|
Pzt_Serk -> RE: Thoughts on improving moral system (3/15/2011 7:20:12 PM)
|
Hi again,
I've just noticed davidss had proposed something similar in the TLD forum here
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mystic_Snake
This doesn't bother me that much, attacking troops breaking through a gap in the line risk getting isolated. It's war.
Interesting view. Personnaly, I have always associated a moral break as a rout that you have no control of. And as Nappy discovered at Waterloo, you never know when or where a rout will end [;)]
What made me propose this is when I watched the Band of Brothers episiode about the Carentan battle last week-end. When they routed, Germans evacuated the town completly, not just a few blocks and rallied across the street.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mystic_Snake
One would expect XXX Corps to be delayed by a fight in Eindhoven. I wouldn't play it like this I think, but a good way ensure delaying the Allies.
Eindoven was just one exemple where the german player, assuming he plays an experienced player, will need a lot of luck to hold for a another turn if you try to preserve your men and conduct delaying action, because the opponent will simply catchup and disband you when he assaults your last position. So it might be just as well to deploy right in front of the ennemy and try to provoque a moral faillure ASAP while keeping a single team behind.
This does note really apply to the bridge maps where, as the german player, you actually need to defend the bridge as long as needed and moral faillure usually means losing it to the allies.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mystic_Snake
Maybe if the diffence in strenght between the two BGs is really big, an immediate retreat would be fair, but keep in mind, there aren't that many maps so loosing one can be big.
Yes its a severe penalty, but it could go both ways too. If the attacker suffers enough casualties, he will need to stop his attack by himself or his men would rout and he would get kicked out of the map. In the end, I think it would mean more map movement for both sides, which is not a bad thing IMO.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mystic_Snake
I agree here, if you had to consider retreat routes it would make planning a defense more interesting.
The idea is to force the player to assimilate the effect of moral into his gameplay, instead of relying on the game mecanic to take care of it. With a more severe penalty when you rout, a good player would actually try to avoid it and make the adjustement by himself on the battlefield.
Thanks to a more severe penalty, it would probalby be better to lower the moral lvl needed to trigger the moral faillure. Right now it looks like hitting the 28-33% moral lvl is enough to trigger the break. maybe lowering it 20% might avoid it being triggered too often, but when it does, you pay the price.
I make a parallel here with the MG42 lethality thread, where ODDBALL said the fear of the MG42 is just as good as its actual lethality, so act accordingly. I think it should be the same with moral: «Act accordingly to avoid it, or pay the heavy price of an unplanned rout»
quote:
ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams
i don't see an issue..just closed minds.
I like the variation in gameplay that FM offers.
My tactics have to change to accommodate a weak opposition but 16 VL's to capture.
So, instead of concentrating on killing sprites I have to adjust and take a more circumspect approach to affected maps/battles.
I really don't want to battle over 64 maps constantly using the same tactics (Bulldoze) to achieve a result
Judging by the many «FM gifts» you got in your campaign's AAR, I would conclude you where not very succesfull in adapting your tactic [:D]
Joking aside, it takes 2 to tango and even if you plan on avoiding your ennemy, he might dictate you otherwise and force you to engage very soon.
The careless Buldoze tactic that one will often see when playing with no moral is also something I wish to avoid. I would hope that someone that does it would learn after being kicked out of the map a few times because he does not care about casualties and must restart all over again.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams
this is supposed to be being worked on... and I don't think the fix is an easy one code wise... not sure if it is in the 51b patch though.
Well that would surely be a good step in the right direction. However, as you admitted yourself, it might not be as simple for the Dev. team to code than the full retreat [:)]
quote:
ORIGINAL: mooxe
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk
In the end, this would actually force a defending player to plan a retreat route for his teams if the need arise, or organize a defense in dept and keep a reserve if he is facing a much stronger attacking opponent, instead of massing all his team right at the front line and expect to lose 3 VL’s at worst.
Don't we already do this? If you are being attacking by a stronger BG you usually guard an exit VL you you can retreat on the strategic turn. These guarded exit VLs are also your supply routes. If you could retreat off a map while in battle, this strategy wouldnt change.
Mooxe, my comment was directed at playing with FM on. Of course it depends for each particuliar case, but early FM break could prevent this.
Playing with FM off, on the other hand, somehow forces you to defend your exit route as disbands are always possible before the timer is off, but IMO it has it's own drawback like I described earlier.
This is why I'm trying to figure out if some middle ground concept could be acheived.
To resume quickly, make the FM happen much less often but with a much more severe consequence (retreat off the map). This could be done by reducing the moral lvl needed to trigger the complete rout.
Or, maybe the simpliest solution for the Dev team is to make it moddable [:'(]
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
