Happines=>resiliance in combat?

[Tattila the Hun]

I just got this idea, I thought I might toss it to you.

Would it be practical/usefull to correlate the people's general approval of your governing, their happines, to their performance in the field of battle? Par example, if you are a relatively small nation, been in democracy for a long, peaceful time, trade is flowing, everybody (almost) is your friend and your citizens are happy and prosperous, and you are attacked by stronger foe, known of his attrocities (there was a thing in civ2's foreign advisor screen about being ruthless and all that), who has previously extorted goods/money from you, culturally weak etc, your troops would gain bonus from defending their homes and loved ones from the barbaric hordes? (A Long sentence... ) And if those hordes took cities, and indeed rased them, this would make the defence even more tenacious.

Something for Civ4, perhaps?

[Rasputin]

yeah not a bad idea, go post it in the civ4 area for more discussion

[ShadowBlade]

Hmm... I'm not sure it's a very good idea, it would also affect the AI when YOU attack them. Many of us are backstabbing warmongers and stuff, so that feature would turn against us in the end. Just imagine you're so evil/ruthless, the AI gets such a big bonus from the "vs. Evil" that, in the end, their Spearmen would tear through anything you can send to the front.

[Switch]

That sounds like an interesting idea, and would be interesting to see how it could be implemented.

Originally posted by ShadowBlade
Hmm... I'm not sure it's a very good idea, it would also affect the AI when YOU attack them. Many of us are backstabbing warmongers and stuff, so that feature would turn against us in the end. Just imagine you're so evil/ruthless, the AI gets such a big bonus from the "vs. Evil" that, in the end, their Spearmen would tear through anything you can send to the front.

But perhaps that might be the point...force warmongers to focus more on building...people have said that Civ, despite all it's advancements, still remains a war game. This might give the game a bit of balance.

This would also be useful in espionage. Make it easier to infiltrate a spy into a civ if you have better happiness/culture, etc, and they have lower. Vice versa, too.

[SporkPimp]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but the biggest factors in the performance of individual troops are discipline and organization... things that could easily be BETTER in an "evil empire" than a peaceful democracy. Consider the truly laughable performance of the first wave of American troops in both World Wars, as compared to infantry of Nazi Germany (forgive the obvious choice).

If you want better troops, you need to give them experience and train them harder... that is, make them fight, and build Barracks. Exactly as you do in Civ3 now.

-SporkPimp

[Fatwreck]

but if you feel that you are actually fighting for something i.e your homeland wouldn´t that make you a somewhat better soldier then someone who is forced to attack?

[ShadowBlade]

Yes, but only a little since it's nothing more than a morale boost. It won't protect your troops from a highly organized and disciplined army if you're in a disadvantageous position. High morale doesn't make Supermen.

[Switch]

Fatwreck is right, though. RW example, in ancient Greece they would have armies of all homosexual men, whom would fight along with their partner. This was based on the idea that they would fight better when with people they love, though women weren't allowed to fight at the time. And it worked.
Or just think of how soldiers would think when in war. If not given some purpose, or just told they're fighting for their homeland, they would eventually begin to question what they're really fighting for. But give them a purpose, like defending their liberty, and they will fight to the death.
Obviously, with WW2 as an example, training and dedication will give the bigger advantage. But purpose is also a significant effect. I think it should be in Civ4, but maybe act more as a combat modifier than a strong bonus.