The Pitfalls of Negative Morale

[Spartan]

It is often argued that players who let their national morale go negative, specifically to a severely low level or as some would argue, ‘to the point of no return’ should not be allowed to do such orders as EM’s or CF. This of course becomes an issue and a particular sore spot for players who have managed to maintain a positive morale and then become a target of these players whose morale has dipped extremely low. At first glance, the player with the very low morale would seem to be the one at fault, because he was obviously too reckless, inexperienced, or unsuccessful to manage a positive morale. As is always the case though, there are always two (valid) sides to every story and this is no exception.

 

One side argues that those players that have a particularly bad negative morale should not be allowed to do such orders as EM’s and CF because 1) it seems pretty unrealistic that these nations could continue to spend money while their economies plunge ever deeper into debt, and 2) it just seems downright unfair and possibly even a corruption of the game to allow it. It’s their fault they let their morale get so low. They shouldn’t be able to ignore it and keep on spending on such things. It’s not fair to the other players that have been far better at managing their morale. They should instead do one of two things. Either spend however long and do whatever it takes to recover their morale if they want to stay in the game, or drop. It’s as simple as that.

 

The other side would argue though, that players with a particularly low (negative) morale could very easily have gotten there for very valid reasons, and even beyond that, they still really want to play, but there is little else they can do to seriously affect the game, i.e. hinder their enemies and aid their allies beyond doing such things as EM’s and CF. Their morale has dipped so low that 1) it is nearly impossible to recover it without spending a considerable remainder of the game doing so (and almost nothing else!), and 2) their attempts at recovery could easily be permanently undermined by players that DW and then FP a turn later and continue this practice every few turns.

 

The real issues that need to be addressed in tackling this problem though are twofold. First, how did that player’s morale get to such a severely negative state to begin with? The most obvious and common answer is runaway/reckless spending that first plunged his treasury into deficit and then started to impact his morale turn by turn. The other is failure on the warfront. This one is usually most common with the larger nations that are losing significant amounts of their territory fairly quickly. You could also lose a lot of morale very quickly if you declare war on too many nations over a short period of time, or to a lesser extent if you are declared on by a lot of nations over a short period of time. This loss of course could be offset by entering into a decent number of ALL’s or TA’s.

 

The above factors may force your morale into a negative state, but they will hardly mean a player’s morale will dip beyond saving. The real problem arises when one enemy nation tries to FP on that nation and succeeds. Now, rarely is a person at war with just one nation, and further they are usually at war with 2 or more people that are either TD’s or at least ALL’d to one another. This usually spells doom for the unfortunate nation that dipped negative, because those multiple FP actions will drive their morale down by 60 each time! Let’s just say you’re at war with 3 nations that all FP. You could go -180 morale in the span of a turn potentially. This could all happen just because you went -1 morale, in theory. Now you’ve forced that player’s morale ‘beyond the point of no return’ without question. What do you expect them to do? Drop or stick around and just be a thorn in the side of those that gave him no other option as far as he’s concerned, BUT to do EM’s and CF for his allies and anyone else that wanted or needed them.

 

Look, in the end this is a business and if RTG sets up a game in which there are too many ways and or reasons to drop or be forced out, then in the end everyone is hurt by this, including Russ. Fewer players in a game is not a recipe for an enjoyable game, not least of which if people are dropping because they were effectively not allowed to do anything for a really long time. Who would want to spend money to do that?

 

I propose a few potential solutions. 1) Significantly reduce the morale hit for having peace forced on you. The main point of this in my opinion should be to give the player a BIG wake up call and teach him a lesson. Not force him to drop out of the game. 2) Once negative, increase the amount of recovery every turn in which you spend less than you make, or possibly better yet, say you have to spend half of what you make each turn to get the increased morale recovery that turn. 3) If you fulfill such a requirement, make the morale recovery increase a fifth or a forth of your total deficit, or the amount you would have regularly gotten under the current rules, whichever is greater, each turn you comply. 4) If you implement these changes it is less likely you’ll need to bar the nations in question from doing EM’s or CF because they will have far more incentive to decrease their expenses while they are trying to recover their morale. They will therefore be more likely to either decrease or even slash their SIOL or SCOL levels and not spend money on CF in order to recover and rejoin the fight more quickly.

 

What do you all think? Better yet, what does Russ think?

[Monty]

Anyone who ends up getting negative morale due to whatever reason needs to be limited in what that nation can do. In real terms I would think that anyone who goes into negative money should not be allowed to issue orders that would increase the deficit further and should not be allowed to enter orders that cost money the nation does not have. No momey then no spending on new tanks, planes, defenses, ships etc. If a nation knows this lack of money could spell defeat then maybe they would be more carefull with the bank balance. No need to make it too complex a solution Spartan.

 

The quickest way out of this is EA from a TA

 

This would also have the effect of reducing the impact on Morale.

 

I fear such a change would need new code and I dont think RTG is in a position to do that in this version, Maybe V2 when it arrives.

 

I for one however would not wish to run my nation so badly that I run out of money and thus have to fight the negative morale monster as well. I dont know about others but I would find no fun in running a nation of EM order even if it was for my TAs, by end game I think my negative morale would impact too much on a team win to be of any success. I dont know, maybe there are players out there who see this as a valid tactic, if they do I cannot see the advantages.

[Spartan]

Anyone who ends up getting negative morale due to whatever reason needs to be limited in what that nation can do. In real terms I would think that anyone who goes into negative money should not be allowed to issue orders that would increase the deficit further and should not be allowed to enter orders that cost money the nation does not have. No momey then no spending on new tanks, planes, defenses, ships etc. If a nation knows this lack of money could spell defeat then maybe they would be more carefull with the bank balance. No need to make it too complex a solution Spartan.

 

The quickest way out of this is EA from a TA

 

This would also have the effect of reducing the impact on Morale.

 

I fear such a change would need new code and I dont think RTG is in a position to do that in this version, Maybe V2 when it arrives.

 

I for one however would not wish to run my nation so badly that I run out of money and thus have to fight the negative morale monster as well. I dont know about others but I would find no fun in running a nation of EM order even if it was for my TAs, by end game I think my negative morale would impact too much on a team win to be of any success. I dont know, maybe there are players out there who see this as a valid tactic, if they do I cannot see the advantages.

 

First off, l'm definitely not talking about the current game, but V2. The inability to make such a change to the current system is well understood. Then again, I'm more than happy to leave the status quo alone, but that wouldn't necessarily be good for the future of the game.

 

I, like you, have more or less the same lack of pity for the player, most specifically an experienced one, that would carelessly allow his treasury to go negative. But, you do know (I'm sure you do) that your morale could go negative without your treasury ever going negative. I've seen in happen in a number of games. That being said, this game is unfortunately becoming more and more insular in who plays. Fewer and fewer new players are joining Victory and even fewer of them are staying. Russ is more than welcome to set up further mechanisms that will encourage still more players to drop out of games (and stop paying him money!), but something tells me that he isn't that short sighted.

 

Let's set up a fairly common scenario. A player, for whatever reason finds his morale just past negative. His opponents guess that he may be in negative so they FP. Let's just say that there are three of them so he is now 180+ negative morale. Now he can do no orders that would engage his former enemies obviously, and based on your desires he can also build no more units, repair them, upgrade them, improve his IMDL or ADL levels (so he can make more money), or anything else that would spend money, which b yht e way means he must slash his SIOL, SCOL and all training programs as well.

 

Let's now add to the mix the fact that at any time one or more of his former enemies, or anyone else for that matter, can DW and then FP the very next turn and do so every few turns or as quickly as they can break the NAP (-5 more morale) throughout the rest of the game if they wish.

 

Look, in the end this was simply a response to the many people that have voiced frustration at players being able to continue to do EM's and CF even though their morale was far below negative. Like everything else, there is always more to the story then one sees at first glance. This is merely a possible solution to the problem.

[Monty]

So negative morale and plenty of money, easy, allow the spending of money on multiple PA orders to increase morale so the FP order has a chance of not working due to negative morale. Easy change, allow more PA orders or shall we say max of 9, or allow the PA order to spend as much money as the player wishes to spend on avoiding the negative morale trap

 

Or we have negative morale and negative money, sorry but if your nation is that bad then you for all intense perposes are dead and deserve to be out of the game, with attrition rates in this game as high as they are I dont think RTG would be too bothered as this would only really happen at later stages especially as players would know such a situation is to be avoided at all costs.

 

Its not as big a problem as I think your making it out to be and not one worth worrying about, as you say its for V2 when it arrives.

 

Another option is if a nation FP on another then they cannot DW on that nation again until that nations morale increases past say 50 or 5 turns have passed whichever is the sooner.

 

I would like to see the Annexation of border provinces of a nation that has had peace forced upon it. The nation FP on another gets to choose a province to annex, must border both nations, and this automatically increased morale of the nation who has just had FP upon it to say 50 again.

 

I guess what I am saying is that there are many ways around a problem, its just if RTG are willing to impement them.

[Kurassier]

So negative morale and plenty of money, easy, allow the spending of money on multiple PA orders to increase morale so the FP order has a chance of not working due to negative morale. Easy change, allow more PA orders or shall we say max of 9, or allow the PA order to spend as much money as the player wishes to spend on avoiding the negative morale trap

 

Or we have negative morale and negative money, sorry but if your nation is that bad then you for all intense perposes are dead and deserve to be out of the game, with attrition rates in this game as high as they are I dont think RTG would be too bothered as this would only really happen at later stages especially as players would know such a situation is to be avoided at all costs.

 

Its not as big a problem as I think your making it out to be and not one worth worrying about, as you say its for V2 when it arrives.

 

Another option is if a nation FP on another then they cannot DW on that nation again until that nations morale increases past say 50 or 5 turns have passed whichever is the sooner.

 

I would like to see the Annexation of border provinces of a nation that has had peace forced upon it. The nation FP on another gets to choose a province to annex, must border both nations, and this automatically increased morale of the nation who has just had FP upon it to say 50 again.

 

I guess what I am saying is that there are many ways around a problem, its just if RTG are willing to impement them.

I think that if you force peace on someone, you should not be allowed to DW on them the rest of the game. Otherwise what is a FP, but a moral weapon? One can FP, DW, FP, etc. to your hearts content. I see very little difference between that tactic and the one that was condemn by RTG in Vic82. (which I still think is bogus) The only real reason for a FP is because you don't want to fight that nation anymore. So if someone does a FP/DW/FP, etc. I see no reason why the player, who for all intents and puposes will NEVER be able to DW. After all, a max PA (plus the 5 per turn boost you get) means you cannot improve morale by more than 25 per turn. So I see no reason why that nation shouldn't do whatever they want to do to hinder their enemies, including going bankrupt.

[Spartan]

So negative morale and plenty of money, easy, allow the spending of money on multiple PA orders to increase morale so the FP order has a chance of not working due to negative morale. Easy change, allow more PA orders or shall we say max of 9, or allow the PA order to spend as much money as the player wishes to spend on avoiding the negative morale trap

 

Or we have negative morale and negative money, sorry but if your nation is that bad then you for all intense perposes are dead and deserve to be out of the game, with attrition rates in this game as high as they are I dont think RTG would be too bothered as this would only really happen at later stages especially as players would know such a situation is to be avoided at all costs.

 

Its not as big a problem as I think your making it out to be and not one worth worrying about, as you say its for V2 when it arrives.

 

Another option is if a nation FP on another then they cannot DW on that nation again until that nations morale increases past say 50 or 5 turns have passed whichever is the sooner.

 

I would like to see the Annexation of border provinces of a nation that has had peace forced upon it. The nation FP on another gets to choose a province to annex, must border both nations, and this automatically increased morale of the nation who has just had FP upon it to say 50 again.

 

I guess what I am saying is that there are many ways around a problem, its just if RTG are willing to impement them.

 

 

It seems we both whole heartedly agree that such a change could only be contemplated in V2. Also, I am totally open to any change that would address this issue in a positive and constructive way for all involved. My idea was by no means meant to be the best idea, just an opening 'salvo' in the exchange of possible solutions. Finally, I personally have no real dog in the fight as it were since I would never allow myself to be placed in such a situation with my treasury to the degree that it would compromise a positive morale and would never TA with anyone that would be so careless. It's just an attempt to open up the discussion on a topic that seems to be a recurring sore spot for a number of players. I really do appreciate any and all that comment, whether they totally agree, totally disagree, or fall somewhere in between. The multiple PA idea is interesting.

[Hamish]

I think that if you force peace on someone, you should not be allowed to DW on them the rest of the game. Otherwise what is a FP, but a moral weapon? One can FP, DW, FP, etc. to your hearts content. I see very little difference between that tactic and the one that was condemn by RTG in Vic82. (which I still think is bogus) The only real reason for a FP is because you don't want to fight that nation anymore. So if someone does a FP/DW/FP, etc. I see no reason why the player, who for all intents and puposes will NEVER be able to DW. After all, a max PA (plus the 5 per turn boost you get) means you cannot improve morale by more than 25 per turn. So I see no reason why that nation shouldn't do whatever they want to do to hinder their enemies, including going bankrupt.

 

I agree with the general idea, but think NEVER would be a little too harsh. How about a minimum of 5 turns between FP and DW, both ways. So if you DW on a country with negative morale, he can fight back for at least 4 turns before you can FP again. And then he gets 5 turns to recover at least.

[Spartan]

I think that if you force peace on someone, you should not be allowed to DW on them the rest of the game. Otherwise what is a FP, but a moral weapon? One can FP, DW, FP, etc. to your hearts content. I see very little difference between that tactic and the one that was condemn by RTG in Vic82. (which I still think is bogus) The only real reason for a FP is because you don't want to fight that nation anymore. So if someone does a FP/DW/FP, etc. I see no reason why the player, who for all intents and puposes will NEVER be able to DW. After all, a max PA (plus the 5 per turn boost you get) means you cannot improve morale by more than 25 per turn. So I see no reason why that nation shouldn't do whatever they want to do to hinder their enemies, including going bankrupt.

 

I agree with the general idea, but think NEVER would be a little too harsh. How about a minimum of 5 turns between FP and DW, both ways. So if you DW on a country with negative morale, he can fight back for at least 4 turns before you can FP again. And then he gets 5 turns to recover at least.

 

Another interesting idea. The nation with negative morale would have to be allowed to spend money on defending itself though, building, repairing and or upgrading forces for example. Obviously, they'd need to restrict that spending as best they can to at least try to recover their treasury and therefore their morale, but if there is no realistic mechanism put in place to make it possible to recover from a triple digit deficit, why would he even bother to try to recover his morale? The damage is too great and would take FAR too long to fix, if it could be at all.

[Kurassier]

I think that if you force peace on someone, you should not be allowed to DW on them the rest of the game. Otherwise what is a FP, but a moral weapon? One can FP, DW, FP, etc. to your hearts content. I see very little difference between that tactic and the one that was condemn by RTG in Vic82. (which I still think is bogus) The only real reason for a FP is because you don't want to fight that nation anymore. So if someone does a FP/DW/FP, etc. I see no reason why the player, who for all intents and puposes will NEVER be able to DW. After all, a max PA (plus the 5 per turn boost you get) means you cannot improve morale by more than 25 per turn. So I see no reason why that nation shouldn't do whatever they want to do to hinder their enemies, including going bankrupt.

 

I agree with the general idea, but think NEVER would be a little too harsh. How about a minimum of 5 turns between FP and DW, both ways. So if you DW on a country with negative morale, he can fight back for at least 4 turns before you can FP again. And then he gets 5 turns to recover at least.

 

 

Probably true, just take away the negative moral hits for the subsequent DW/FP. After all, would a country's moral really go down that much when they knew it was just a ploy and not something substantial?

I also think that the negative cash flow is too great a moral hit as it is currently. Heck many countries (governments) are in debts and when it's not too great, most people don't care. If a country was at war, the people probably would care even less about a national debt as they want to support their country against the enemy.

The negative affects should be from the moral area, maybe troops fight less effectively, factories don't produce quite as much, etc.

[Marklen X]

I have no problem with an original player continuing to play the game indefenitely even while negative morale, and doing all he can do. Where I have a big problem with this sort of thing is when an original player drops, and somebody else picks up the position a few months later as a lackey for an existing player. That to me is the worst sort of gamesmanship.

[Harbinger of Death]

I have no problem with an original player continuing to play the game indefenitely even while negative morale, and doing all he can do. Where I have a big problem with this sort of thing is when an original player drops, and somebody else picks up the position a few months later as a lackey for an existing player. That to me is the worst sort of gamesmanship.

 

 

I would agree...but this is an easy problem for Russ to fix....