Lars Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Well kinda. They're called diplomacy chits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I'm in agreement that certain morale effects from surrendering countries is unrealistic. I understand that this is an abstraction and the effect is a general code that causes this unrealistic effect from time to time. To fix it, morale boosts should be left to scripts. In that way they can be customized and will almost always return a realistic boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.J. Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Originally posted by Desert Dave: And each with varying +/- %, IE, for instance, Take Palermo as Allies and it is worth ~ + 40-50 % morale boost for the Allies, But, grabbing Tunis would merely result in +5 %pro Axis. Why thank you sir; and by all means I'm happy to share credit, great minds thinking alike and all that. Doubtless there will always be gameyness in a game, because... um, well I guess that's self-evident. But varying the effect of morale bonuses/penalties by nations, importance of cities etc. should cut it to a minimum in this case. [ May 25, 2006, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: R.J. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.J. Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 One other thought on morale. Perhaps in some circumstances, making a DOW should affect morale. For instance, the allies DOW'ing Ireland should cause a morale hit on Britain & the US, rather than waiting until they capture Dublin for the morale hit. Likewise, attacking most other European nations should adversely affect Brit & US morale. N. African, and middle eastern countries probably shouldn't (unless they UK attacks Iraq when they're 'friendly' – ie. over 30% and sending MPPs). Obviously DOWs shouldn't affect German morale, with a few notable exceptions. Specifically, Sweden (while it's 'friendly'), Switzerland, as well as Spain and Vichy France. Given that Goebbels always blamed the war on other countries, and never just flatly stated "we want to rule the whole world, so tough", one can imagine that an attack on Switzerland or a trading partner like Sweden would strain the credulity of even the most trusting German. At any rate it might temper the cookie cutting thingy and be historically plausible at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Hearts of Iron is a weird sim, but it handles the concept of national morale well. Nations have dissent levels, which rise for things like declaring war. As RJ points out, that makes better sense for the democracies than for Germany and Russia. On the other hand, SC2 doesn't reflect the strains of a long war. By 1944, both Germany and Russia were scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel. The Germans had "stomach battalions" of men who could only eat white bread. An easy way to model this would be to assign lower morale values to German and Russian reinforcements as of 1944. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Hearts of Iron is a weird sim... That incredible MESSED up wreck & dreck, AKA: HoI, Would be something I would avoid Like the next coming Plague. Also, anything! to do with that On the cheap-skating And typical modern Con-Man rip-off, So to "milk the market" merely, IE, GG's WAW, I would also utterly ignore Then it comes time to examine Other sources For some fresh and "out of box" ideas. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts