Moral peep?

[paleologos]

Hello again...
Does any of the RTW/EB gurus know if there is a way to see the moral of a unit during combat with the boni or penalties applied?
How low does the moral of a unit have to fall before the unit rout?

This question did not consern me much while playing RTW vanilla but in EB unit moral is sometimes ridiculously high.

The timeframe of the game is to the best of my knowledge the "Golden Age" of Greek mercenaries and those guys were notorious for their lack of commitment (I don't really blame them) to the cause of their employers.
They were derogatively called "ripsaspides" - shield droppers and in EB routing troops of Greek culture are heard screaming "riptete aspides" (in Greek!)- "drop your shields" (so as to run faster for their lives) although they never actually do that in the game. ( Congradulations to the developers, really great work, "God is in the details".)

I find it unrealistic that a unit of levied hoplites that starts the battle with 160 men would hold their ground until only 20 of them (or fewer) are left alive. Even Spartans prefered to disengage in the face of overwhelming odds - as they did at the Battle of Lechaeum (391 BCE) of the Corinthian War (Thermopylae was one of few extraordinary situations where the survival of an entire way of living rested upon buying time for the others to organise.).

So if anyone can shed some light to my questions I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.

[antisocialmunky]

As far as I know there isn't a way. All I can say is that units with excellent morale(12) like Classical Hoplites pretty much stay in the fight until the very end. Units with morale 14(Classical Hoplites with 1 exp) are pretty much guarenteed unless they get hammered by every single morale - will end up all dying on the field.

Morale with hoplite and other hard to kill units in generally is kinda whacky if you keep them in guard mode and not moving they take forever to kill so their loss rates become rather low. As far as I know kill rate is probably the most variable modifier.

Other modifiers include:
Scary Unit
Fire
Flanks on 1, 2, or 3 sides
Outnumbered and really badly outnumbered(as far as I can tell there seem to be 2 levels)
Tiredness
% of unit left
Routing friends

[paleologos]

I know they get a moral penalty for getting shot at their backs while already engaged and that this penalty is higher when the arrows are aflame.
If I cannot see their current level of moral for any unit does anyone know how high every penalty is and how low does total moral have to fall before they run off?
If two scary units are nearby do penalties accumulate? If a general and a command unit are nearby do boni accumulate?
Has anyone investigated this?

[antisocialmunky]

I think the command/inspiring boni stack. The scary units don't stack, 1 scary unit is all you need.

You can see the steady/wavering thing in the mouse over status info

[vartan]

Thermopylae was one of few extraordinary situations where the survival of an entire way of living rested upon buying time for the others to organise.

I can't believe you just said that. To your question I'll just say that there are clearly no precise morale indicators in-game anywhere. There are morale level indicators, though, and this is simply an engine feature. You've met it many times by hovering your cursor over the unit.

Other modifiers include:
Scary Unit
Fire
Flanks on 1, 2, or 3 sides
Outnumbered and really badly outnumbered(as far as I can tell there seem to be 2 levels)
Tiredness
% of unit left
Routing friends

And most importantly: Not necessarily in that order. Just play around with the MP EDU custom battle. It's the best sandbox, second only to two-comp setup (either run by yourself or assisted by an Internet adversary).

[paleologos]

I can't believe you just said that.

Why?

About a month ago I played a random battle in vanilla BI. The computer gave me Romano-British and as adversaries Germans. I swiftly grouped my cavalry and attacked the Germanic cavalry to wipe them out.
I left the others as they were, unattended. The AI had placed two units of legionaries at the center of my battle line. These guys routed at the sight of two units of night raiders IIRC, without being engaged at all (what I mean here is that they were not "worried about their flanks", nor were they fired upon nor did they take any casualty at all!). All my infantry in that battle routed before my cavalry returned but the grail knights eventually won the day.
I found strange the ease with which my troops routed in that battle but in EB it is the opposite extreme.

Anyway part of my question is about how many "moral points" each demoralising factor steals from a unit and how low does the moral have to fall before the unit is totally disheartened. Is it zero or less than that?

[Pobs]

ZCB,

I seem to remember the mods mentioning that the 'battle setting' has a big effect on morale bonuses so if you are playing on 'hard' or 'very hard' battle settings they will hardly ever break... that is why 'medium' battle setting is recommended....


cheers,


Pobs

[paleologos]

I always play my battles on medium. Anyway if anyone knows what I am really inquiring about please don't be shy, do share your knowledge.
Thanks.

[Ludens]

Has anyone investigated this?

There is some old research in the Ludus Magna, but this was for the first patch so it may not be up to date. In any case, it does not answer most of your questions.

[vartan]

Why? Because that's a large claim to make. One that is arguably very false. Or...if true, does not automatically mean that the alternative way-of-life would've been "worse", whatever that means.

In any case, I've come to learn that the inner workings of the Total War engines are like dark matter and the search for the Higgs Boson. That is, we are like the scientists in Geneva today in that we both are looking for something that we have such a low likelihood of finding considering its tendency to evade our epistemological grasp.

[paleologos]

Why? Because that's a large claim to make.

The claim was made by a large number of historians and is now mainstream historical thesis.
I will only agree with you on the basis that studying hypothetical history is a folly engagement.
In any case I was referring to the way the Hellenes of the time were perceiving the Persian attempt to assimilate them and the way they would instinctively (and in many ways irrationally) react to the "Borgy" type of argument that "resistance is futile" - a rational analysis would conclude that there was merit in that argument. Anyway, human beings are boundedly rational and who more boundedly rational than the Greeks?
Also the Hellenes of the fiercely independent city states did not have a sense of a common Hellenic identity (one city state defeating another would not make any cultural difference to the defeated) right up to the point they had to defend against a foreign culture.
The successful Greek defence paved the way for the Delian League which in turn led to the Golden Age of classical Greece and then the Athenian Dominion and the Peloponnesian War. Constant strife in the Greek south weakened the southern Greeks so that it became possible for Philip II of Makedonia to pusrue his plan of unification. Alexander's excuse for invading the Persian Empire was to avenge the "crimes" the Persians had committed in Makedonia and the rest of Greece. His success would not have been possible without the participation of all the Hellenes although without the Lakedemonians (they would only go to war if they had the leadership) and resulted in making the Hellenic language the lingua franca of the time which a few centuries later facilitated the spread of a religion we now take much for granted.
I think that's about enough of a history lecture, if not more and I hope you will forgive it.

By the way, what is the likelyhood of us having a Creative Assembly guy letting us in at least some of the "inner workings of the Total War engines" ?

[Cambyses]

Other modifiers include:
Scary Unit
Fire
Flanks on 1, 2, or 3 sides
Outnumbered and really badly outnumbered(as far as I can tell there seem to be 2 levels)
Tiredness
% of unit left
Routing friends

Also, I believe their is a big hit when their general either flees or worse is killed/leaves the battle. The penalty seems to be much worse depending on the capability of the general, but I suspect that might be to do with simply losing previous bonuses, rather than gaining negative ones.
Some units also get a negative modifier from fighting certain types of troops. ie archers and light troops dont like fighting cavalry, which is similar to the scary unit thing but not quite the same.
Also, troops can be scared by hidden enemies emerging close to them.
Last one I can think of is "worried about exposed flanks" when a unit is isolated but is not actually yet engaged on the flanks and rear.

Then of course there are all the positive modifiers, but thats probably a different thread.

[vartan]

Yeah. I know. And that's just too bad. History is sometimes correct, and sometimes not for a long time. Imagine the benefits to the world had the Greeks lost the wars. Hypotheticals. Bah. The only hypotheticals that come close to any good (at least in this field) are the ones on the battlefield of "state of the art technology" such as Rome.

Any CA help is probably in that Ludus Magna watchamacall it. You won't find CA spending much time on that junk anyway. If you run a business you gotta prioritize things. It ain't cost efficiency practice to go into threads like this.

[Zarax]

A big problem is that routing is also determined by the speed the morale penalties appear.
Vanilla ultrafast killing rates made it very easy to show while EB (and similar mods) may have problems in keeping a consistent behavior with that.
Apply it for a dozen variables over a few hundred units and you'll see why making a balanced stat system is more an art than a science...

[vartan]

A big problem is that routing is also determined by the speed the morale penalties appear.
Vanilla ultrafast killing rates made it very easy to show while EB (and similar mods) may have problems in keeping a consistent behavior with that.
Apply it for a dozen variables over a few hundred units and you'll see why making a balanced stat system is more an art than a science...

Or the best of both worlds? Haha. I have much respect for anyone who balances stats. I can't imagine how it feels but I picture that it must feel frustrating not being able to get the perfect compromises. You are spot-on regarding the rate of the morale penalties. And that I imagine is fine. I don't think I'd be happy if I saw an elephant, a naked soldier a head taller than me, and a guy who painted himself completely black one after the other in a matter of 15 seconds. The worst part is the killing rate. If a dozen of my company's men die within a 5 to 15 second period then I'd seriously consider leaving the vicinity. I mean, if we're losing so many, so fast, then there is something wrong going on (i.e. we're not winning the fight).

[Zarax]

The worst thing however is experience.
Even if you design a perfectly balanced system in which levies behave like levies a couple chevrons will completely disrupt the balance, making them much more resilient than they should.

A possible solution would be to slightly underrate 0xp morale but that's dancing on razor blades as it would be as much likely to be frustrating (or making battles too short) as realistic.

[paleologos]

The worst thing however is experience.
Even if you design a perfectly balanced system in which levies behave like levies a couple chevrons will completely disrupt the balance, making them much more resilient than they should.

A possible solution would be to slightly underrate 0xp morale but that's dancing on razor blades as it would be as much likely to be frustrating (or making battles too short) as realistic.

I really don't see why this obsession with everlasting balance. Units are supposed to be balanced the first time they march out of the barracks. From that point on the more they fight the tougher they shoud be expected to become. What doesn't kill them makes them stronger. I find that not only logical but also realistic and above all historically accurate. Yes, a unit of levies with one chevron earned with sweat and blood will always defeat a unit of levies with no chevrons. Why is there a problem with that? A unit of levies who have been in harm's way and survived will not loose their nerve as quickly as raw recruits. Why would that be strange? I find the veteracy system a very good motive to use troops with care so as to build their efficiency on their experience. Without it battles can be merely a matter of attrition. Remember the campaigns of Julius Caesar, the battle of Pharsalus, which he won though outnumbered two to one because his troops were hardened veterans with whom he had conquered pretty much the whole of Gaul, while Pompeius had recruits fresh out of the barracks. Or the losses of Bonapart at Russia, he did not mind losing his cannon fodder infantry, it was the loss of his gunners and cavalrymen that he could not replace, not with equals anyway. If you want levies to remain at levy level forever you must make them significantly weaker than the next level unit so that in any case they will be very unlikely to accomplish a number of kills adequate to gain a chevron. In my campaign with Koinon Hellenon I find the first level of hoplites so satisfactory that I don't need to train other melee infantry. You just can't have it both ways. Am I irrational? Is there something that evades my understanding? Please, let me know.

[Zarax]

What you say is extremely rational.
My point though was not about everlasting balance but rather about the fact that it is a bit overpowered.
I am one of the worst levy spammers that you can find, and my guilt tactic is the abusing of golden chevron fodder for extreme turtling, however historically a veteran of many battles would often have gained enough through pay and loot to buy himself some extra/better pieces of equipment, thus becoming a different unit in game terms.

[paleologos]

What you say is extremely rational.
My point though was not about everlasting balance but rather about the fact that it is a bit overpowered.
I am one of the worst levy spammers that you can find, and my guilt tactic is the abusing of golden chevron fodder for extreme turtling, however historically a veteran of many battles would often have gained enough through pay and loot to buy himself some extra/better pieces of equipment, thus becoming a different unit in game terms.

Historically speaking the game is staged at a time when the concept of absolute unit uniformity was unknown. The in-game realism in that department is inherently (and for the time RTW was first published) unavoidably handicapped by the fact that every unit of, say classical hoplites is identical to the previous not to mention every hoplite in the unit starts out identical to the soldiers left, right, front and rear of him. Beyond clone trooper uniformity, what comes to mind is six sigma quality control. It doesn't bother me though. I consider far more detrimental to realism things such as a fleet of one naval unit having a transport capacity of twenty units while a fleet of twenty naval units also having a transport capacity of twenty units, or that arrows cost nothing (they were actually rather expensive), or that attacked cities rarely or never spawn a total citizen's defence, or that a besieged settlement will hold for a number of turns regardless of expenses made on provisions, or that two super spies can open all the gates at high noon and the besieged will not barricade the openings (would it not be much more realistic and challenging and fun if only one gate could be opened, only at night and only stay open for a short period of time, requiring for such an operation a night fighter of a general?), or that the capital of a wealthy nation can only construct one facility at a time and so on and so forth. However I believe that the game is as good as they can get. My objection about EB is that the Greeks are made to start the Chremonidian war with their economy being pretty much as it is today.

[vartan]

My objection about EB is that the Greeks are made to start the Chremonidian war with their economy being pretty much as it is today.

I must agree with all you said. Unfortunately the engine is a creation of the past. The only hope is to look to the future for an engine that takes into account all that you mention. As for the war, were the Greeks any better off than they are now? Is there something astray in the game?

[paleologos]

Is there something astray in the game?

What I meant is that when the economy is like that, people don't think about going to war. Historicaly nations go to war when they realise that the balance of power is changing to their disadvantage and that war later will be much more difficult to cope with than war now, which -in my opinion- is not the case with the Koinon Hellenon in the game. Historicaly the Athenians and Rhodians of the time, although not as rich with trade as before, could afford a fleet and a land military with Ptolemaic financial assistance while also supporting the Spartan military. What is astray in the game is the absence of that Ptolemaic assistance and the oversized military of the Greeks compared to what they could afford by themselves (in the game that is). Every strategy guide about Koinon Hellenon starts with disbanding the fleet, that in a tactical environment of an archipelago(!!!) and hiring all the mercenaries they can with good morning and hello -as if the mercenaries would stick around unpaid for any second- but there seems to be no alternative. They have no chance of catching a breath unless they capture the gold mines of Pella. Vartan, how have you played Koinon Hellenon?

My objection about EB is that the Greeks are made to start the Chremonidian war with their economy being pretty much as it is today.

Today the Greek tax payers have to pay more public servants than they can afford, they 've been paying them with borrowed money for two years or more and the last thing the Greeks want now is to hear about another arms race. So I don't see how Chremonides could have persuaded the Athenean Congress for war if they had been in such a predicament.

[vartan]

That's nice. Why don't they take loans? Pay back with interest. Haha. Amusing but I await a thoughtful answer to these questions. This is becoming intriguing.

[Zarax]

Greece is not my area so my answer will be limited.

The chremonidean league economy was historically not exactly flourishing either for a few reasons:

- Alexander and the Diadochii favoured mass emigration, depopulating many cities

- The allegiances near the provinces were very fragmented, meaning that both camps had "enclaves" alligned with the opposite one within their territory. While they were not military significant they were detrimental for trade.

- The whole area was subject to intermittent conflicts every few years, meaning impoverished farmland.

- Greek were increasingly reliant on mercenaries, both as fighters and source of income during peace years. Sparta especially (Xanthippus being the best example) was pretty heavy on that.

- Last but not least, Ptolemaic support was often effectively distrupted by the macedonians, not to mention that the ptolemies had their own fronts (Cyrene, Seleucids) to deal with as well.

[paleologos]

That's nice. Why don't they take loans? Pay back with interest. Haha. Amusing but I await a thoughtful answer to these questions. This is becoming intriguing.

Greece has recently become the recipient of a behemoth of a loan provided by the IMF and EU with an interest rate much lower that what the free financial markets would offer, yet significantly higher than what is normal. Brutal austerity measures have been required as an insurance clause so that the Greeks will be able to repay. The populace are not happy. For too long the combination of Values, Assumptions, Beliefs and Expectations of the Greeks have made them feel that the purpose of the state was not to organise society but to take care of poor little me, poor little you, poor little everyone. The political leadership of the country has yet to tell the people in no uncertain terms that governments and the general public sector in any country do not produce wealth but rather consume it only. Like a huge standing army, the oversized government of Greece has to be provided for no matter what the outcome of it's function. And the Greek constitution, which is the supreme law of the state, explicitly prohibits the executive branch of the government to layoff public servants so as to prevent electortal "hostage taking". The Greek version of the Trivial Pursuit game contains the question what is the name of the plazza in front of the Ministry of Labor in Athens. The answer is "Plateia Klafthmonos", translation Plazza of Crying, because before the constitution was altered in 1957 IIRC to protect public servants and democracy for all that matters, every time there was a change in government the new ministers would layoff the emploees hired by the previous government and hire in their stead their own electoral clientele. The dismissed ones would gather in front of the Ministry of Labor and cry for days, hence the name of the plazza. That story is no bullshit. I don't see how things can be fixed swiftly.

[paleologos]

Greece is not my area so my answer will be limited.

The chremonidean league economy was historically not exactly flourishing either for a few reasons:

- Alexander and the Diadochii favoured mass emigration, depopulating many cities

- The allegiances near the provinces were very fragmented, meaning that both camps had "enclaves" alligned with the opposite one within their territory. While they were not military significant they were detrimental for trade.

- The whole area was subject to intermittent conflicts every few years, meaning impoverished farmland.

- Greek were increasingly reliant on mercenaries, both as fighters and source of income during peace years. Sparta especially (Xanthippus being the best example) was pretty heavy on that.

- Last but not least, Ptolemaic support was often effectively distrupted by the macedonians, not to mention that the ptolemies had their own fronts (Cyrene, Seleucids) to deal with as well.

That is a good answer, still does not explain the willingness of the Athenians to go to war when their economy was in such shape, unless they were enormously overconfident.

[Zarax]

I'd say it was a mix of underestimating the macedonians (they were still recovering from their own civil war and the galatian horde after all), overestimating the potential of ptolemaic support and possibly being over confident about each other's abilities.

[Ludens]

If wish you to discuss the economic situation of modern Greece, or any other contemporary political topic, go to the Backroom. Backroom access can be requested through settings -> permission groups. This request has to be approved by the Backroom moderation team, but that's usually just a formality.

Now, let's get back to topic.

[paleologos]

If wish you to discuss the economic situation of modern Greece, or any other contemporary political topic, go to the Backroom. Backroom access can be requested through settings -> permission groups. This request has to be approved by the Backroom moderation team, but that's usually just a formality.

Now, let's get back to topic.

Well said. How can I take a peep at the moral of a unit during combat?