Realism and Morale Turned Off??
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> H2H Multiplayer
#1: Realism and Morale Turned Off?? Author: TheImperatorKnight,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:29 am
    —
I'm pretty new to multiplayer, so I've been reading the AARs on the forum. But I'm curious as to why a lot of people turn morale off and use 95% realism. Is this normal?

I've always played with Never act on Initiative unchecked. It would be like playing with Always See the Enemy checked, I just don't see the point. And why do people play without morale? That'll make your soldiers fearless and leave out a good portion of the gameplay. A lot of tactics I use revolve around destroying enemy morale and I can't imagine what a game would be like without it. Can someone explain, thank you.
#2: Re: Realism and Morale Turned Off?? Author: Xenon,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:59 am
    —
My guess is that there are two schools of thought at work here:

The first one looks at battles as something that is decided only by the players' actions, so to them having low morale kick in when one side could maneuver to a full win on a map is silly. This is because of the way morale is implemented in the game. When a force routs, the winner gets control of victory points equal to some formula, which may mean that the losing side holds on one turn longer despite having only vehicle crews and whittled second line infantry remaining on the field.

On the other hand, the other looks at the battle in a way that the battle between two sides is just one key part in a larger conflict between formations. In that case, you might be losing your part of the battle, but unless it's catastrophic, the other elements could still save the day by stabilising the front. If you've played the Combat Commander board game series, then you might've heard of this argument.

Never act on initiative is slightly complicated, because while your troops could realistically start moving according to what they see as important, the player can override them if he keeps an eye on the team status bar or the minimap. From that aspect, this setting only adds more micromanagement in a game that isn't micro intensive as the usual RTS. The complicating point is that sometimes units can spot and start firing on teams that the player doesn't know about.

I have little multiplayer experience, so I can't comment much more on the pros and cons of all you've mentioned. Maybe someone else can add to the discussion
#3: Re: Realism and Morale Turned Off?? Author: TheImperatorKnight,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:40 pm
    —
Thank you for your reply Xenon!

Xenon wrote (View Post):
My guess is that there are two schools of thought at work here:

The first one looks at battles as something that is decided only by the players' actions, so to them having low morale kick in when one side could maneuver to a full win on a map is silly. This is because of the way morale is implemented in the game. When a force routs, the winner gets control of victory points equal to some formula, which may mean that the losing side holds on one turn longer despite having only vehicle crews and whittled second line infantry remaining on the field.

On the other hand, the other looks at the battle in a way that the battle between two sides is just one key part in a larger conflict between formations. In that case, you might be losing your part of the battle, but unless it's catastrophic, the other elements could still save the day by stabilising the front. If you've played the Combat Commander board game series, then you might've heard of this argument.


Ah, that makes sense. I was told morale was more realistic by a veteran, which is why I keep it on. But I guess it could drag a game on longer... I need to think about keeping it on or not.

Quote:
Never act on initiative is slightly complicated, because while your troops could realistically start moving according to what they see as important, the player can override them if he keeps an eye on the team status bar or the minimap. From that aspect, this setting only adds more micromanagement in a game that isn't micro intensive as the usual RTS. The complicating point is that sometimes units can spot and start firing on teams that the player doesn't know about.

I have little multiplayer experience, so I can't comment much more on the pros and cons of all you've mentioned. Maybe someone else can add to the discussion


It's funny because I like my teams taking the initiative. And I've learnt to play with it, even if it's a bit more micromanagement. I think I'll keep this unchecked for now. Unless someone can give me reason not to.

You've been helpful, so thank you again  Cool
#4: Re: Realism and Morale Turned Off?? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:33 am
    —
Playing a Grand Campaign as the Axis against the A.I. I would say leave Moral On.
This helps tremendously as many times the AI will hopefully get Routed to a friendly map thus leaving as many Allied BG's on the Strategic Map as possible.

All too often I have played with it Off and by the time I'm half way across the Strategic map there are only 3-5 BG's to fight against.

The Never act on Initiative I always leave off.
I've seen to often my guys won't do crap,zero,zilch,notta.


I want my guys to fight.


I like the YouTube Video's btw
This guy has one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sim9uUDLfc
#5: Re: Realism and Morale Turned Off?? Author: TheImperatorKnight,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:00 pm
    —
So it's better to have morale on playing vs the AI, and off in multiplayer. Will have to go try it out and see how I get on.

Thanks! I've subscribed to him already. He was part of another Channel, but has just gone his own way.
Close Combat Series -> H2H Multiplayer


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1