I'm not quite sure how this would work in a TBS environment (I can't recall any good examples, but if you have any, please report), but the use of morale in Gettysburg! was fantastic. In fact, had morale NOT been part of the game, I think the game would have fallen way short of its mark.
In case you haven't played that game (an RTS Civil War game by Sid), his stroke of genius was to have your troops be heavily affected by morale. For example, if they are under cover of some thick trees and had time to dig in...their morale would stay high even under some pretty heavy fire. And if their commander is in close proximity, even more so. Experience also factored into the morale equation. Conversely, young troops left in the open with no commanding officer nearby were next to worthless (they'd simply run away and refuse to fight for several minutes). And even those dug-in, experienced guys HATED to take flak fire, meaning you simply could NOT just glob troops somewhere and let them go on auto. You really had to consider ALL these factors intelligently to win.
Can't Civ3 use a lot of that? Terrain can affect morale easily enough. Experience can affect morale. Being dug-in would be easy to do. Even being flanked (I'm thinking stacked combat here) can be factored in. Etc.
Many companies shy away from morale because (quoting Ensemble Studios): "Most gamers get frustrated if their troops don't do exactly what they are told." Well, I'd get frustrated if the system were poorly or enigmatically done, but if it's as intuitive and balanced as we saw Sid do in Gettyburg!, I can only say:
PLEASE MAKE MORALE PART OF BATTLES IN CIV3!!!!!!!!!! (any thoughts?)
In case you haven't played that game (an RTS Civil War game by Sid), his stroke of genius was to have your troops be heavily affected by morale. For example, if they are under cover of some thick trees and had time to dig in...their morale would stay high even under some pretty heavy fire. And if their commander is in close proximity, even more so. Experience also factored into the morale equation. Conversely, young troops left in the open with no commanding officer nearby were next to worthless (they'd simply run away and refuse to fight for several minutes). And even those dug-in, experienced guys HATED to take flak fire, meaning you simply could NOT just glob troops somewhere and let them go on auto. You really had to consider ALL these factors intelligently to win.
Can't Civ3 use a lot of that? Terrain can affect morale easily enough. Experience can affect morale. Being dug-in would be easy to do. Even being flanked (I'm thinking stacked combat here) can be factored in. Etc.
Many companies shy away from morale because (quoting Ensemble Studios): "Most gamers get frustrated if their troops don't do exactly what they are told." Well, I'd get frustrated if the system were poorly or enigmatically done, but if it's as intuitive and balanced as we saw Sid do in Gettyburg!, I can only say:
PLEASE MAKE MORALE PART OF BATTLES IN CIV3!!!!!!!!!! (any thoughts?)
Comment