGO-IGO). We already have Combat Mission (WW2), SMG (ACW) and W:NLB (Napoleonic) but there are centuries of warfare yet uncharted. It will be fun http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

There is a legion of fantasy RTS battle games out there to choose from but STW was touted as a game based closely on history and realism. The Sengoku period happened. The Mongol Invasions of Japan happened. Is it so unreasonable for we history gamers to have expectations from the Total War series?

[This message has been edited by Roman Totale XVII (edited 08-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Roman Totale XVII (edited 08-19-2001).]

Swoosh So

08-20-2001, 05:53

Polar as far as this issue is concerned we are soulmates

:-)

Swooosh

Polar

08-20-2001, 06:47

Swoosh, I'll take it as what it sounds like to me. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/redface.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

Does any one else find that guns are alot more powerful than b4? They dont cause easy routing now, but they kill much more than they did in the old game. Each shot can kill like 8 men!

I can't play the xpac online for now, but i can imagine many ladder players using mass gun army now. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Polar the ugly

Koga No Goshi

08-20-2001, 06:51

Polar,

From what I can tell, the way it works is that at closer ranges guns do heavy casualties, which is how it should be. Ok, I can understand only picking off one guy every volley at long range, but at close range against a massed opponent you should not only be picking off 2 guys or so per volley. The real strength of the guns in original STW was rout value, not firepower. Looks like they've switched it in a (somewhat) sensible way in ME. At the very least, with upp'd fast-damage range units like ninja and the skirmishers (though you can't use guns against Mongols.... *sniff*) it has kept the guns from becoming totally obsolete.

------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Nandai"
Since time began
the dead alone know peace.
Life is but melting snow.

MagyarKhans Cham

08-20-2001, 06:55

how sure are u that it is switched? unit dont rout fast anymore so u might never know that the muskets lack the honourmoralebonus

Polar

08-20-2001, 07:28

Khans cham is right, guns still affects moral, units become uncertain when they approach guns, they just dont route that easily like b4.

Guns now have the same range as archers(I think it was a little shorter than archer in STW), and they are still accurate at long range. In my test on green, both musket and archer shooting from max range, the 175 koku musket out shot the 300 koku archer! I dont see any use for archer in sengoku period now.

Swoosh So

08-20-2001, 19:02

You have to remember that archers can fight, *sigh* especially with the 2 bottles of buckfast morale, mind you in saying that my games have been won with 3 guns in my army i once faced a 6 gun 6archer army 6 ys army, and yes it was a pain, again back to guns have you seen seven samurai hehe, god those guys dont like guns!!

Swoosh

Magyar Khan

08-20-2001, 23:06

but guns firing in rain is stupid OR the price should be adjusted. remeber archer may be a fighting unit as well but they cost much more

Swoosh So

08-20-2001, 23:21

Guns have disadvantages ie they cant fire into woods and maybe guns effectiveness is reduced in rain (cant say ive noticed). guns dont seem to be the overwhelming factor in mi, at least not half as much as they were, but there is 1 problem i see now guns have some pretty hefty morale amp charged my guns with about 4 units my gun general h2 all my other troops were dead, and we laughed as my muskets fought for ages v the monks nodachi and yarsamurai, that i suppose could unbalance them again.

Swoosh

Alastair

08-21-2001, 00:06

Ah, heh, one thing Roman: The Sengoku period happened. The full-scale Mongol Invasion of Japan didn't. If it had, Japan would have been a Mongol province rather quickly. Also, the Sengoku period was hardly at all based upon formations or battle tactics. It was based on each soldier seeking out a soldier from the opposite side of equal rank, and having a one-on-one duel. Very little flanking, very few formations, just duels by rank. Finally, the original placements for the clans in the original was waaaaayy out of kilter. So this isn't exactly a historically accurate game.

Roman Totale XVII

08-21-2001, 01:19

Ah, but Alistair that is exactly my point. I'm arguing for at least the options to include more historical accuracy where at the moment it falls short. When STW was first released the designers claimed a strong historical basis but didn't really deliver. This disappointed those grogs who'd been wooed into parting with their cash. STW succeeded by attracting many RTS gamers who didn't really care about the historical setting but loved the pure gameplay of the superb tactical engine. What's wrong with including a few optional settings so that everyone can be happy? Actually, after reading the 'Mods' forum, it seems that the x-pack HAS left the door open. Troop type stats can be altered. This means that not only can people unhappy with balance issues try and reach a 'consensus mod' but the grogs can have a field day too. 'Well done' I say. There are even suggestions that the campaign map starting positions *might* be moddable which opens up even more possibilities.

Ok, granted, that doesn't mean we can alter the basic engine - formations and new units etc. Your description of samurai warfare being nothing but a series of duels between peers with little regard to formation or tactics sounds more like the 12thC Genpei War than the 16thC Sengoku to me. There certainly are descriptions of ornate army formations during the Sengoku and the increased importance of peasant ashigaru meant the adoption of drill in formation. Having said that I agree that once battle was joined these formations often broke down as the samurai class attempted to emulate the Genpei heroes of former centuries. My own reading of accounts suggests that certain generals such as Takeda Shingen were able to instill more unit discipline than others.

The Mongol Invasions? Well the first 1274 landing has sometimes been described as 'recce in force'. Turnbull has 28,000 troops and 15,000 sailors being used - that's quite a recce force! In 1281 he estimates 140,000 Mongols, Chinese, Jurchens and Koreans set sail in two divisions. Now that *definitely* qualifies as a 'full-scale invasion'! Why did it fail? Well the great Kamikazi storm ultimitely but the samurai must be given credit for holding the invaders at bay until that great cataclysm struck. They modified their tactics for the second invasion to include a degree of unit cohesion and hit-and-run boat raids (why no naval action in the x-pack?). Plus the great stone wall they built at Hakata Bay where previously samurai had only used wooden forts in their civil wars.

Historical wargaming is not about re-enacting a battle. It is about taking a historical starting set-up and then allowing the players the chance to alter the course of events. It is also about 'what-ifs'. In this case; 'what if the Kamikaze hadn't struck?'

hach

08-22-2001, 21:27

Hi Guys

As a European who has yet to play the game i cannot say what my own personal feelings on the subject will be come this weekend.

It seems at least 70% upwards are in favour of returning back to the old STW morale or at least reducing it.

As we post in a Democratic Forum'then i propose that a patch has to be made to address this issue,quicker than any other as it seems to be the main gripe amongst the others.Even if i feel personally that the games morale is perfect after i get it on Friday'i still say it must be patched as per the majority.The worst that can happen is it can go back to old STW morale which is already a game i know and love.

I certainly feel from reading all notes'that a happy medium can be met by adjusting morale to lower levels'but not as low as the original game.

Can i just ask some questions as one who has yet to see these changes?

1)Does flanking'charging etc have any bearing on Morale at all'or is it just a question of getting an enemy unit down to as few men as possible then they will crack regardless of tactics?

2)Do you still see the onscreen messages saying troops wavering etc and if so as much as before or hardly or never?

Hach

------------------
The greatest thrill in life is not to Kill'but to let live!!!!

Vanya

08-22-2001, 21:40

Wow. This is such a long thread, I figured I should do some community service and add my 39 koku here. But, as I started typing, I forgot what I was going to say. So, I can only leave you with this:

I cannot help you find any answers... only to better understand the questions.

DragonCat

08-22-2001, 21:50

Units still rout.

Yes, you still get all the flags and states of morale as before.

Yes, it is HARDER to get units to rout, but nowhere near as impossible as people are going on about.

If you attack a unit head on, you better be prepared for a long fight to the end.

If you can get a unit or two to the flank or to the rear, then the unit will start to break at about the point it should (imho). Your mileage may vary.

Let me put it this way. I can charge with cavalry (Japanese or Mongol) to the rear of enemy units and then when they start marching Yari Samurai at me, I can charge them back OUT (remember to be in hold formation) without worrying about my cavalry routing. Thus it is now possible to have feints, hit and runs, etc. without routing your cavalry and indeed your entire army.

Some people (the less reasonable ones) feel that because they can't charge a mass of guns and warrior monks at you directly and make your entire army run, that the game is ruined. Boo, hoo. I think not.

The more reasonable proponents of the old morale system seem to never see men rout. I don't understand this. Please, get the game, try it out and see what you think.

There are plenty of people, including those online, who are in total agreement with me: and that is, that if any adjustment is needed, it is a VERY small one.

Once you've had Mongol, you'll never go back!

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

DragonCat

08-22-2001, 22:03

Might as well make the thread a full 100!

Anyways- I can't wait till the Euro's get online and start playing so we can lay this MORALE issues to rest.

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

Lord Aeon

08-22-2001, 22:05

Dragoncat, i am in complete agreement!

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

Puzz3D

08-23-2001, 03:41

hach,

I played a 3v3 against the Mongols with 60 man units. One of my Hojo allies dropped early on and inflicted less than 100 casualties on the Mongols. I was up against OldscratchRW on the left side. I remember CancritterRW was another of the Mongol commanders. These are good players. I don't remember the map, but I had a nice hill to defend. I eventually lost to Olds with about 850 killed, and I took about 450 Mongol heads. I had 6 YS, 6 SA, 2 ND and 2 HC by mistake. I meant to take Naginata cav, but got confused by the icons.

All my units were driven off or killed except for one SA at full strength. Olds didn't see it, and started moving his entire army towards the center defender to help his teamates. My SA was in his path, but in skirmish mode. Well this SA moved all over the place as enemy units passed nearby. It was surrounded at times by many units, but not actually attacked. It never wavered. Olds eventually saw it, and attackd with several units. My SA routed at somewhere between 40% and 50% losses. I'm sure all the old morale factors are in place, but without casualties they are not enough to make a typical medium morale unit rout.

So, sure units still rout, but it's nowhere close to the old STW game. With general gone, tired from running, surrounded and outnumbered by at least 5 to 1, it still took a lot of casualties to make the unit rout. And, it's an SA which isn't any super high morale unit.

On top of that, my ally who had mostly YS in some trees on a flat topped hill was attacked by the three Mongol armies. His units inflicted tremendous catualties on the Mongols, and continued to fight although exhausted and surrounded. It was a thunderbomber who finally made him break. Once again a lot of casualties were needed. My ally ended up with 1460 kills.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 08-22-2001).]

TakeshidaSo

08-23-2001, 05:07

No one is saying that units wont rout, just that it takes a whole lot more than it did in STW. This option was always there before in STW, and has been used by everyone. The play balance was based on Mongol units being introduced into a SP campaign. What about the fact that low koku games continue to remain popular in STW? What about the fact that the Morale system appears to be raised by 12 points? The lowest unit before had -4, and the highest unit had 8 points, for a maximum difference of 12 points. That seems to indicate that YA now have the honor that WM had before. Maybe there are good arguments for MI's new morale system. Lets hear them. There arent any good arguments for removing the option for players to use STW's morale system.

Yoshitsune

08-23-2001, 05:56

As a Brit who has not got the x-pack yet I've followed this morale discussion with interest. The justification for the change that comes from the makers is that it prevents the Japanese from immediately routing on seeing the formidable Mongol troop types such as MHC - so a 'balancing' feature. But what about the rest of the game? Has the disappearence of morale also been applied to the Sengoku period? Has the morale hike been applied to the Mongols too? (If so the justification given by Target seems to hold little water - rather than a morale increase to 'help the Japs' it simply acts as universal 'morale off')

Dunhill

08-23-2001, 09:02

Can we have an adjustable scale for morale, instead of the on off option we currently have? I know there are many other considerations, but for the sake of game play and ease of including it in a patch would this be a feasable option to players?

I was thinking of at least three levels of morale?

Are we getting into the too difficult basket?

TakeshidaSo

08-24-2001, 00:09

The reasonable points I've heard are that options have been removed, and that they are wanted back. That the "new" morale system was available all along, but never very popular. That ,what some call, very low koku was still regularly used. That morale has been raised 12 points, which equals the difference between YA (-4), and WM (8). I dont know what people CAT thinks are reasonable or unreasonable, but theres no purpose for hearsay anyhow. A reasonable opinion is one that relys on fisthand experience, or discusses reports about them. If you want to make a point about morale, but all you use are experiences as a Mongol player, in the Mongol time period, and you dont even accurately describe the details that support your opinion, then how do you expect that point to be made?

Nelson

08-24-2001, 00:40

I was defending with the Mongols recently on normal difficulty. I had good high ground. 2 skirmishers, 2 spear, 1 guards, 1 bomber, 3 MHC. The Hojo outnumbered me about 1.5 to 1 and had a wide assortment of good troops. My general was unranked.

The Japanese made a frontal assault straight up the slopes. The bombers killed a hundred or more before checking out. Then the skirms heaved a few javalins and got emeshed in melee. I then counter charged down the slope with my fresh Koreans and.. they broke! Ran off at full strength with with fewer than 15 casualties among them leaving the Hojo to stream up the hill in pursuit. They had not been flanked and indeed had all of the advantages that circumstances would allow. Yet they bugged out "like whipped dogs". There was no time for anything cute as the Hojo cav was charging. It seemed like a disaster until I threw in the MHC across the whole front into the Japanese flanks and center. This promptly reversed my fortunes and it was the Hojo who lost almost 1000 men in the ensuing rout while my own cowardly minions eventualy rallied a day late and a dollar short. But I did save them to (perhaps) fight another day.

Now how can I claim to see any morale problems with this game regarding fights to the death after this battle? The MHC were the only guys ready to rumble. Korean infantry seems especially brittle.

Puzz3D

08-24-2001, 03:51

Here is what happened in a custom battle I fought against the ai. Once I discovered that you could actually change the unit parameters, I decided to try a battle against the ai at reduced morale. I reduced all units by 8 points, and set up a 5000 koku, 60 man unit, normal difficulty custom battle with me attacking 4th Kawa with the Japanese. My army was composed of H2 SA taisho with W=3 and A=3, 6 H1 YS with W=1, 4 H1 SA with A=1, 4 H1 ND with W=1 and 1 H0 NC with W=3 and A=3. The mongol army had H2 MHC taisho, 4 H1 MLC with W=1, 4 H1 KJ, 3 H1 KS with W=1, 3 H1 KG and 1 H1 KB with A=1. In anticipation of a problem with the disparity of melee strength between the cav and infantry, I took 1 point off the attack and defende values of the MHC and MLC, and gave them to the KS and KJ units.

I commenced the attack on the defender's hill with the usual exchange of ranged fire. Once my arrows were gone, I charged the hill. My units engaged the enemy units on the upslope of the hill. I believe I routed a couple of Korean units quickly. However, after only a brief fight my entire army routed with the Mongols in pursuit. My NC did rally, but couldn't stand firm in the face of the pursuit and the that was it. I lost. The battle certainly had the feel of the old STW.

Now I did something interesting. I ALT TABed out and raised the morale of all units by 4. That put them at 4 points below their normal value. Then I went back to the game, and refought the battle. I used the same tactics, but the results were different. When I stormed the hill, I still engaged on the upslope, but this time my units did not mass rout. I had a couple of units rout, but the Korean infantry eventually all routed. The Mongol cav was still in the fight, but my YS could corral an defeat them. I chased off the few Korean infantry units that rallied, and then defeated the Mongol cav.

I did not refight the battle at the default morale setting, but I wish I had because it's possible I wouldn't have had enough YS strength left to defeat the Mongol cav. I believe the morale has been set to prevent the premature exit of the Korean infantry. The old STW morale setting results in the premature exit of the Japanese troops which may be what Target was refering to when he said the Japanese ran from the Mongols.

The morale level for a 5000 koku online battle in the old STW is a real challenge to master online. If you don't like it, you can play at higher koku or turn it off. The Sengoku period game did not need this huge morale boost to improve it. At the current level, you really don't have to worry about morale much at all. An aspect of the game has definitely been lost. Making one or two lower morale options is probably the easiest thing to do because I don't see CA/DT going back and trying to rebalance Mongol/Korean units at this point.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 08-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 08-27-2001).]

MagyarKhans Cham

08-24-2001, 06:28

sorry to say guys but my Khan belongs to the few ones who seem to has the knowledge of both the real gamemechanics of the old shogun and historical and wargame background.

the morale system we have now is NOT good and SHOULD be adjusted. My Khan got the feeling that some are defending it since there poor skilled played battles lasted longer.

so he still propose to have a morale setting

throw away the morale off option we have now and add at least the old morale setting and perhaps also someone in between of the NO and OLD morale thing.

------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]

TakeshidaSo

08-24-2001, 06:45

KSP have -1 morale, KG, and KSK have 0 morale, and no one mentioned what Honor these low morale units had. Since the Taisho had no bonus, I'm guessing it was a campaign battle and that the army had mainly low honor. Nelson mentioned his KSK had been firing and then became engaged before the KSP did, but doesnt say what happened to them then, or how many negative factors were applied to his KSP. 5000 koku is not a lot for an expensive Mongol army to have, so maybe low honor low morale Koreans again. We know the morale system has been increased a great deal. We know the option to use the previous morale sytem has been removed. We know the current effects were available all along, and never became popular online. People were likely to fight battles using all 0 honor troops in STW, it is still popular, but if we do that now we would still see high morale units fight extremely hard, and only the lowest morale troops rout.

TakeshidaSo

08-27-2001, 03:14

If you think someone has overreacted to the morale issue then provide them with a reason to stop overreacting. Perhaps they just havent considered things in as logical a manner as you might have. An overreaction implies that there is some irrational flaw in their analysis. You would be doing them a great favor by showing them the error of their ways. For instance, I would like to know why the overall morale system needed to be raised by at least 8 morale points, if there is any difference between SP and MP morale, and if any morale modifiers were deleted from MI (for example: the enemy to your flank modifier).

DoCToR

08-27-2001, 03:27

The morale in the Japanese SP campaign is perfect...no need to change that setting.

The issues with the higher morale settings seem to be related to the Mongol v Jap battles and custom/online games...

henryh

08-27-2001, 08:11

Every battle ends in a rout, Whats the problem!?!? The new morale merely allows an unlucky force to lose its general and continue the fight, But when an army is faced with a hopeless situation they usually run.

But you got to remember the races we are dealing with don't have anglo-saxon 'every man for himself' psychology. But two races that followed their leaders to the death and had severe sado-masochistic tendencies. One used the skulls of its enemies as drinking cups and the other practiced ritual suicide.

Euros and americans read up on the japanese in WWII even women and children would commit suicide to avoid capture!!

Do not try to compare japanese or mongols with the soft 'fluffy' lives that the average western consumer leads today.

MagyarKhans Cham

08-27-2001, 14:13

common guys the future will be this:

every good player have a best mix of units, the battle that starts will be a "who can put his best rock against the enemies scissors end so on" game. then after all battling is done the game ends up in a gamble, and believe me against good players units will stand until the lsat 5 men u wont see major routs.

in the old morale system a player was able to have a worse army (according to the rock paper scissor) and still win due to very good movement.

I am getting tired convincing the people in here, and eventually it seems it is better to focus on new games. we are outbnewbied and even some old players like the old morale, which gave them more wins than they ever had with the silliest of tactics. The games i have played had all teh same characteristics:

- muskets become more important, they fire thru hills and in teh heaviest of rain
- well chosen army is more important than brilliant infield tactics or everything else
- cavalry are almost useless
- all good armies i faced were consisting of
3-5 muskets some spears many monks/nodachi. where do i have seen that before? the difference now is that these armies have even more change to win!
- mongols will be hardly played and the one who is hosting one will only play as mongol.-the skirmishers are best value for money, so a mongol army will consist of many skirmishers, many spears guardsmen and a few horses.

Like Take said, dont just say that ur against the old morale, tell us why, bring arguments.

what a sadness http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

what a sad day

Methabaron

08-27-2001, 15:28

Hey Magyar,

You are absolutely right my friend. But as you have already probably realized the market for this game is not "us". The online community and among them the "old guard" of online players is NOTHING, a water droplet in the sea of the general mass of customers that mostly play single player and never enter these forums. That mass of customers live in the dark and do not complain about this issues. They are just so happy.

And that suits EA perfectly well. It is not really that it suits EA but rather that EA actually target intentionally these masses. They are the ones that mean the profits for EA.

EA and CA surely know about all the problems the new morale and other issues bring to the hard core players but they just don't care because we are an insignificant minority of the customer population.

Metha

------------------
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

[This message has been edited by Methabaron (edited 08-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Methabaron (edited 08-27-2001).]

celtiberoijontychi

08-27-2001, 21:20

Jeje Meta como siempre das en el clavo.

Indeed Metha, you're right again. Maybe EA has discovered that we are a rather "unmanageable" community, wich doesn't surprise me, since this game is comparatively "elitist" and atracts ppl who want "something more" than the usual AoE and C&C stuff. Maybe that's why they change morale etc., they want just "normal" consumers who believe all hypes and never complain about anything.
But the online community is not a "waterdrop", since the morale changes seem to have designed mainly fot online games.
I suspect they've made some market research and have discovered that the mass routes and the looooooong learning curve of online gaming were annoying for their target audience. I can remember myself getting disappointed at how hard it was to win my first online game, until i found my clan and learned teamplay.
Many ppl who weren't so enthusiastic about the game as most of us here are, surely played a couple of online games, got massacred and never played again.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

At least we have now the chance to make an "old morale" mod and play with the old values.

------------------
Long live Celtiberos
Glory and Honour to Clan Celtiberos

[This message has been edited by celtiberoijontychi (edited 08-27-2001).]

MagyarKhans Cham

08-28-2001, 05:24

where is my buddy Target?

Jackson

08-28-2001, 05:58

I guess I'm one of the "elitist masses" that plays only SP, but I like the new morale in SP. If anything, the JvJ campaign has become easier once you adjust to the new morale, and start flanking like an expert (i.e. on-line players).

What the game does now is penalize the human player for trying to "rush" the computer side. If you rush, you get your a$$ handed to you. The archers are more accurate, the monks are less dominating, and the new morale forces you to attack wisely.

Well, that's my two cents.

DoCToR

08-28-2001, 06:09

Aye SP is fine morale wise!

Rath

08-28-2001, 11:07

Just popping in to again say how much i hate the new morale setting.

Having played STW for about a year now online and having played MI since it came out about 2 weeks ago over here i am very frustrated by the changes that have occured.

High honour peasents, both guns and YA, seem to be the "elite" units now due to their cheapness, both in upgrading honour and armour/weapons...with the almost non-apparent morale removing the main weakness that these units possessed... i am surely no historical buff but i thought peasents were basically there to make up the numbers, not be the elits units.

Games are now won on who has the best units and as that famous wolf pointed to, out manouvering your opponent is of minimal value, as even if u catch your opponents army in the flank they will 99.999999% of the time hold allowing the rest of their forces to turn on you...even leaving the flanker at a disadvantage as they may have full units held up by the last few men of that still holding flank.

So pleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaase fix this issue whoever u are that has the power to do so...it is ruining the experience for the majority of people who have loved the game for so long.

Just revert back to the old morale...those who don't like their units running until the last 5 men can still play games like that by just upping the koku amount...that way everyone will be happy...also the morale switch is a nifty idea.

Thx.
Rath...

Kocmoc

08-28-2001, 22:48

they got our money and we can wait till dezember for a new patch......

and they realy want to change something??

koc

MagyarKhans Cham

08-29-2001, 03:31

make it into an option button..

Raging Road Rodent

08-29-2001, 11:51

Well, its seems that this moral issue really does ruin combat. Thats too bad. That makes two reasons why I will not get the expansion pack. The first being the fact that EA has cunningly only distributed the expansion pack in Canada with the original STW, and decided to charge 50 dollars for it. Since I don't want to buy STW twice, and the moral thingy ruins the game, why get it?

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-29-2001, 23:48

First choice: "make it into an option button." (magyar's idea)This way everybody is happy.

Second choice: Tune it down a bit, somewhere between the old and new morale setting. A compromise.

VERY IMPORTANT: DON'T touch the morale system in the SP campaigns, they work fine!!!

monkeydan

08-29-2001, 23:52

Raging Road Rodent - get just the X-Pack through the EA store at ea.com. It costs about $30 (in our Canadian dollars) including shipping.

Kocmoc

08-29-2001, 23:57

i payed 29,99 DM for the add on, thats 15 $
50 or 30 $ are quite too much!!!

koc

monkeydan

08-30-2001, 00:01

Kocmoc - you paid about the same as I did - just I also had to pay for shipping because they wouldn't sell MI in stores here.
(30 DM being about $22 CAN + $7 shipping)

MagyarKhans Cham

08-30-2001, 04:35

i paid 59 guilders which is about 52 DM or 25 US dollars, am i ripped of (again) here?

Perec_Dojo

08-30-2001, 08:57

Khan, $25 seems about average (it's what I paid mail-order). After following the numerous threads on morale, I wanted to throw in my newbie/mass-market/single-playing opinion on the side of...

VETS!

imo, you guys seem to have everyone's interests at heart, even those of the folks who don't agree with you. I remember my frustration with the game when I first played, and how these frustrations came not only from the dominance of morale tactics, but from the usual problems of online play, like campers, etc. I never figured out the clan system, so I was never trained properly, and ended up as a thoroughly average and mediocre online player, and stopped playing Shogun altogether due to my dissatisfaction with the SP campaigns.

Now, as everyone agrees, SP is much improved, but MP is quite controversial. I always wanted to be a good MP, but just because I wasn't does not mean I want a change in the morale!

On principle the influence of morale on armies (and yes, I'm talking about in this particular game) is quite appealing to me. It forces you to fight with your wits, and to obey the rules of war (at least as interpreted by the simulation). The specific points brought up by many of the vets are quite convincing to me (inability to rout low-h units diminishes the role of flanking, armies no longer have to behave as a unit, taisho doesn't function as head of army, so "decapitation" often meaningless, etc).

(Digression)

Dispatches from the Great Khan are almost invariably the most incisive; why is he not heeded more? He is also dogged in repeating messages in many disperate threads so that no one misses them. I hate to think he and his loyal servants are looked askance because English is not their native tongue.

(End Digression)

Also, their solutions always seem bent towards options to give everyone what they want, while their detractors seem to take their arguments as some sort of elitist affront. I think that those who want morale to stay "as-is" and who reject the proposals given by the vets do so because they want the play-style that they enjoy to be the "normal" setting. I remember reading in an earlier post about the so-called "stigma" of high-koku games. Though this idea was quickly dropped in the thread in which it appeared, I think that really, this is what must be avoided if the community is to find peace and concensus on this issue.

To wit, I would suggest that a solution that everyone will accept lies in finding two different modes (of course, now I am merely parroting what has been said before) that are considered equal by the community at large--an "old" mode and the new one.

I think, in closing, that the onus falls on the vets to be extra-diplomatic in their efforts. Right is on your side, but that is not what matters. What matters is that the correct solution be found, and with the minimum of "dishonor". No one likes to think that their way of playing is less honorable, and because it seems you have been misunderstood thus far, you must take EXTRA care not to offend, especially since it was never your intention. I believe that during this period of evaluation it is the best way to ensure the integrity of what is most surely the most interesting and yes, the most polite, thoughtful, and well-behaved online gaming community I have ever witnessed or been a part of.

Cheer!

Magyar Khan

08-30-2001, 23:22

ok another vote for an optionbutton so players can choose for themselves.

TakeshidaSo

09-05-2001, 00:52

Although, "who's counting" comes to mind, it's also another vote for civility, and diplomatic behavior. Two things that are either; a part of, or included within tact.

Of course, all these things can be rather well faked, if you can only keep from appearing angry, or insulting.

---------------------------------------------

Petition for MI improvements.

1). MORALE>

Morale is increased by 2 points for each honor upgrade. MI's has increased morale by 12 pts. Thats a morale increase equivalent to 6 honor upgrades, which is nearly triple that of a units base cost. This increase was to a system where 18 pts. is considered impetuous, and the range was from -4 morale for YA, to +8 morale for WM, and ND. For every 2 honor upgrades morale is raised by 4 pts., and the units cost is almost doubled (96%). Campaign costs, and base unit stats, are for H0 units. The cost of custom and online units is for an H2 unit, and so they have +4 to morale, and double the value of campaign units. The incongruous pricing suggests a change, and the campaigns would be challenging with H2 units.

Solution:
Make the default campaign unit an H2 unit, and set the default morale in MI back 12 points.
Alternate:
Set the custom, and online default to H0, and lower MI morale settings by 8 pts.