OK, if you've played SMAC, then you know that when you fight battles, instead of just going from normal to vetern, as in Civ II, you go from Green to Disciplined to Hardened to Vetern to Commando, and then to Elite. I think that it is great that they include so many levels of experience. The problem is that they call these levels morale, which I think should be totally different.
This next part I'm basing on that Firaxis is implementing some way for armies not to always die in battles, because I mean how often does the losing side get totally eliminated?
OK, I think that "morale" level should be affected by how far it is away from it's home city, how many battles it has won/lost lately, and what kind of terrain it is going through.
So, if a unit was defending its home town against a bunch of obsolete units that it had been kicking butt against, in a nice warm sunny grassland, its morale would be "ecstatic", or something like that, and its combat ability would be greater.
Whereas if you have a unit fighting halfway around the globe on a cold tundra losing a battle for the umteenth time, it isn't going to be very happy. Get my drift?
Any thought?
This next part I'm basing on that Firaxis is implementing some way for armies not to always die in battles, because I mean how often does the losing side get totally eliminated?
OK, I think that "morale" level should be affected by how far it is away from it's home city, how many battles it has won/lost lately, and what kind of terrain it is going through.
So, if a unit was defending its home town against a bunch of obsolete units that it had been kicking butt against, in a nice warm sunny grassland, its morale would be "ecstatic", or something like that, and its combat ability would be greater.
Whereas if you have a unit fighting halfway around the globe on a cold tundra losing a battle for the umteenth time, it isn't going to be very happy. Get my drift?
Any thought?
Comment