Morale and how to harness it.

[Poorlaggedman]

I don't want a game where you have to join a unit and agree to certain rules to have proper Civil War combat, I want one where you engage in something resembling proper Civil War combat because it works in the game and you join a unit to do it better. Forced linear warfare is never truly competitive because game developers never give any reason that it should be.

I'm tired of the mantra in gaming that 'join the real army' if you want realism and you can dig a latrine too. Been there, done that. But the thing is, you can most definitely get a lot closer to it and keep your respawns too. There is a huge market for realism. I'm thrilled that this game has 3D voice chat---a must for teamwork and realism in a 3D environment. I contend that it is possible to make the game work and still be competitive, it just takes thinking outside of the box.

I formerly was a big junkie for the HL2 mod, Resistance and Liberation. I was known for my heavily-edited rants there on the now-defunct website for that mod.

Dave Grossman's book "On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace" opened my eyes back in 2006 to something that the overwhelming number of people are clueless about. 98% of people have a phobia of interpersonal aggression, the rest are literally psychotic. A phobia is an irrational fear. There's plenty of rational reasons to be afraid of other people when they are trying to kill you. The fear is so pervasive that it has tremendous effects on the human body itself. The 'adrenaline rush' from combat exists but it ain't necessarily a good thing and it isn't just some bonus you get. If it did soldiers wouldn't reload their musket ten times without firing.

Find any Youtube video of poorly-trained people getting murdered in combat in Syria or elsewhere. There's a plethora of them. And then you can yell at your screen because the people murdering them can't shoot worth spit either in those circumstances. It can be hard to relate until you've been shot at yourself by the unpredictable genius trying to make every second your last second. Nobody sane is ready for that and you can't really get that good at it. Combat is not as simple as the weapon you are holding and how fast you can theoretically use it.


So someone's trying to kill you. The threat is there and it stays there, you're in a prolonged fight and things start going south, what happens? Pretty startling things. Memory lapses, shaking, distorted vision, problems hearing, even uncontrolled bowel movements (please don't feature that). One story (from an interview) in "On Combat" talked about how people often believe their firearm is not working based on the sound of it firing because they are completely zoned in and anticipate the sound. It's only other people's firearms near them that register at all. Another story talks about how you can become fixated with an object and unable to focus off of it. A whole lot more happens. And it's very easy to stop behaving like a rational person. Everyone has their limits and rank typically has nothing to do with it.

Here's a chart from "On Combat" that compiles some of the effects on the body in survival situations, particularly when faced against a human opponent. This is not the same as the feeling being in a wrestling match or a school yard fight or almost getting hit by a car. It's 'someone is trying to kill me and has a reasonable chance at doing it.' As the footnote reads this is not the same effect as exercise-induced heart rates.
6714

If you get the book just ignore the chapter on Video games (he calls them mass-murder trainers).


One thing I've learned in life that always holds true is that reality is never what you expect. You might think you're ready to die but when every given millisecond can be your last alive, you'd prefer just a couple more milliseconds. It can be very tough to relate to soldiers who show panic, even when panic is the normal. You hardly hear about it from veterans who have actually been in sustained combat because people don't respond to it in a manner that is even in the ballpark of understanding. All you have to do is look at the comments on any video like below to see the wizards of smart tear into people for showing fear that they don't see in Hollywood movies. You can imagine the level of arrogance it takes to judge people in a situation you've never been close to. And yet such is your average understanding of human combat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPYmIQXZ-nk

If you were up against a 100-foot giant, you'd at least know which way to run as opposed to be under artillery fire.

Roscoe Blunt, who wrote "Foot Soldier: A Combat Infantryman's War In Europe," was definitely not a coward if you read his book. Yet, he 'cracked' under a mortar barrage. He didn't remember it, but he got out of his foxhole and ran around in circles shouting obscenities and shaking his fists. Let me reiterate, he didn't remember doing it.


Relating back to the Civil War, a Gettysburg National Military Park ranger gives a great summary of Civil War combat and the effect on the soldier.
(click to start at the 37:30 minute mark)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuAH32LwZ0Q&t=37m30s
If you back up to around 34:00, he talks some about the phenomena of forgetting to fire.



How and why to implement morale:


Morale can be an incredibly useful and immersive feature. Ask yourself.... Why did men stand shoulder to shoulder two ranks deep and fire at each other with these incredibly deadly rifled muskets? And more importantly, HOW did they NOT obliterate each other very quickly? Everybody knows that Civil War tactics were 'outdated.' Even so, given the accuracy of these weapons the formations should have literally obliterated each other in short order. Smoke answers part of this and I love the smoke in WoR. Morale combined with realistic smoke would be a real exciting and unique experience.

Morale should be a varying thing. It should not be rock solid, predictable behavior. It should mess with the player, it should be another dimension of combat.

Just like some FPS or RPG may have hitpoints, a game like WoR should have morale hits that build panic.

When a (enemy) ball whizzes close by from the front, you get a hit. It could be a randomly delayed effect as the shock of getting shot at wears off. Make more firepower coming at you cause more damage depending on the volume and proximity. Make it worse from the flank and rear and when friendly players go down around you.

Give players increased effects of panic as their morale deteriorates. Distort their vision, give them bouts of tunnel vision, give them shaking. Mess with their stanima (particularly when moving towards the enemy). Screw with their reloads. Add fumbling. Force the player to reload by the numbers in the first place and make it more difficult under sustained fire.

Make a player less vulnerable to morale hits when they are behaving. When they are close to the colors. When they are dressed with the soldiers to their right and left. When they have a buddy behind them or in front of them.

Give the skirmisher the eagle eye until he starts taking fire. You don't need some elaborate system to discourage lone wolves. You just need a player to be extra vulnerable when alone... even to the point of being automatically surrendered when close to an enemy formation.


Just as important... Deter frustrated players from merely charging with their bayonets (and turning this into a purely meelee game --- as I already see many frustrated players doing!!) by making charging and receiving a charge more difficult when up against a legitimate threat (and not just one or two bozos). Make the meelee more complex than simply thrusting a bayonett. Make retreat inviting to the panicked player against a legitimate charge. I'm still waiting for the day to see a shooter compel players to disengage and retreat and reorganize. In my lifetime I want to see players make a calculated decision to disengage and rally to recover their morale for a few minutes. You can see this in RPGs (when it comes to hitpoints, stanima, mana, etc). It can be done with morale.

Any of this adds the importance of morale to the player at home at his computer. Incentivize him to behave and he will behave. Keep the competition in WoR. Don't force your core players to behave like reenactors to capture the experience. Give your Companies real authority on the battlefield by building the game around reality. Make them something that public players will want to fall in with and not just a role as a big, juicy target for competitive players. Otherwise I foresee a lot of closed server events and a lot of arguing about rule breaking, because that's all there will be to go off of just like every other game's realism community where lone wolves rule the actual gameplay. We all want to enjoy the first great Civil War combat FPS ever. Nobody is paying $69 for this Alpha to run around by himself and take pot shots at some other lone guy on some corner of the map. Do the generation that fought the Civil War the justice of putting players on the battlefield making the same logical decisions in order to succeed.

[Profender]

Very interesting to read thank you

[rebeldestroyer]

5 minutes of my life spent reading something informative and insightful. thank you.

[LBoland]

Good read, well written, disagree with you're suggestion, but still good read. Don't think Morale should be some feature added that diminishes with certain things that can happen such as artillery, musket fire etc... From experience in game all of that happens already with people. Seeing your entire line get destroyed makes people go oh shit and run away or fall back already. I also don't like the idea that another feature or ability in game will increase morale for the troops, we already do that in-game by yelling, hyping the men up and giving them motivation. Hence why I always yell when in command and we have people always yelling and shouting and stuff, makes em fight harder and wanna kill. Just my two cents.

[Poorlaggedman]

WoR works right now because it's all people who totally want to make it work. As it becomes more widely available you will get different crops of people. Games are competitive and people are only going to role play so much. Especially when confronted with more effective enemies who won't play along.

Most games like this that I'm aware of like Mount & Blade's mod and HL2's "Battlegrounds" mod, it's totally pointless to play in a public server or behave in truly competitive gameplay. There's literally no reason to shoulder up. And I'm not saying you should have to, but you should want to in many circumstances.

[Profender]

WoR works right now because it's all people who totally want to make it work. As it becomes more widely available you will get different crops of people. Games are competitive and people are only going to role play so much. Especially when confronted with more effective enemies who won't play along.

Most games like this that I'm aware of like Mount & Blade's mod and HL2's "Battlegrounds" mod, it's totally pointless to play in a public server or behave in truly competitive gameplay. There's literally no reason to shoulder up. And I'm not saying you should have to, but you should want to in many circumstances.

I am all for options to turn on and off curtain features.
A moral option(or similar features) could work in the future private servers where people can decide the level of role-play they want to experience.
Giving people such choices, as long as it's possible for the devs to implement them, will serve a greater scope of players.

[LBoland]

I am all for options to turn on and off curtain features.
A moral option(or similar features) could work in the future private servers where people can decide the level of role-play they want to experience.
Giving people such choices, as long as it's possible for the devs to implement them, will serve a greater scope of players.

In agreement with you there, make it all optional.

[John Cooley]

It might give Musicians and Flag Bearers a greater role if their presence helped to Mitigate morale penalties but ...
Until the Devs reveal more info regarding Morale, Musicians and such ... all we can do is speculate and opine.

Having seen combat, in several different conflicts, I appreciate the Point of this Thread and your respectful handling of such a sensitive issue for many.
/salute Poorlaggedman

[Legion]

Good read, well written, disagree with you're suggestion, but still good read. Don't think Morale should be some feature added that diminishes with certain things that can happen such as artillery, musket fire etc... From experience in game all of that happens already with people. Seeing your entire line get destroyed makes people go oh shit and run away or fall back already. I also don't like the idea that another feature or ability in game will increase morale for the troops, we already do that in-game by yelling, hyping the men up and giving them motivation. Hence why I always yell when in command and we have people always yelling and shouting and stuff, makes em fight harder and wanna kill. Just my two cents.

Agreed. The more I play the more I realize that players morale diminishes naturally without any help from game mechanics.

I used to agree with adding a morale mechanic to the game but now I see that it's not needed.

[F. L. Villarreal]

Just as important... Deter frustrated players from merely charging with their bayonets (and turning this into a purely meelee game --- as I already see many frustrated players doing!!) by making charging and receiving a charge more difficult when up against a legitimate threat (and not just one or two bozos). Make the meelee more complex than simply thrusting a bayonett. Make retreat inviting to the panicked player against a legitimate charge. I'm still waiting for the day to see a shooter compel players to disengage and retreat and reorganize. In my lifetime I want to see players make a calculated decision to disengage and rally to recover their morale for a few minutes. You can see this in RPGs (when it comes to hitpoints, stanima, mana, etc). It can be done with morale.

Great read and thank you Poorlaggedman,

You brought up some very valuable points. I have read this same book and like you have been in real world conflicts. I think that the quote above from your original post speaks for itself. With loss of morale comes disorganization and loss of discipline. Burnside Bridge ingame is the perfect example. When federal soldiers start running towards the skirmish lines and not taking orders they get mowed down by a hail of lead at the hands of well disciplined and high morale rebel soldiers whom have the upper hand and leadership still intact or they simply run behind the wall and take cover until reinforcements arrive.

What are your thoughts?

[thomas aagaard]

Dave Grossman's book "On Combat,
Been a few years since I read his book, but I believe he uses General Marshalls wwii and Korean war studies?
(and they are not worth much. Marshall had a theory and set out to prove it.. and that is not how you do scientific work... and his method is sloppy.)

Making his books problematic to rely on.


The fact is that well trained soldiers got no issue with killing. When in combat they fall back on their training.
This is the case today as it was in the mid 18th century.
(where we got Prussian infantry firing 4-5 rounds a minute despite taking heavy fire and loosing men right and left... And they did so because of very strong discipline and training.)

Then the next question is, how well where civil war soldiers trained?
and the answer is "not well", especially during this campaign we got some Union regiments who didn't even knew how to load their guns or change formation from column into line.
(16th Connecticut to mention one)


So if some sort of moral system is implemented experiences troops should simply not be effected much by it... but the green (union) troops should.

[Legion]

Then the next question is, how well where civil war soldiers trained?
and the answer is "not well", especially during this campaign we got some Union regiments who didn't even knew how to load their guns or change formation from column into line.
(16th Connecticut to mention one)


So if some sort of moral system is implemented experiences troops should simply not be effected much by it... but the green (union) troops should.

This would give a pretty big advantage to the Confederate troops, seeing as many of them were veterans of many battles by the time of the Maryland Campaign.

Imo a morale system shouldn't be in-game, morale degradation happens naturally in-game anyways so I think we really don't have a need to a forced morale system.

[Saris]

be flag bearer and play music. done

[thomas aagaard]

This would give a pretty big advantage to the Confederate troops, seeing as many of them were veterans of many battles by the time of the Maryland Campaign.


Yep. Just about all CSA units had been in battle before. About 60% 3+ times

As I remember it about 20% of union units was completely green, and 50% had one seen combat one time.


This presentation have some interesting stuff about the weakness of the Union armies. (not that this change how well the CSA soldiers fought)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPM4SeXaIuY

[Poorlaggedman]

Great read and thank you Poorlaggedman,

You brought up some very valuable points. I have read this same book and like you have been in real world conflicts. I think that the quote above from your original post speaks for itself. With loss of morale comes disorganization and loss of discipline. Burnside Bridge ingame is the perfect example. When federal soldiers start running towards the skirmish lines and not taking orders they get mowed down by a hail of lead at the hands of well disciplined and high morale rebel soldiers whom have the upper hand and leadership still intact or they simply run behind the wall and take cover until reinforcements arrive.

What are your thoughts?

One thing I find about games is that sometimes the less they help you the more satisfying it is to actually get what you're going for. There are games that are monkeying with morale and suppression but it's a new thing. It constrains the player under fire but it works both ways. It's another dimension to gameplay than just pointing and clicking.

I assume most players here want to see a game where players 'behave.' By behave I mean shouldering up, following orders or at least a general consensus on the area in which to fight or advance. Not necessarily always but when appropriate. That's a crackpipe fantasy to some of you I'm sure. Although some of you may be so delusional to think that the small sample of hardcores we have in the Alpha now represents the player quality you will have as the game progresses. I went into a server for the first time and I marched around wheeling and firing by file with totally random people. It all goes downhill from there, let me assure you. It's working because we all cared enough to fork over some serious $$$ to get into the earliest release for the experience we want.

With a proper morale system anybody can walk into a server and do whatever... but if you want to win, you'd gravitate to other players in some manner. Experienced players would know what works. A rookie may wander off but eventually he'll figure out that players behaving are more effective than he is in the degraded mental state his avatar is after he gets in under fire. And maybe if every inch closer he is to other players then he will stand in a formation two ranks deep for a steadier shot. Maybe he'll charge when others charge instead of running off alone because he knows he'll stand a better chance at winning a 1-1 meelee than if he were alone.


You can't police a hundred individuals in their leisure time but you can make almost all of them police themselves if you give them a good reason. Competing is a much better incentive than the vague server or event rules which everyone will end up gravitating to in order to get what they want out of WoR.


Other multiplayer games with linear warfare:

I've watched tons of Youtube on M&B's Napoleonic mod and from the Battlegrounds mod where they do 'line battles'. It's specifically called a 'line battle' because the sides agree on rules. Other than that, there's no earthly reason to shoulder up in the gameplay mechanics. Certainly never two ranks deep. And it doesn't hold for long, only until the players feel like they've made an honest effort to follow the rules. What you see over and over again is very short ranged firefights and a lot of meelee combat. Because human gamers like real competition, not discipline for the sake of showmanship. Meelee is individualism in 'line battles.' Role playing can only get you so far. I'd like to see roleplaying but have substance and be competitive in public gameplay. Without that, all you really have is people tap-dancing around rules to gain an advantage on the other side, while pretending they are not. That's a line battle event.

Youtube search 'line battle' and you will see the future of WoR. Graphics and smoke effects won't fundamentally change the fact that you're just a bigger target when grouped up. And keep in mind, none of it is public gameplay in those videos. It's all hosted events. Don't get me wrong, I'll take it over nothing. But there'll never be a reason for any player to work as anything but a mob if you don't give one to the public player who acts purely in his self-interest.


Morale would validate proper behavior and allow true competition (as opposed to purely role playing). If you can make a competitive game where you behave in linear warfare, player counts would explode beyond what a niche game could ever do because it's never been done before. Multiplayer gaming is a social experience. There's nothing more social than being right up next to each other working as a team in a competitive manner. If all you're doing is making yourself a better target then why would you do that?


In the Civil War the lines and files of men did not thin out under fire and increase in spacing. Gaps were closed and holes were filled. The battle line got shorter and took up less space. Was insanity the only reason they did that? Or was it self-preservation? I think it's entirely logical that being in close proximity (whether 'shouldered' or otherwise) with your comrades would realistically and literally increase your morale or its resiliency. Soldiers have a habit of grouping up under fire. Three men in a foxhole is less likely to flee than two. If the guy next to you is still there, you're more likely to stay. If he goes down and there's nobody else there it's a totally different story. And whose going to be the last guy standing trying to steady his rifle? Tell me any soldier wouldn't high-tail it long before that moment.


The term 'firepower' does not mean killing power. The amount of rounds you put down range is what will eventually degrade the enemy so that they stop shooting back effectively. It was the same 150+ years ago as today. Killing is often a side effective of the firepower you are putting on the enemy, who you might not even be able to see.



The fact is that well trained soldiers got no issue with killing. When in combat they fall back on their training.
This is the case today as it was in the mid 18th century.
(where we got Prussian infantry firing 4-5 rounds a minute despite taking heavy fire and loosing men right and left... And they did so because of very strong discipline and training.)
You have to wonder whether the sources are correct if they were firing 4-5 rounds a minute.
Discipline and training is certainly paramount but it doesn't make danger of death any less real. You simply have a tendency to operate better because you go onto autopilot and through the motions. It's of little comfort knowing that the guy shooting at you might not know what he's doing and having confidence in yourself. The soldier in the formation knows little else except what's immediately around him. He may have confidence in his leaders but that doesn't mean he's not scared of the enemy to his front or anywhere else that he can't see.

For discipline: Just my opinion, I know it'd be a total pain in the ass, but making reloads more complex than pressing 'r' would be amazing to simulate. Even if it's as simple as pressing (or spamming) 1-9 in sequence. Let the players actually be the discipline, even if it just means knowing what's best for them and following orders when they think they have good leadership. That's what discipline is afterall.


Been a few years since I read his book, but I believe he uses General Marshalls wwii and Korean war studies?
Making his books problematic to rely on.The book is named "On Combat." But truthfully he uses a lot of examples outside of it like police work.

I don't think the game should assign you an experience level. Let the real performance of the players determine that. There's often a tendency of people into this genre to want to recreate exactly every scenario...'Reenacting.' And you can do that, if you want to get some inexperienced players and pit them against experienced players in the subscribed roles. For me, the 'regiments' you spawn into and the location are a sandbox. I want to see crack troops cross Burnside bridge with green defenders and every other possible combination of every other map.

[Poorlaggedman]

Just FYI I disagree with the artillery-style effects on the player's perspective that we have now.

Perhaps an already-shaken soldier could suffer such craziness but I think the violent shaking effects of your screen should be more reserved for someone already down the scale in morale. They drive me nuts as it is. It's one thing if the shell explodes right by you but the radius is too far and the effects are too much showmanship.

Darkest Hour has a style of suppression that is along the lines of that... the only effect of a bullet coming by you is a snapping of your screen. It is an effect and it renders suppressing fire useful but it doesn't accumulate. It can be gone as it fast as it comes. It's also annoying. Unnecessarily annoying. Similar to the artillery effects we have now.

So the common style of suppression effects is this style. A snapping, instant effect that throws off your aim like the current artillery effect. One game seems to have little-to-none. One is darkest hour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9uf8J3yj6s

It's an effect that makes it harder to shoot and you notice it. So players will actually fire in directions or at an unseen enemy.

I'm advocating for an effect that builds and stays and calms down. Not simply a distorted effect the moment the bullet passes you, which I find very annoying. You aren't gonna physically react instantaneously to each bullet by twitching violently. So the effect should build depending on the enemy firepower and leave slowly. Volley fire could serve a purpose rather than just merely throwing your shot away if you don't have a bead on someone. That's where my shot goes in WoR volleys half the time. Firepower is more useful than just timely aimed shots.

These effects are different, a little mild, and never get very extreme in these videos. They can get worse in this particular game and should be worse as enemy fire continues and friendlies go down. Being less severe based on your proximity to living friendlies.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3FlKfJaxoA
Note that the player never aims his rifle to show you how violently he shakes. There's more you can do than make the vision blurry and tunneled and shaking from the accumulated effect of firepower on you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpCOROFmGek

One key effect is that it saps your stanima after a while. No magic adrenaline boost, less constant charging to meelee in a game like WoR because it requires less patience than winning a firefight.


Nothing against Cody... but this is what your gameplay will be like if you don't give players a reason to act like it's not just any other shooter. That shouldn't have to include boxing your teams in 'You are deserting' zones. You'll have your suckers and realism junkies trying to behave. And you'll have lone wolves thriving and coming back for more again and again to prey on the people who behave realistically. Ideally... someone like this would simply stand a chance to crumple in the presence of a large number of enemy. Auto-surrender, the most extreme end of morale (and i've never seen it implemented) would help this being an every-round occurrence. Severe morale penalties for lone wolves in combat... at the very least when taking two balls in proximity would be very useful.

I ran realism events in Resistance and Liberation (WWII) for about five years. You had your idealists who behaved but inevitably the experienced players would tend to work against the rules and wreak havoc on anyone behaving realistically, working in squads. Policing them in closed server realism events is very hard. Their designated team leader had no incentive to police his own side and the opposing team calling out lone wolves just lead to constant confrontation. You're always going to have that problem until you give players a reason to behave rather than them going commando to this extreme or a lesser one. And indeed why shouldn't a player behave competitively. If it works, it's the other team's fault. But why didn't it happen in real-life? What would any normal humans reaction be to being behind an enemy line? Certainly not try to stab them one by one or even show himself. Being alone should be fine until two balls come in your direction in 10 seconds. Then it should be panic city. At close range... just in proximity to a larger body of enemy... should induce panic.

You have competing influences here. You have players purely competing and idealistic players moving together in formation or at least in groups. It won't make much of a difference if you have ginormous player counts you'll just have more individuals so don't imagine that it will.

And the players ability to react into meelee is too slow. You need an emergency meelee capability. People constantly charge you when you reload at 100 yards or less.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYqZibkevVc

[Legion]

The screen does shake a bit much, but it should still shake even if a little less. I've been next to cannons going off and they pretty much suck the air out of you and shake you, it's a very strange feeling. I could only imagine what an explosion would do.

Also, I think the shake could also represent flinching, if you get shot at or have an explosion go off near you your gonna flinch and that will throw off your aim.

[Poorlaggedman]

I would say more of a flinch when it's a surprise. I've flinched at fireworks when they are a surprise. But a lot of things could cause you to flinch. Even a bayonet thrust. Like I said, humans have an irrational fear (a phobia) of other people trying to kill them. So as dangerous as the shells are the fear actually can get in the way of survival. I just don't agree with the dramatic flinching at every shell during the entire barrages that stalk the maps right now. They aren't high explosive shells, this is 150+ years ago. I'm sure you might feel the concussion. it's not going to smack you around like you owe it money though

[Legion]

I would say more of a flinch when it's a surprise. I've flinched at fireworks when they are a surprise. But a lot of things could cause you to flinch. Even a bayonet thrust. Like I said, humans have an irrational fear (a phobia) of other people trying to kill them. So as dangerous as the shells are the fear actually can get in the way of survival. I just don't agree with the dramatic flinching at every shell during the entire barrages that stalk the maps right now. They aren't high explosive shells, this is 150+ years ago. I'm sure you might feel the concussion. it's not going to smack you around like you owe it money though

They are explosive though, they explode and send shrapnel everywhere.

[Poorlaggedman]

Yes but it's a far cry from later explosive shells most people associate with. The propellant charge was more powerful than the shell itself back then. I'm pretty sure it's the opposite today.

[Bivoj]

Fully agree with OP!
Some kind of morale is a must to be added, else the game will fail to deliver Civil War feel.
Making coulrs bearer ability of "healing" and "boosting" morale for friendly soldiers will give this class realistic role. "Boosting" morale by following officers' commands and by staying close to teammates, while losing morale facing enemy alone - this will prevent "ramboing" in proper way.

Thanks OP for one of the best posts here!

[David Dire]

On artillery, Hooker literally had to hand the army over to someone else thanks to a single shell which did not physically wound him, so artillery "flinch" effects are pretty good as of now, I feel.

[Takerith]

OP preach!

As far as I know, the devs have only really given vague descriptions of how morale will work later in development. I'd love to see a fully fleshed-out system like you described. Otherwise the line battles here will be too similar to NW or N&S.

[TrustyJam]

OP preach!

As far as I know, the devs have only really given vague descriptions of how morale will work later in development. I'd love to see a fully fleshed-out system like you described. Otherwise the line battles here will be too similar to NW or N&S.

Thank you all for your suggestions. Not to worry, there will be mechanics in place as we have stated quite a few times. :)

- Trusty

[Wildcat]

I don't think we have to worry too much about WoR game play style going into a lone wolf type thing.

currently, Game play makes it already hard for lone wolf's, I've done some lone wolf stuff whilst playing and every time I've done it I was destroyed easily. The only exception was last night when me and a flag bearer were sent to distract some rebels and they got flanked so we charged and I killed 4 of them easily xD. But in a game where you have only one shot and it takes 15 seconds to reload your gun, And if you have a revolver you only have 6 shots a life. It's kind of hard to just flank the enemy and then destroy them from behind all on your own. The game gets boring and way to hard when people start playing lone wolf too, Compared to when you get huge lines of people. Lines never look perfect but I like that because during the Civil War lines only ever started perfect, By the end of a battle I'm sure a normal line would be turned into a group of skirmishers lol, I think the Devs are doing it right at the moment because the style of fighting is very unique, And actually useful. Other more modern tactics are not really useful at all with the weapon mechanics etc.

One thing the dev's have done intentionally or unintentionally I don't know, But they made dying really annoying. Because you have to wait for a long re spawn time, Then when you spawn in you have to reload. So people don't want to die. So lines get destroyed by people worrying about having to deal with all that and hiding and stuff. I know for a fact that I have abandoned lines and ignored officers just so I didn't have to deal with the annoying death system lol.

I'm guilty of just charging out of being so confused, And yeah I do agree people should stop doing it, But when you're covered in smoke and can't see anything, Sometimes charging forwards is the only option you have. I'm sure some soldiers during the Civil War made stupid mistakes like that all the time. I mean "785,000–1,000,000+" people died. Mistakes were made. All the time.

[AP514]

As the OP said Some type of mechanic should be in place.
I think something to keep the 12 yr olds from running around in the rear area--("Im-agunna kill me a Enemy General")Also to keep them in the spirit of the game will be needed.
I too have been in a few Alphas myself and believe me as soon as Beta arrives so do the ASSHATS..(pardon my french)
The kiddies will start pouring in...they will not give a RATS backside about Formations, or anything else. You will get the "I paid my daddy's money and I am going to do what the BLEEP I want".
If you say something to them you have a 50-50 chance of them Tk'n you.....It is sad but a real fact.
(just an example)
A moral bar when on your own would make players keep to groups more..even a group of 2-3 (Skirmishers spread out in groups of 2-3)would still lose moral but slower. This would force Skirmishers to fall back to the the Battalion/Flag group to rotate out once in awhile.

[Poorlaggedman]

https://youtu.be/xtrPZrjjnv8

I guess you'd have four parts to a morale system. You'd have bonuses, penalties, hits, and effects.

Effects would damage your ability to move (especially 'charge'), shoot (aim), and possibly reload as well. They are mainly immersive. Heavier breathing, faster exhaustion, increased heartbeat, fumbling, trembling, visual distortions: blurryness...tunnel vision. Even freezing up and unable to effectively operate in meelee. You can be creative. They'd wear off over time when you aren't taking as many hits or have more bonuses.

Bonuses would effect how quickly you recover and how resilient you are to getting the effects in the first place. The main and, in my opinion, the only bonus should be proximity to friendlies regardless of type or rank.

Penalties would be from the proximity of enemy troops. We're talking close quarters combat or about to be hand-to-hand. 15-30 yards away, whatever is deemed a sure thing for meelee. Every enemy whose in your radius negates the effects of one friendly's bonus. This means if you are outnumbered and you are closing in or have closed in then you're as vulnerable to hits as if you were alone. This could vary depending on how far the enemy is.

Hits would be from enemy fire and losing comrades. A hit is more severe based on the proximity of the bullet or the comrade going down. Or the direction the hit is coming from. So if an enemy doesn't fire (or stab) at all.... there are no hits. Charged bayonets could also act as a hit every so many seconds. You just aren't going to stay around for that.


For the individual player it adds a currently-nonexistent incentive to fire in the direction of the enemy. Something critical to ever having a real firefight.

Some of the concept and assumptions are based on the real world principle that an individual soldier is more likely to not fear his own death if enemy fire is not effective or if it's not close to him. Therefore the opposite should be true as well. These should be the same across all warfare, not just 1862. Soldiers always have a tendency of grouping up under fire, not spreading out. Back then it was by design. Less effective firepower so you've got to mass it to make it more effective. It only makes sense that a friendly touching your shoulder should be a positive, if he goes down - that's a negative. If a bullet zips by down the line it's a negative. If it whizzes by your head or hits the fence post at your legs - that's a negative. If the enemy is at charged bayonets in your face that's a negative. If you have more enemy around you than your own side you have no bonuses at all or they are diminished.


Hits will be more effective if they are coming from the flank or rear of a player. Keep in mind that the proximity of friendlies in the formation is a different matter than this. An individual player taking bullets from his side should be more effected than if he was a single player taking bullets from his front.
6996

The fire should also be proximity-based. Obviously a close miss is much more for someone closer. The illustrated effects are before morale bonuses.
6997

The bonuses should be solely based on how close you are to how many friendlies. It doesn't need to be more elaborate than that at all. Though it should probably encompass a larger area than illustrated but should be greater when you are almost touching a friendly player.
6998


So of course for optimal morale bonus you would be inches apart in a blob. While having large numbers of friendlies die near you will have severe hits.
6999

Flanking Fire should incur extra hits for all who have the bullet pass near them especially if you are the last on the line. Although, like I said, you don't need to measure whether someone has a player to their left or right when taking flanking fire. The very fact of being at the end of the line means you'll have less friendlies in your radius than when you are at the center. Proximity to friendlies is all you need.
7000

Charging

Enemy in close proximity (perhaps especially with bayonets fixed) should incur penalties which essentially negate the effect of nearby friendlies until the point you are essentially operating like a lone wolf and, after taking further morale hits, autosurrendered. The aim is not to make meelee impossible by any means but simply to make it more about numbers and less about "I think I can bayonet two guys before I get killed myself." The outnumbered loner should be swept aside entirely without even a chance to fight, that's why I think autosurrender should be a thing. I'm not aware of any yankee letters home talking about the fanaticism of individual rebs charging into their lines with a bayonet at a full sprint.

One danger I don't illustrate is that if you are monkeying with a players ability to 'charge' you need to still enable a players ability to sprint or 'rout' (away) or else retreat is simply not an option if you'll be outran anyway.

Closing into meelee should be a calculated risk not a first resort because of frustration. Keep in mind the morale radius and that the radius should also take into account enemy within it.
7001

With an emphasis on numbers and withdrawing. Basically... it's a game of who can mass the most men and make it an uneven contest. This doesn't mean that a numerically inferior opponent will always lose it means they stand less of a chance of winning the more lopsided it is, but they really shouldn't stay in most cases anyway.
7002

Without morale.... if you're in meelee with 40 guys vs 20 you're going to have around 21-23 left. The defenders will do their job and be just as effective going down to the last man almost all the time. It's very hard to get results different than that if there's no reason you wouldn't.

The skirmisher with loose support is more resilient than a lone wolf to some shots but not to sustained shooting. As the enemy closes in, the obvious choice is to withdraw.
7003

It only makes sense to bring a friend and for morale bonuses to help offset enemy fire.
7004

About the best you can hope for in any game is players moving together. You don't just hope or assume it works or players will naturally do that. That sounds like every other realism community out there I run into. With something like this you are setting people up who work together for success. That doesn't mean people will march from spawn to the battlefield in whatever elaborate wheeling motion you want but it does mean there may be an advantage to first coming under fire in something closer to that.

[Poorlaggedman]

When it comes to my examples on charging it should still work even in real-life examples where numerically inferior opponents drove away numerically superior ones. The additional loss in morale from losing the support bonuses of even some number of friendlies in your radius should make a battered player more vulnerable to further hits anyway. You'd of course need a strong time variation on an autosurrender feature as well as consideration for rare scenarios or enemy penalties not effecting bonuses in your immediate (touching) radius with the goal being a smaller but strong formation not getting wrecked by a couple morale hits in close quarters to a larger one putting out little firepower.

[Bravescot]

Obvious question: the coding and the likes to get this all to work and function smoothly, how easy/hard is it?

[TrustyJam]

Obvious question: the coding and the likes to get this all to work and function smoothly, how easy/hard is it?

The amount of tracking and calculations based on player positions & actions as outlined above is both very hard work (we have a single full time programmer who is very much busy working on regimental/class/weapon limitations, engine upgrades, flag bearer spawn systems at the moment) and taxing on the server (lower player counts). I'm not saying something like it or parts of it may never happen - it most likely will at some point, but not in the foreseeable future.

In any case - thank you for your detailed suggestions! :)

- Trusty

[Poorlaggedman]

Not sure. As far as morale hits it's been done before but I don't know if anyone really understood how it functions except for the developers who came and went from the project in Resistance and Liberation. And it was hardly a serious effort by serious developers there.

Basically we're talking about tracking proximity of bullets and people and preferably a lot more work in animations to go along with it.

With the audio of bullets zipping by I understand that the player's proximity to a bullet miss is already tracked in some measure otherwise you wouldn't hear that. You also have local voice chat so presumably the game can track your relation to other players.

With animations... just in general, I strongly feel like you should be able to resume reloading from certain steps, reload while moving to some degree. Fumbling would help with any game in any time period and we know it's realistic especially under pressure.

The most basic effect on the player would be weapon sway from shaking and we already know there's that annoying effect when you first take aim. There seems to be already be the ability to blur your vision. Tunnel vision... some heartbeat sounds, heavier breathing

A carefully thought-out process and testing would help.

[Bivoj]

it most likely will at some point, but not in the foreseeable future.

That is really pity:( implementing individual soldier morale would really make a huge difference. Even very basic one.

[A. P. Hill]

That is really pity:( implementing individual soldier morale would really make a huge difference. Even very basic one.

Yep. Nothing would make the player base happier than to have the game programmed to take over a player's toon for morale degradation and cause him to run uncontrollably around the field while the player sits at his computer and yells at the screen to make the toon stop being stupid. :)

That said, I think implementing "individual soldier morale" could be a difficult thing. It's going to have to be a unit thing to have any actual programing abilities or lack thereof.

[Bivoj]

Yep. Nothing would make the player base happier than to have the game programmed to take over a player's toon for morale degradation and cause him to run uncontrollably around the field while the player sits at his computer and yells at the screen to make the toon stop being stupid. :)

That said, I think implementing "individual soldier morale" could be a difficult thing. It's going to have to be a unit thing to have any actual programing abilities or lack thereof.

I do not know what would make the "player base" happier, neither you do. I know, that I would like to play realistic game with realistic morale implemented. Maybe you dislike it and you prefer arcadish style of play with fearless avatar able to make suicide charges without harm. Different people, different tastes... But there is no need for this sarcastic and demagogic post. The "stupid toon" you seem to dislike is just another type of damage caused to your avatar, so:
"Nothing would make the player base happier than to have the game programmed to take over a player's toon for health degradation and switch to blackscreen while the player sits at his computer and yells at the screen to make the blackscreen stop being black."

[Poorlaggedman]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'running around uncontrollably.' When I was talking about running away, I'm talking about the player choosing to run away rather than face unrealistic stacked odds against him. The whole individual player charge thing that is so predominant. Without additional penalties, a lone wolf functionally operates as effectively as a guy working closely with others. In this case, you have the role players vs the Mel Gibsons out there.

I'm curious if you've played a lot of other shooters Hill or you're just a general Civil War gamer. It's pretty ugly out there as far as gameplay and getting players to work together closely is entirely unthinkable with 20 second reloads and without innovation.

I stopped playing most 'standard' shooters and decided to pick my battles. The morale effects were did in the last game I stuck with (for many, many years). They were mild but they were done for free by a college student who was not a very good programmer. He left an enormous amount of bugs that had to be cleaned up. This engine is far, far better. I just watched a developer video with several minutes dedicated to the update with the sound of metal from artillery moving in the air. As the player is shot at... shaking from heavy breathing and adrenaline increases. Tunnel vision begins to set in. The screen get's more blurry. In short it makes it harder to send a 1 ounce projectile and drop it on someone's lap when they are putting lead your way. If I read right, the developers are already planning to put some sort of 'limit' on charging in the next patch. There are a lot of gamier ways like that to get better gameplay. I do agree with limiting charging when a player's morale is not in good shape, which should require some sort of cohesive bayonet charge rather than a cluster**** you see now in every situation. Where in the annals of war did individuals run full sprint into enemy lines alone with a bayonet?

The general idea is, the more firepower, the more friendlies dying around you, the more hits you take, the worse the effects get. Therefore the more likely you are to decide to run away and take a different approach rather than play point-and-click shooting match with steady hands like you're on a rifle range. The lower you are to the ground, the less of an effect on you.

I'm not saying this was done the way I like it... but you get the general idea:

https://youtu.be/6G4q4lfEdkM

[Bivoj]

Honestly, I would prefer to see more than just graphical and sound effects (they may be the first "punishment").

I am thinking about something like this:
Morale health 100% - fresh soldier, no penalty
Morale health 75% - becoming disrupted - slower reloads, higher weapon swey
Morale health 50% - Shaken = moderate visual and sound effects (as seen in post above); possibility of foul reload; slower melee; decreased stamina consumption by sprint (to allow better retreat)
Morale health 25% - becoming broken = significant visual and sound effects (black-and-white; blurry; loud heartbeat); very slow reloads with high probability of foul; no melee but block allowed
Morale health 0% - Rout = auto-surrender when more enemy than friendly within close proximity; else auto-retreat in direction to spawn; stop at certain point and wait for recovery to 26%

At 0% of morale heath, the punishment is similar to 0% physical death - you have to wait for respawn or morale recovery. The latter does not consume the "ticket".

So, when you act as lone wolf, you very likely experience adversary morale effects. When you act as a soldier in close order unit (with good leadership, ordering retreat in proper time) or proper skirmisher (avoiding close contact with close order units), you do not experience much of the effects. And that is the desired result - historical behaviour being more efficient to lonewolf ramboing in realistic manner.

[R21]

Resistance and liberation became a bit of a mess tbh, the initial releases were really good (for what they were) but I don't think i've ever seen such a bitchy community in my entire life.

Like you say, amateurs working for free + the limitations of the engine they were using stonewalled them.

I've been playing Rising storm 2 and I have to say, I just find the suppression effects really annoying, i.e. 'pop head up from window get shot at, vision blurred, get to cover' rinse and repeat. Now, this could be completely different with WOR as there aren't any automatic Weapons but it's just really annoying in RS2 (either being shot at or bombarded by arty and your screen blurred for ages) it just seems like a really formulaic approach, like 'You're suppressed now, that means you have to take cover!'

I kind of like what i've seen in WOR so far with the Shell effects, like a momentary blur when one lands, it seems like enough (and obviously they can expand on this) i'm just not sure the best way to go about it as an entire system. I think i've suggested having teams more susceptible to suppression effects and having it tied to a teams overall 'Morale' which could be a good way to go (This'd really help in getting teams moving as they wouldn't want their teams morale to drop) and could cause some really intense fighting.

[Poorlaggedman]

Resistance and Liberation wasn't a mess because of morale. The morale was softcore. It was a mess because of a dead-end game franchise (HL2) and high desertion among developers. If anyone could have imagined it'd be 2017 and HL3 wasn't out, nobody would have believed it. They killed all the promising mod communities with their betrayal.

The shell effects are way too standardized and predictable. GOOD morale effects would vary and not just be a reaction to each shot or shell.

I have not played RS. Actually, I take that back. I did play a free weekend years ago. I didn't like it. I don't recall any sort of morale. There's a big difference between 'morale' and 'suppression'. As in the video in this thread about the two games.... some games have a quick snapping effect where it distorts your vision for a moment. I call that 'suppression.' It only happens the moments the bullet is coming by. The effects are often exaggerated and standardized. Like WoR's artillery effects. The key is to achieve a longer effect that builds up and recovers. If you're alone getting shot at every 25 seconds by two guys then eventually you're going to accumulate enough to start really noticing it. You aren't going to be all that successful sitting there and taking it forever. You should always feel a little effect but as you stray from teammates or you take a lot of firepower it should really start to heat up. The players should be motivated to counteract these effects and therefore 'behave' like the real combatants generally behaved.

Individual morale is the most realistic path to take as well. Where does a rout start? Was an interesting article I read. Obviously if youre in a line of battle and someone is firing into your flank those men on the flank are probably going to start caving first rather than just wait for their turn to get shot through the thighs.
7140

Team morale just sounds like an ambiguous scoring metric that nobody will ever understand and just accept it when it happens. Much like we have in the current version of WoR where it starts off as "Battle ready" moves to "Engaged" and whatever else after. With individual morale there is a real path the players can pursue themselves to change it and not just complain to their teammates and bemoan the downfall of the team.

My goal is not some dumb Real time strategy style system where you get 'bonuses' from being near an officer or some BS. I want the 'officer' or the player acting in that role to serve a real purpose when he tries to get people to do certain stuff. He should be closing gaps because it helps the players by helping their effectiveness not just role playing. I see a ton of annoying role playing right now and I feel like a kid playing with a toy rather than a competitor trying to win over other humans. I'm an enormous civil war buff. I'm actually working the deputy director of a major battlefield park right now to start a non profit organization there in October. And yet I'm getting bored and frustrated in this game as it stands standing alongside people trying to reenact. It's just us hardcores right now but it's going to change. If people come for Civil War combat and find something that doesn't deliver, if they come and find a bunch of hardcores reenacting in a game that should be competitive, there will be disappointment and when there's disappointment the trolling will eat at the community wave after wave.

[R21]

Resistance and Liberation wasn't a mess because of morale. The morale was softcore. It was a mess because of a dead-end game franchise (HL2) and high desertion among developers. If anyone could have imagined it'd be 2017 and HL3 wasn't out, nobody would have believed it. They killed all the promising mod communities with their betrayal.

Yeh, I think they took the HL2 Engine as far as it could go given what they were trying to do, just wasn't meant for massive outdoor stuff.




Team morale just sounds like an ambiguous scoring metric that nobody will ever understand and just accept it when it happens. Much like we have in the current version of WoR where it starts off as "Battle ready" moves to "Engaged" and whatever else after. With individual morale there is a real path the players can pursue themselves to change it and not just complain to their teammates and bemoan the downfall of the team.

What I mean by team morale: The more casualties a team is taking/Further they're being pushed back the lower their overall Morale which would then effect Players individual Morale.

In Gameplay terms I think this would help with the flow of Battles (Getting pushed back and having negative effects would make people either Rally or accept they'd lost) sort of speeding things up a bit and not having rounds ending with 2-3 people Camping in some unknown location.




My goal is not some dumb Real time strategy style system where you get 'bonuses' from being near an officer or some BS. I want the 'officer' or the player acting in that role to serve a real purpose when he tries to get people to do certain stuff. He should be closing gaps because it helps the players by helping their effectiveness not just role playing. I see a ton of annoying role playing right now and I feel like a kid playing with a toy rather than a competitor trying to win over other humans. I'm an enormous civil war buff. I'm actually working the deputy director of a major battlefield park right now to start a non profit organization there in October. And yet I'm getting bored and frustrated in this game as it stands standing alongside people trying to reenact. It's just us hardcores right now but it's going to change. If people come for Civil War combat and find something that doesn't deliver, if they come and find a bunch of hardcores reenacting in a game that should be competitive, there will be disappointment and when there's disappointment the trolling will eat at the community wave after wave.

Completely agree with you, imo, the roleplay stuff can deter actual Gameplay. I have no problem with it, but when people start trying to force it on Public play it gets a bit annoying. Gameplay before accuracy/RP every time.

[Shabahh]

I am in total agreement of having some sort of individual morale system in place as OP suggested, and not as just options. Yeah not having restrictions sound nice and all, but even this game needed officer limitations. In the end, gamers are practical and don't like losing.

[Poorlaggedman]

Yes. And even without an individual score they are always looking at the metrics of their success. In a game like this it can be very healthy ones, like the positive experience of working together. People see your deeds literally and judge you by that instead of pressing tab and seeing whose getting the most kills / points. "Real" good leadership that works. And of course whether their team wins or loses.



What I mean by team morale: The more casualties a team is taking/Further they're being pushed back the lower their overall Morale which would then effect Players individual Morale.

In Gameplay terms I think this would help with the flow of Battles (Getting pushed back and having negative effects would make people either Rally or accept they'd lost) sort of speeding things up a bit and not having rounds ending with 2-3 people Camping in some unknown location.
I feel like that wouldn't have much effect on the way people play. It'd just be like a perk on when you're winning and losing. And wouldn't make a ton of sense to be just spawning in and be shook up.

[Grimner]

well i'm curious to see what it will look like :rolleyes:

[R21]

I feel like that wouldn't have much effect on the way people play. It'd just be like a perk on when you're winning and losing. And wouldn't make a ton of sense to be just spawning in and be shook up.

Not what I meant, I basically meant the system you're proposing but tied to an overall Armies morale if that makes sense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=MpCOROFmGek

This is something they should definitely include, they introduced this stuff round about the time I stopped playing RNL (Hit then getting back up) it's a far better system than a Player getting hit and just continuing to stand there with a bloody screen or Bandaging after being hit. They could still include Bandaging, but make it so they need to be applied after this knock down effect. It'd also be a really good way to have Artillery be effective but not OP (Shell lands and kills a few and knocks a few others down, they then get back up and get into the fight again).

There's your supression/Morale right there, if Players fear they can have control taken away from them by this knock down effect, they'll probably try and take cover. This would also encourage bayonet charges (run in and take players out while they're down).

Of course, playability is key with all this stuff so they'd need to test it quite a lot to make sure it actually added to the Game and wasn't just annoying.

From what i've briefly played of WOR they've kind of got the beginnings of this (when I was shot my character fell to the ground with a pulsing black screen) they've basically got half this feature in already.

[Max Krause]

Honestly, I would prefer to see more than just graphical and sound effects (they may be the first "punishment").

I am thinking about something like this:
Morale health 100% - fresh soldier, no penalty
Morale health 75% - becoming disrupted - slower reloads, higher weapon swey
Morale health 50% - Shaken = moderate visual and sound effects (as seen in post above); possibility of foul reload; slower melee; decreased stamina consumption by sprint (to allow better retreat)
Morale health 25% - becoming broken = significant visual and sound effects (black-and-white; blurry; loud heartbeat); very slow reloads with high probability of foul; no melee but block allowed
Morale health 0% - Rout = auto-surrender when more enemy than friendly within close proximity; else auto-retreat in direction to spawn; stop at certain point and wait for recovery to 26%

At 0% of morale heath, the punishment is similar to 0% physical death - you have to wait for respawn or morale recovery. The latter does not consume the "ticket".

So, when you act as lone wolf, you very likely experience adversary morale effects. When you act as a soldier in close order unit (with good leadership, ordering retreat in proper time) or proper skirmisher (avoiding close contact with close order units), you do not experience much of the effects. And that is the desired result - historical behaviour being more efficient to lonewolf ramboing in realistic manner.

Mostly Agreed, but i think auto surrender is bad, I would say that they would just drop their weopon. No auto retreating because otherwise it wouldn't be able to have roleplay. ( Prisoners and so on)

[R21]

Auto surrender/Retreat mechanics sound a bit too RTS-y, if control is taken away from the player it needs to be within context:

Like, the knock out effect kind of gives the player it's happening too a chance to fight back because the enemy that has shot him will

A.) Think he's dead

B.) He'll be harder to hit due to being prone

c.) Makes sense contextually from a user feedback point of view (your player has been hit and this is the result of the impact)

Auto surrender or your character just dropping their Weapon uncontrollaby would just be annoying imo.

[Poorlaggedman]

Auto-surrender is the most radical concept of the individual morale idea. I have grown to think it's a good thing more and more.

What happened in close quarters combat when one totally overwhelmed or out of ammunition? What happened in close quarters combat? Typically one side stopped short or one side withdrew. If they were totally driven away and you didn't follow you weren't going to make a one man stand at point blank range. Is it fair to the players playing correctly to have to deal with lone wolves? In close quarters? When they are totally overwhelmed. This isn't the Pacific Theater in WWII. Being captured is not unthinkable. Parole is a thing. Entire companies were overran and captured. If you are against a wall of bayonets and you don't even have your own wall of bayonets, it's just you then why should you be able to fling yourself in there and maybe get a kill or two when any reasonable person would surrender in this war? It wasn't even like a dishonorable thing. It happened.

It's a matter of being outmaneuvered and put into a situation you shouldn't have allowed yourself to get into in the first place. Without severe penalties like autosurrender, meelee will be a sure and constant experience without letup. You give each player the license to say "You know what, screw this whole shooting at a target I can't see let me individually go and force meele while they reload."

It should mainly be something that happens in close proximity to the enemy and when seriously outnumbered. A skirmish line vs a battle line. If they get that close and you didn't leave, you fucked up. The charged enemy bayonet could serve as an additional penalty. It's not 'losing control' of your character it's effectively the same as dying for the player's perspective. Does anyone seriously think a good, well-behaving player wouldn't just realize he screwed up when he get's autosurrendered?

[R21]

But how would it work from a Gameplay perspective? The player automatically surrenders, loses control then respawns? If the Player retains control they'll just get bayonetted or shot anyway.

[Poorlaggedman]

No. It's the same as dying except instead of a rag doll it leaves a surrender doll with it's hands up. Instead of dropping and hearing your breathing stop and fading to black your character just drops its weapon (or turns the musket upside down) and puts it's hands up. With one last chance for the player to voice chat some snarky shit maybe before it kicks you back to spawn. I quite like that feature of dying in WoR currently.

So The surrender doll can either disappear after a while or presume walking to the enemy spawn and disappear if you really want to be fancy. For simplicity's sake it could be invincible.

One thing it will do is make a reason to retreat, and also to stop short rather than charge straight into enemy lines regardless of the balance. If you know when you get swarmed you just get autosurrendered then you will stop making stupid banzai charges

[David Dire]

Surrenduring wasn't really a thing in the Civil war except for soldiers who were completely disconnected from their fellows and alone, or units in a complete route. Those situations would be too rare to be worth implementing. "Critical" morale reducing player effectiveness via accuracy, loading, bayonet skill and vision debuffs would be a pretty realistic and fair way to implement it: it would encourage officers to actuall fall back to regroup.

[Poorlaggedman]

Not much of a thing? There's hardly a detailed story about any battle from anybody that doesn't mention losing buddies captured or bagging enemy prisoners.

400,000 prisoners in the first two years? And with a parole system. The largest mass surrender of Northern troops was at Harper's Ferry and that was only something like 8-12,000 in a garrison. The rest were in smaller numbers.





It probably wouldn't be much of a thing in WoR either except for noobs who don't understand the system. Otherwise it'd become apparent to most that frolicking up to enemy lines alone or in pairs means death or capture. Autosurrender would just be the ultimate morale penalty, not necessarily brought on after many others if you aren't taking a lot of hits and end up close to the enemy.

You're imagining that there won't be lone wolves. I assure you, there will be tons. And lots of fruitless charges that shouldn't happen too by bored 'officers' who want to be of some use in close combat or feel special trying to enact a scene from a painting rather than win a match.

[A. P. Hill]

It would have to be a form of Auto something ... as in virtual reality there is no fear of dying ... and as mentioned, if you did die, no biggie, you come back. That doesn't happen in reality.

[Takerith]

A lot of people here seem to be under the impression that some things will just work out, and that people won't banzai charge or rambo because it 'breaks RP'. They're ignoring the largest counterpart to this game: Mount & Blade: Napoleonic Wars. Rounds in organised events are never more than 20 mins long because people get bored and call an all-charge, and there are rules against people ramboing specifically because there isn't an in-game system to prevent it. And forget about public servers, with no such rules; they're just full of pseudo-skirmishers.

Too many people here dismiss comparisons made to NW, but we need to face the facts. NW failed as a historical simulator, and only took off because it was the only game in its class. Now that there's a whole new game being made from the ground up, we need to learn from NW's failures and see what systems we want that will put WoR a step above it. We can already see a recurring pattern here, with people choosing to sprint into enemy lines and get 1 or 2 kills before dying. At least with NW's blocking system the line could protect themselves, but the melee here is planned to be quick and bloody (https://warofrights.com/KickstarterUpdate18), so odds are one man will still be able to sneak attack lines and flail their way to a few kills.

Many of ye are dismissing Poorlaggedman's suggestions, but they're only coming about because there hasn't been any better ideas (at least, that I have seen). An autosurrender, to me, is a system with very few downsides. If it's only triggered when severely outnumbered then it doesn't really have a functional difference to being killed. After all, when outnumbered 10 to 1, the only question is how many men will die killing the lone wolf, so an autosurrender would at least remove the ability to banzai charge lines. This will prevent frustrating deaths for the people who are actually trying to RP and punish impatient people who want to fluff their kill count.

The devs are being fairly tight-lipped for any in-game system that will prevent this, so for now I support Poorlaggedman's autosurrender idea. It may take away player freedom, but only for those who don't play by the rules of the setting.

[Dman979]

This is an Apha, a time to implement core gameplay mechanics and test systems. I think it's worth giving auto surrender a chance to make it into the Beta by trying it now. If the devs think it doesn't fit the gameplay mechanics, they can scrap it. I understand that it will be some work to implement for an uncertain return, but I don't think there's any other concrete way to know if it will work beyond trying it.

So, FWIW, I'm in favor of an auto-surrender system at this time.

Additionally, I think it will help the game. The current community is more concerned than your average player about fighting in lines, etc. When I play an event, I will fight in the formation ordered by my officers. When I'm playing casually, though, there's no way I won't be exploiting the gameplay mechanics to give my team an advantage. If I can cause havoc by charging solo, I'm going to do it. It's simply not worth it to me, the team, or any other players to stand back and shoot when I can close to melee and win.

Best,
Dman979

[R21]

No. It's the same as dying except instead of a rag doll it leaves a surrender doll with it's hands up.

What, like, you puts hands up then camera zooms out skyward (like in BF1) leading you back to the spawn screen after you lose control?

It could work, the only negative could be the immersion factor (invincible or instantly disappearing NPCS). If they were to stay they'd have to code some waypointing and I could see NPCS just glitching out, if they had the Players stay and sit down or something enemy Players would mistake them for targets.

I remember posting about surrenders ages ago and it seems like something really difficult to get right, I think I suggested something along the lines of it losing a team less tickets (like lets say your squad surrendered you'd only lose half that you would if you'd all been killed) that's the only really Gameplay friendly way of doing it I can see which would actually make people bother with or take note of the system. If balanced correctly it could add to the Game as it'd make people fight harder for fear of Auto-surrendering (it could even be a serverside option if some people didn't like it).

A really, really cheap and crude way of doing it would be the following:

Players heavily supressed and being pinned down, spawns a trigger area over them (like the out of bounds sections at the ends of Maps) and they have X amount of time to leave the area or they're auto killed. Crude, but would force Players to rout from an area and fall back a bit (they could still use their Weapons and fire, but would be autokilled after about 25-30 seconds or so).

If they had this along with UI markers (like the area you needed to leave to survive) this could work in making players retreat or disperse. To keep immersion have cannon shells explode in the area if Players stay longer than the alloted time to make it seem like they got hit.

Still on the fence about Routing/Surrendering overall though.

[Bivoj]

When there is the gamey "shooting the deserter" out of the blind when your avatar reaches certain point at map (like CSA close to the bridge or anyone going near enemy spawn) and nobody complains about it, I do not understand why much more logical feature -the autosurrender- is so controversial. It is just another type of ingame "death".

[David Dire]

Not much of a thing? There's hardly a detailed story about any battle from anybody that doesn't mention losing buddies captured or bagging enemy prisoners.

400,000 prisoners in the first two years? And with a parole system. The largest mass surrender of Northern troops was at Harper's Ferry and that was only something like 8-12,000 in a garrison. The rest were in smaller numbers.





It probably wouldn't be much of a thing in WoR either except for noobs who don't understand the system. Otherwise it'd become apparent to most that frolicking up to enemy lines alone or in pairs means death or capture. Autosurrender would just be the ultimate morale penalty, not necessarily brought on after many others if you aren't taking a lot of hits and end up close to the enemy.

You're imagining that there won't be lone wolves. I assure you, there will be tons. And lots of fruitless charges that shouldn't happen too by bored 'officers' who want to be of some use in close combat or feel special trying to enact a scene from a painting rather than win a match.

I never said there wouldnt be lone wolves: I even addressed them.

[Bivoj]

I would also be happier when autosurrender replaces autokill. It is epecially reasonable when near enemy spawn - you would rather surrender to enemy troops, than to be shot by invisible commander...

[Lightfoot]

Interesting ideas here. I do think an auto-surrender would be a way of countering lone wolf and suicide disruption attacks. If the developers can tell the ratio of enemy to an individual in say a 10 foot radius and auto surrender the player if it gets higher than say 3:1, it would discourage lone wolf attacks for sure. It might also make you think twice about disrupting a line by charging it with a couple of players while they are reloading.

Doesn't need to be fancy. Could work like the Skirmish boundaries. When you find yourself alone among the enemy give you a short count down warning and send your character back to respawn if you don't get out of there fast enough.

Think it might be worth trying.

[David Dire]

Charging while outnumbered by atleast 4:1 giving you a surrender warning would be a pretty balanced ratio, I think. Actually surrendering in melee should be around 8:1. And of course, getting a surrender warning while being charged and greatly outnumbered would make bayonet pushes actually realistic, as the enemy would retreat rather than fight to the last.

[Dman979]

Charging while outnumbered by atleast 4:1 giving you a surrender warning would be a pretty balanced ratio, I think. Actually surrendering in melee should be around 8:1. And of course, getting a surrender warning while being charged and greatly outnumbered would make bayonet pushes actually realistic, as the enemy would retreat rather than fight to the last.

I like what you're getting at here. I'm thinking that the ratios shouldn't be automatic or exact. For instance, as the players around you take casualties, the ratio shouldn't automatically drop- it would stay constant for a bit, before considering the dead and wounded. There might even be a bonus for taking a few casualties, to represent the adrenaline rush of combat.

Best,
Dman979

[David Dire]

That too. I think all these effects would increase realism dramatically by restricting what officers could reasonably have their unit do.

[Poorlaggedman]

Close combat is definitely the most complex part of the morale system. There's a few things going on.

Before you closed in you started off in some morale state. Maybe you were already in a firefight and haven't recovered entirely or maybe you are fresh. The closer you get, presumably the morale hits will come faster just by the increasing accuracy of enemy fire and casualties. At a certain point, I'd say slightly closer than the width of your average road, you are in the mix for autosurrender depending on how outnumbered you are. This get's greater the closer you are. So when an enemy is almost on top of you, it's greatest. Close enemy with charged bayonets increase the likelihood of surrender by a serious amount. However, the enemy with charged bayonets in also has an additional morale hit, because we all know people shouldn't be sticking around for that very long.

You're also more likely to autosurrender if your morale is lower.

So in close quarters you're going to want to stay close to friendlies rather than spread out to go Mel Gibson some guy not looking your way because:
You're less vulnerable to morale hits by fire in the first place by being closer to more friendlies.
You're far less likely to autosurrender as the enemy get close.
You're more likely to induce autosurrender on any enemy approaching you.

Heck if you want to be even more realistic you can add a grabbing feature so you can literally grab enemy when overwhelming them to further induce autosurrender.

Also if some friendlies retreat or stop short of closing in all the way, it keeps the rest from blatantly disregarding their comrades all the time. I don't know how many times I've been in a 'charge' already and saw it was totally hopeless but went on anyway just because I knew we'd all be at the spawn and I might get a kill anyway. If you add the extra motivation then it makes sense to stop short. So charging has to be done in close order to be effective against an enemy in close order and it's more of a tool to drive enemy away than wipe them out.

[David Dire]

Melee should not be like chiv or warband: experienced players should have only a little advantage, if any, over people who literally got the game the same day. Otherwise unita will simply train to be good at melee and destroy everyone that way.

[Takerith]

Melee should not be like chiv or warband: experienced players should have only a little advantage, if any, over people who literally got the game the same day. Otherwise a unit will simply train to be good at melee and destroy everyone that way.

This is kind of tangential to the thread, but are you saying that there shouldn't be a skill to melee? That kind of goes against all theory of competition; someone who works more at something should naturally be better than someone who doesn't. Hard work pays off and all that.

Also, melee doesn't seem like it will be rewarding except in extreme situations. Going off previous dev blogs, it seems like melee will be based on timing and parrying rather than the hard blocking of M&B, meaning that it's likely that in any given fight there will be casualties on both sides. So any officer wanting to avoid a bloodbath would only charge in certain circumstances, assuming that the devs do enough to discourage the current issues properly.

[David Dire]

Melee was a very rare thing in the civil war: To make it rewarding in any real way would automatically make it overused. There should be incentive to hold ground and shoot rather than charge, and an incentive to retreat in the face of a charge.

[Jordon Brooker]

Melee was a very rare thing in the civil war: To make it rewarding in any real way would automatically make it overused. There should be incentive to hold ground and shoot rather than charge, and an incentive to retreat in the face of a charge.

This can't be stated enough.

[Takerith]

That is fair enough, but I feel like making melee non skill based is just a lazy way to discourage it. The best way to discourage melee would be to analyse why it wasn't viable in the war (low discipline and morale, accurate rifles) and represent that in-game. Which takes us back to the thread topic. IMO discouraging people from walking towards a line through in-game morale would be far better than just making the melee not skill-based. People would be able to figure out the best times to charge (which should be fairly rare) and then be able to take advantage. The only way I could see melee not be skill based would be to make it randomised.

[David Dire]

Oh, I agree. I think there should be morale penalties resulting in pretty fair debuffs for both sides during charges, as well as make charging a lot more exhausting.

[Zachary Stuart]

Oh, I agree. I think there should be morale penalties resulting in pretty fair debuffs for both sides during charges, as well as make charging a lot more exhausting.

Why debuffs? Personally, I think it is fine as is. Unless there is AI involved then I can see morale being more of a significant factor. Because since we're all players, our morale is basically personal.

[David Dire]

I dont know about you, but the threat of dying in a video game to me is enough to maybe make me blink an eye. There is no reason for me, as a player, to retreat (or order one, if I was an officer) when the enemy is charging: I can simply hold my ground even if I was outnumbered 20 to 1. And if melee was heavily or fairly skill based, not only would I be able to hold against said charge, but I might even win the following melee. It's completely unrealistic and has no place in a game preaching for realism.

Morale is useless if it has no buffs, or debuffs attached to it.

[Zachary Stuart]

I dont know about you, but the threat of dying in a video game to me is enough to maybe make me blink an eye. There is no reason for me, as a player, to retreat (or order one, if I was an officer) when the enemy is charging: I can simply hold my ground even if I was outnumbered 20 to 1. And if melee was heavily or fairly skill based, not only would I be able to hold against said charge, but I might even win the following melee. It's completely unrealistic and has no place in a game preaching for realism.

Morale is useless if it has no buffs, or debuffs attached to it.

Personally good sir, I meant logically speaking if you were outnumbered of course you'd give ground to regroup and such. But if you were able to withstand of course you'd naturally hold the ground.

[Dman979]

Personally good sir, I meant logically speaking if you were outnumbered of course you'd give ground to regroup and such. But if you were able to withstand of course you'd naturally hold the ground.

This is a video game, where normal logical thoughts about self-preservation do not apply. There needs to be a motivation to disengage at appropriate times, therefore, this thread.

Best,
Dman979

[Zachary Stuart]

This is a video game, where normal logical thoughts about self-preservation do not apply. There needs to be a motivation to disengage at appropriate times, therefore, this thread.

Best,
Dman979

No disrespect intended of course. However, I am merely pointing out if you're in a regiment you wouldn't retreat or fall back unless given an order to do so or if overwhelmed.

[R21]

Melee is definitely going to be a thing in WOR (However unrealistic that might be) so some Chiv/Condemned esque system is needed imo seeing as it's going to be such a focal point of the Game.

[TrustyJam]

Melee is definitely going to be a thing in WOR (However unrealistic that might be) so some Chiv/Condemned esque system is needed imo seeing as it's going to be such a focal point of the Game.

We've been quite open about the melee mechanics since the Kickstarter campaign. We will feature a more advanced system based on timing your parry move correctly (no shield-like directional blocking here as it makes zero sense in a real world scenario).

- Trusty

[R21]

Can't wait to see this stuff in action!

[Leifr]

I may be in a very radical camp here but I would not be averse to seeing melee disabled for the time being until a more meaningful and intelligent approach can be applied. It's a bit of a turn-off sometimes to turn up to a gunfight only to be more or less immediately run over by charging players.

[Bivoj]

No disrespect intended of course. However, I am merely pointing out if you're in a regiment you wouldn't retreat or fall back unless given an order to do so or if overwhelmed.

Units retreating due to morale loss without order were common phenomena AND Even officers had fear of the death and they ordered units to fall back to preserve themselves if situation was hopeless.

In a PC game, where death means only little inconvenience waiting for respawn, there is no such thing as retreat. Everyone is fighting to the last man standing like fanatics.

Of course you can roleplay, you can pretend you fear the death and voluntary retreat, but this would not be a game I am going to play. I like competitive and realistic gameplay without pretending something. It is like the mock skirmishes before skirmish phase - you could behave, roleplay and voluntary respawn after being hit, but it was fun for me twice or 3 times, just to get the idea how the game feels and that was it.


We've been quite open about the melee mechanics since the Kickstarter campaign. We will feature a more advanced system based on timing your parry move correctly (no shield-like directional blocking here as it makes zero sense in a real world scenario).

But I hope, you still consider melee secondary and firefight primary. So no second (worse) Age of Chivlary...

[TrustyJam]

Of course.

As I just wrote, nothing's changed in regards to our view of melee and what kind of system we want it to be eventually.

What you're suggesting with morale on an individual basis is not something that is remotely possible in the near future. It requires quite a bit of programming work it also goes againt the free will of the players. Just as we're not overly fond of the idea of officers taking "charge" of a regiment, effectively controlling a bunch of players to mimic marching, we're also not overly fond of, say, an auto surrender feature.

I'm not saying we'll never attempt something like it but if we will it will not be "soon" and it will have to be designed in such an excellent way that no player ever don't get why he can't aim right, run anymore or indeed why he surrenders.

Please do keep your suggestions coming. We're reading them all as we too think there's too much melee at the moment.

- Trusty

[Dman979]

No disrespect intended of course. However, I am merely pointing out if you're in a regiment you wouldn't retreat or fall back unless given an order to do so or if overwhelmed.

None taken. :)
I see two very different way to play this game- in a public lobby, and in an event.
In an event, it makes sense to listen to your officer. When he tells you to retreat, you'll retreat. He shouldn't expect automatons, though, and needs to consider how "morale" will affect his men's ability to fight effectively.
In a public lobby, it will most likely end up as every man for himself. If I can, on my own, stand and fight 4 guys, or charge and fight 10, effectively, than obviously teamwork isn't effective. This "morale" system is a way to force players to work together when they're not in a regiment, too.

Best,
Dman979

[R21]

Of course.

we're also not overly fond of, say, an auto surrender feature.


- Trusty

I'm not sure what to think of the idea, it'd be really difficult to implement well (accounting for all the variables in Game) but the more I think of it, it could add to the Game (units under heavy fire or being charged, morale meter or whatever drops into auto-surrender territory and Players start routing).

Make it server-side? Like have the option to toggle it on or off if some people don't like it.

Definitely something worth experementing with imo.

[Zachary Stuart]

None taken. :)
I see two very different way to play this game- in a public lobby, and in an event.
In an event, it makes sense to listen to your officer. When he tells you to retreat, you'll retreat. He shouldn't expect automatons, though, and needs to consider how "morale" will affect his men's ability to fight effectively.
In a public lobby, it will most likely end up as every man for himself. If I can, on my own, stand and fight 4 guys, or charge and fight 10, effectively, than obviously teamwork isn't effective. This "morale" system is a way to force players to work together when they're not in a regiment, too.

Best,
Dman979

If you ask me, if retreating is to be relevant than the capture system has to be changed. From my personal experience, one man alone can capture the whole of Miller's Cornfield or the Sunken Road. I say, make it to where a Platoon size is needed to capture it as realistically one man sitting there it couldn't barely qualify as captured. Perhaps lightly held, but not captured. Of course, I believe that the capture system should be based on sizes not the individual person. So for example, I alone cannot capture Hagerstown, without the support of a Squad Section of 4-8 men accompanying me or a platoon to fully hold that spot and capture it. It'll make retreating more relevant, because you can fall back, reload and such and not worry about the round or so ending less than a minute.

[Takerith]

I may be in a very radical camp here but I would not be averse to seeing melee disabled for the time being until a more meaningful and intelligent approach can be applied. It's a bit of a turn-off sometimes to turn up to a gunfight only to be more or less immediately run over by charging players.

That's actually a very interesting idea. I wouldn't mind seeing it tested out, perhaps over a weekend.

[R21]

A really simple way they could make captures more relevant is if they made it so officers had to assign their squad a capture zone (like, the area would only be cappable by those assigned to it) if that makes sense, and put this on a cooldown timer of 2 minutes or so.

Which leads me onto something else, squadding:

In Miscreated you can create Clans within Game (like go up to people and they agree to be in your 'Clan') could do the same in WOR (like, you have to form your Squad at spawn, then assign them an objective) basically meaning the more organised team would be more likely to win.

[TrustyJam]

A really simple way they could make captures more relevant is if they made it so officers had to assign their squad a capture zone (like, the area would only be cappable by those assigned to it) if that makes sense, and put this on a cooldown timer of 2 minutes or so.

Which leads me onto something else, squadding:

In Miscreated you can create Clans within Game (like go up to people and they agree to be in your 'Clan') could do the same in WOR (like, you have to form your Squad at spawn, then assign them an objective) basically meaning the more organised team would be more likely to win.

We have a company tool for organizations.

Company battles will be a thing at some point.

- Trusty

[David Dire]

May I again suggest making sprinting/charging a much more strenuous thing? EG going from 100% to 0% stamina after only 60 seconds of it or so. Possibly even 80 or 100, but I think that would be too much.

I think this would work pretty well, especially if it took less than 60 seconds.

[Zachary Stuart]

I say a slight improvement to the capture system to where it takes a platoon size at the least bare minimum, to capture a spot effectively.

[Poorlaggedman]

Auto-surrender is radical but not really when you consider what it deters. The problems with lone wolves moving into close combat to bayonet a few guys is already a serious deterrent to teamwork. It is because moving together lets you cover less territory than moving solo. The enemy quickly can become comfortable as to where your team is and move around it. It is not going to go away with player numbers. I find the typical gamey solutions to be obnoxious "You are about to desert, stay in your assigned box we had in mind for you." I'd much rather see something that makes sense. That is where you can indeed head out alone and do whatever alone. But you will tremble greatly when under fire, especially from more than just an occasional shot, and you won't be able to close in and start Mel-Gibsoning a whole company without simply being put out of action.


https://youtu.be/Lk-BYiY56-c

This isn't the Pacific Theater in WWII. No Union soldiers emerging from homes grabbing civilians and running at the rebs in Gettysburg street with a hand grenade and a bag of gunpowder. Nobody sneaking around stabbing the shit out of people in the back. It's a regular occurrence in the game. It's literally keeping me away from the servers at times.






I may be in a very radical camp here but I would not be averse to seeing melee disabled for the time being until a more meaningful and intelligent approach can be applied. It's a bit of a turn-off sometimes to turn up to a gunfight only to be more or less immediately run over by charging players.

I agree....But I'm pretty sure the developers aren't going to do that. It is very, very bad. I talked about it a little bit in another thread on the Alpha suggestion forum where I posted a compilation of my deaths. I had an even better one last night. I think every single death was from meelee. The first was, hilariously, as I was walking up to the 'front.' It came completely out of nowhere. I just heard the slice of death and fell over. The best way to prevent this is to add power to being grouped up. No more literal rambos going around ripping people's throats out with their bayonet.

[David Dire]

The problem is the devs value player control too much yet also want realism. This makes a ridiculous paradox where you give players full control to lone wolf and literally no disadvantages to doing so, yet state realism as a priority. I of course love the devs for this game, however it isn't really fair to call WoR realistic without some real focus on reducing melee, and also reducing lone wolfing with anything else than "You get a few (possibly not that great?) advantages to staying in line."

[TrustyJam]

The problem is the devs value player control too much yet also want realism. This makes a ridiculous paradox where you give players full control to lone wolf and literally no disadvantages to doing so, yet state realism as a priority. I of course love the devs for this game, however it isn't really fair to call WoR realistic without some real focus on reducing melee, and also reducing lone wolfing with anything else than "You get a few (possibly not that great?) advantages to staying in line."

It is all speculation for now without the systems implemented. I do believe a more soft approach to the issue should be worked on first. Something like rewarding group play and at the same time, however, not try to force a specific play style down the throat of everyone playing the game but instead simply make it less desireable to keep doing, say, lone melee charges over and over again.

This could be done with a more costly personal reinforcement ticket cost if you die away from your team, resulting in you quickly having to sit out and wait on the much slower base spawn wave (will be heavily increased in time compared to now with the introduction of flag bearer spawns) instead of reinforcing your regiment via the flag bearer spawn option.

Another thing to reduce the chance someone would want to go for a melee charge alone would be to introduce a pretty quick parry move, stunning the attacker for a short while due to him being off balance and at the same time returning the defender in melee mode, ready to return the favor.

This is all early days and frankly no one knows what we'll end up doing, but do know that it is something we are going to be working on changing. :)

- Trusty

[David Dire]

Fair enough. And by no means do I expect anything more to melee with the alpha stage: Simply sharing my hopes on a beta or even full release version.

[Bivoj]

Of course.

As I just wrote, nothing's changed in regards to our view of melee and what kind of system we want it to be eventually.

What you're suggesting with morale on an individual basis is not something that is remotely possible in the near future. It requires quite a bit of programming work it also goes againt the free will of the players. Just as we're not overly fond of the idea of officers taking "charge" of a regiment, effectively controlling a bunch of players to mimic marching, we're also not overly fond of, say, an auto surrender feature.

I'm not saying we'll never attempt something like it but if we will it will not be "soon" and it will have to be designed in such an excellent way that no player ever don't get why he can't aim right, run anymore or indeed why he surrenders.

Please do keep your suggestions coming. We're reading them all as we too think there's too much melee at the moment.

- Trusty

In one hand, you are against limiting "free will" of players by introducing autosurrender, but on the other, you are more than happy to introduce autokill (and unrealistic one - shot by invisible officer), when players behave against your expectations - like treating CSA camping close to the bridge on the bridge map or as you announced your solution for lone flag bearers. That is even more strict limit of the "free will".
To be honest, I really hate the unrealistic and arbitrary solutions like autokill - it limits the "free will" in bad way. The autosurrender is far better (with the same result at the end), because you can adjust your playstyle and it is valid anytime, not only on particular map. It would be better to have autosurrender near enemy spawn point just for immersion. It is more logical to surrender to enemy at their gathering site rather to be shot by invisible officers for being too bold and courageous...

The complexity of implementation could be an issue. I can understand, that it would be difficult to code the morale system, treating the proximity of other players. But you already expect to implement features, which take proximity to other players into account - like the autokill of the "lone" flag bearer or spawn time punishment of lonewolf being killed (I pretty much dislike this solution). So, it should be feasible to implement morale, when it is feasible to implement what you mentioned...

Please, reconsider the individual morale feature. I hope you will add it to your backlog and it will appear "soon". Without morale, the game won't be realistic. You may implement some arbitrary solutions to improve the result, but it will be more against "free will" than autosurrender.

[R21]

TBH, autosurrender would just be a more cinematic version of the current 'you are deserting' out of bounds areas.

Like, enemies get within range, your characters movement slows, Historical camera view of your guy putting his hands up and surrendering, cam goes skywards and takes you back to the regiments/class selection screen.

IMO, this could actually achieve the desired effect as no one would want to auto-surrender, and it'd genuinely make people consider routing. It's a very hard one to get right and would require extensive testing to have done in a fair and Gameplay friendly way.

[Bivoj]

I would be happy to have the very first "Alpha" autosurrender implemented as kind of "death" with ragdoll animation, just with explanation "You have surrendered". The eyecandy can arrive later, when the feature proves itself.

The diference to the current autokill is, that it would be dynamic - caused by ingame effects (proximity to other players and the frequency of near hits on player), rather than simply moving to certain part of the map. And when the be Black-and-white screen with counter occurs (like it is now at "you are deserting" state), this would motivate players to voluntarily retreat to preserve themselves, to avoid autokill (autosurrender).

[TrustyJam]

In one hand, you are against limiting "free will" of players by introducing autosurrender, but on the other, you are more than happy to introduce autokill (and unrealistic one - shot by invisible officer), when players behave against your expectations - like treating CSA camping close to the bridge on the bridge map or as you announced your solution for lone flag bearers. That is even more strict limit of the "free will".
To be honest, I really hate the unrealistic and arbitrary solutions like autokill - it limits the "free will" in bad way. The autosurrender is far better (with the same result at the end), because you can adjust your playstyle and it is valid anytime, not only on particular map. It would be better to have autosurrender near enemy spawn point just for immersion. It is more logical to surrender to enemy at their gathering site rather to be shot by invisible officers for being too bold and courageous...

The complexity of implementation could be an issue. I can understand, that it would be difficult to code the morale system, treating the proximity of other players. But you already expect to implement features, which take proximity to other players into account - like the autokill of the "lone" flag bearer or spawn time punishment of lonewolf being killed (I pretty much dislike this solution). So, it should be feasible to implement morale, when it is feasible to implement what you mentioned...

Please, reconsider the individual morale feature. I hope you will add it to your backlog and it will appear "soon". Without morale, the game won't be realistic. You may implement some arbitrary solutions to improve the result, but it will be more against "free will" than autosurrender.

Except one is a static system with the same lines drawn and the proposed one is a dynamic one effectively opening up for surrendering, say, the moment you spawn if you're the only one killed.

It has a lot of challenges to get it to work perfectly, and it needs to work perfectly in order to not impose on the free will of the players.

We are always open for suggestions and I'm not saying it'll never be tested. I can promise you it won't be "soon" though. :)

- Trusty

[Bivoj]

And what about the autokill of the line flag bearer as you announced? He would die in the moment of lone respawn.

[TrustyJam]

And what about the autokill of the line flag bearer as you announced? He would die in the moment of lone respawn.

I didn't "announce" it. I brought a number of ideas to a discussion. If seperating the two is difficult I probably should avoid joining in on these brainstorm sessions.

You don't spawn alone with the flag. When you die, you drop it on the ground and respawn as a private was the gist of it.

- Trusty

[Bivoj]

I didn't "announce" it.

Than my apology - I understood it as announced solution for treating lonewolfing with flag. It is difficult to separate your decision from just an idea, but I believe it is valuable when you are in these brainstorm sessions nevertheless.

[Poorlaggedman]

Well... if we're gonna talk about 'free will' of players I'd be hard pressed not to bring up the obnoxious random bursting shells, occasionally coming in a massive barrage of 12 or more. We certainly never know when that's coming and yet it's there. It definitely tramples on my free will to not get my head rocked a half dozen times a map.

Morale or its autosurrender companion doesn't 'force' players to do anything really. You're never going to 'incentivize' people to surrender. Make no mistake, you will have players surrendering in this game among other derpy things. And i'm not talking on rare occasions. But a competitive player doing the right thing isn't going to surrender. And yet it's a realistic concept, regardless of what some say.

It's possible to survive some nasty wounds in the Civil War and keep on fighting. Yet it's expected among most in a realistic game that a debilitating shot should send you to the spawn instead of leaving you limping around carrying on the fight. Is that unfair? If you want a game where players are playing as a Civil War robot with a camera mounted on it that blood occasionally splatters on, that's what you can easily have. You can have 32 bots roaming around on a team doing what they please without hindrance.

If you want a game where the player assumes the frame of mind of the soldier and has reason to take the same actions that those soldiers may have taken, you can do that too. Just like the wounded soldier in the ACW wasn't dragging himself around slashing the ankles of his foes, prisoners could be taken much easier than say.... Japanese in the Pacific theater in WWII. This is the ACW... fighting to the last man isn't a thing. If you're wounded and an enemy officer orders you to go to see yourself to an aid station you're going to do it 4/5 times. Not throw your musket at him like a javelin. There's different thresholds for when you're 'done' here and one of those could easily be autosurrender. We should just call it 'surrender' to make it sound less violating of 'free will.' I'm sorry but when someone points a bayonet at you and you're spent and your buddies all ran off, you're usually gonna take the olive branch. A truly effective bayonet thrust should be a shock to the thruster as well. The rarity and the lack of expectation of doing that deserves some more respect before every Tom, Dick, and other Tom getting into this game grows to expect easy bayonet kills like some are already growing to. Without morale, without getting into the psychie of why soldiers stand and fight then it's a totally different road to getting the desired effects.

Another good example among many of 'real' hand-to-hand combat in the Civil War from this documentary at 24 minutes in and talks about it for a good 2-3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90JxrRbsdFk&t=24m6s

[R21]

I think shells autospawn, it always seems to happen if a team is bunched up and they're kicking the arse of the other team to throw them off a bit.

People roleplaying surrenders happened in RNL all the time, weren't there some custom Maps dedicated to this, lol.

[Poorlaggedman]

People roleplaying surrenders happened in RNL all the time, weren't there some custom Maps dedicated to this, lol.No, no maps. There were some people that tried to run "POW" rescue events. It was a byproduct of not having an individual score and 3d local voice chat. Also... some people found the gameplay disappointing so they resorted to other ways to entertain themselves. We'll see the same effect as this game is developed I'm sure.

[Dman979]

Well... if we're gonna talk about 'free will' of players I'd be hard pressed not to bring up the obnoxious random bursting shells, occasionally coming in a massive barrage of 12 or more. We certainly never know when that's coming and yet it's there. It definitely tramples on my free will to not get my head rocked a half dozen times a map.

IIRC, this is just a temporary feature until player-controlled artillery is in the game.

Best,
Dman979

[David Dire]

IIRC, this is just a temporary feature until player-controlled artillery is in the game.

Best,
Dman979

Temporary for only a year or so, yeah.

And I doubt they'll remove it when it is implemented.

[TrustyJam]

Temporary for only a year or so, yeah.

And I doubt they'll remove it when it is implemented.

Skirmishes has been out for 4 months so far.

It is a placeholder and will be replaced by player operated artillery.

- Trusty

[Revan]

I don't care how long it takes, Implementing things like arty will NOT be easy. Take all the time ya need.