Morale in this game does not make sense.

[Serge Lang]

I've had this problem with Rome 2, and now I have the same issue in Attila. Unit morale in this game makes absolutely no sense, at all.

I just played a battle where I had 2 max size Persian armies going up against 2 max size, although about 50% dead from dessert attrition White Huns.

My armies were fortified, and I deployed spikes on 2 of the doors, 3 units of spearmen on each of 2 other gates, with about 8 units of spearmen on reserve, plus archers and horse archers as support. I put my general and cataphracts on one of the flanks, protecting a spiked out gate. Then I had my second army, full of cataphracts, spearmen, archers, and horse archers deploying as reinforcements.

The Huns attack my spiked out door, their mercenary spearmen first. Their spearmen meet 2 units of my reserve spearmen on my spiked gate, I withdraw my spearmen as I redeployed several reserves, and pulled the hunnic spearmen into a trap. They persue my withdrawing spearmen, through the spears and into my fortified courtyard, where they are counter charged on three sides. Their units drop from 70-80 to about 15 each from the charge alone. None of the units break. They are surrounded on three sides, inside an enemy position, and outnumbered roughly 12 to 1. None of them break, and they hold down 5 units of spearmen.

Huns start to advance a second line of spearmen, so I push three units of spears through my spikes and charge into enemy spearmen, coordinating with a devestating cataphract charge from directly behind the enemy spearmen. Their spear units, hit from both sides and outnumbered heavily, drop to 15-20 guys per unit from this charge, yet hold ground and do not break.

The Huns then charge their lancers into the rear of my cataphracts, and I counter charge them with a few units of light spearmen and horse archers to slow them down. The lancers instantly break all of my horse archers and light spearmen. My cataphracts break from a morale shock, and then my entire army routed.

What.

What????

This is supposed to make sense? How can anyone enjoy a game like this? This is a strategy game where strategy does not apply. Nor does logic. What is the point?

How is it that pincering mercenary spearmen between shock cavalry and spearmen does not break them, but enemy shock cavalry breaking a unit of *peasants* causes my entire army to route? That makes no sense, at all.

I swear to god, if they make morale in the Warhammer game this bad, I will be so angry. I've been waiting for that warhammer game for almost 20 years, and if they ruin it for this reason I will never forgive them.

[Serge Lang]

Originally posted by Legionary Guard:

I don't get why you're so angerous; morale was always wonky and not working to real-world standards.

This isn't just an Attila thing. Even way back in Medieval II, me taking upwards of 70 percent casualties on a victory wasn't too uncommon. Units breaking at anywhere between half and a quarter of their starting numbers was standard for all but low-quality militia archer units (and peasants). If I deployed a top-tier elite guard unit, I could be reasonably certain that it'd stand and fight until it had somewhere in the range of twenty men out of a hundred twenty to start with.

Only Empire really had anywhere close to realistic morale levels, and it was very annoying to see my 400-man Indian sword unit break and rout at a single musket volley.

The reason I get angry is because these arrogant, know it all, immature little pricks roll in and throw around their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. I have no time for that. Those ignorant little kids can go play in traffic.

As for the morale, these games should be getting better, not worse. And morale certainly was not always this bad. In the older games, if you flanked a unit, it would shatter and that would be the end of it. In this game, if you flank a unit, they stand and fight as if nothing happened. There is no point to flanking in the first place. Why bother? Why not just form a line of infantry standing shoulder to shoulder and march across the field straight at your enemy? No point in using battle formations, none of it matters. Flanking doesn't matter, rear charges don't matter, cutting a unit in half and isolating troops doesn't matter. Separating a unit from the parent army doesn't matter. Every unit acts like a bunch of terminator cyborgs. What is the point of this? This isn't fun.

When you really sit down and think about it, why even bother having these in game battles at all if strategy and tactics mean absolutely nothing? I would be tempted to say it would be more fun to autoresolve every battle and then play entirely on the campaign map. But the campaign map is nowhere near good enough for that to be a viable option, either. I mean, it is okay, but the diplomacy and all of those systems aren't really good enough to stand alone as the soul content of a game.

Warhammer better not be this bad.

[Hat8]

Originally posted by Serge Lang:

Originally posted by Plat:

The source is http://www.amazon.com/Rome-War-Families-Republic-Studies/dp/1469611074

Googling a book about Rome and linking that hardly citing anything.

Also, you're being silly with your example. Don't make your pikes 1-2 ranks deep silly.

Also, Tagimata were nerfed and serve an anti-cavalry roll.

[Serge Lang]

Originally posted by Plat:

Originally posted by Serge Lang:

Googling a book about Rome and linking that hardly citing anything.

Also, you're being silly with your example. Don't make your pikes 1-2 ranks deep silly.

Also, Tagimata were nerfed and serve an anti-cavalry roll.

You clearly haven't read that book, and also clearly do not have the slightest inkling of what my argument is. The fact that you even mention the name of the cavalry unit involved, or that it was somehow changed, shows that you lack the basic neurological capacity to understand what I am talking about.

[Powerfulnnz Vikingcat]

You counter-charged charging cavalry? And you call that logic? You should brace against charges. Charging into charging cavalry just loosens up your formation and gets you killed.

Once again this just seems like someone blaming their own incompetence on the game. Units in Atilla: TW do break faster because the combat is faster, yes, but it's the same for everyone.

Besides, a lot of factors go into morale: the Huns (both factions) have a faction ability that decreases the morale of your troops, that's probably something you should take into account.

In MTW:2 the Mongols had a similar bonus because all of their generals had very high 'dread'. If you didn't put a good general who provided morale bonuses to your troops against them your weaker units would pretty much rout instantly as well. Did you refuse to play that game, as well?

[Harlaus]

Originally posted by Serge Lang:

Originally posted by Owain Glyndŵr:

"route [root, rout]
noun

a course, way, or road for passage or travel"

"rout [rout]
noun

a defeat attended with disorderly flight; dispersal of a defeated force in complete disorder"

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

So, you gave up on your idiotic argument about units running after sustaining 18-25% casualty rates, a rate of casualties that would equal the worst battles in antiquity and far exceeding the acceptable casualty rate of 5%, and instead resort to artigraphy? Next time just admit you're wrong.

Lel I'd rather waste your time and make you butthurt.

Remember if you respond to this I win. If you don't then I win anyway.

[Hat8]

This guy seriously doesn't understand the point of shock cavalry. Losing like 60 guys in one charge should devastate morale.

[Destin Faroda]

Never expect realism or logic from TW games. Neither CA nor the casual kiddies are interested in it.
Luckily, mods can easily fix the broken morale and combat mechanics, but CA constantly limits modding capabilities and doesn't allow modders to fix the broken AI.
It's really time for an open source war game project...

[Serge Lang]

Originally posted by Plat:

This guy seriously doesn't understand the point of shock cavalry. Losing like 60 guys in one charge should devastate morale.

Units don't break until they are down to 10-20 guys. What is the point of shock cavalry?

In real life, units shatter and flee for their lives when they lost 20-30 guys. In a battle where you deploy 10,000 men, losing 1000 meant you had a horrifically bad battle that went horribly against you, and you just barely managed to get out without getting massacred.

In Total War games, deploying 1200 and losing 300 is a pretty good showing.

Do the math there, buddy. The morale in this game makes *no sense*, and trying to defend this morale system is ludicrous.

A unit suffering a charge where they lose 50 dudes should shatter, run away, and never come back. That sort of casualty rate may as well be the beginning of the apocolypse. However, in these games, losing 50 dudes on a charge is, eh, lol, whatever, we'll fight for 3 more minutes and see what happens.

Why? Because people complained because battles were "too short." Boo hoo, kiddies. Welcome to the big leagues.

Or rather, lets kick logic in the teeth, break the whole game, and make it boring. Woo, 40 minute battles where units fight to the last man because strategy is irrelevant and everyone is a fearless cyborg terminator.

[Serge Lang]

Originally posted by Destin Faroda:

Never expect realism or logic from TW games. Neither CA nor the casual kiddies are interested in it.
Luckily, mods can easily fix the broken morale and combat mechanics, but CA constantly limits modding capabilities and doesn't allow modders to fix the broken AI.
It's really time for an open source war game project...

You're right, strategy games just aren't a genre anymore. It is really sad. Us old school strategy game types are apparently a tiny minority, the rest of these kiddies need to see all the flashy flashy. I'd love to see a game that actually used strategy and tactics. I have studied historical battle field strategies and tactics since 1998 with former military officers, men and women from west point, reading all sorts of source material and accounts, everything I could get my hands on. Then I put on my generals hat and jump into a game like this, try to use the strategies available at the time, mimic period deployment strategies you would have seen in historical battles, and what do you get? This horrendous morale system, the embarrassing lack of logic. If the game got even somewhat slightly close to reality, it would be okay. But this game pisses on reality. It makes a mockery of logic.

There are certain things I can excuse, like horse archers shooting magicly embued arrows. Javelin throwers magical javelins, even. Special characters casting magical spells. I can excuse that stuff, they are game mechanics. I can understand that, its okay, whatever. That's fine. But the frickin morale system? What is this, preschool? Units don't break when flanked? Units don't break when they are massacred? Units don't break when charged in the rear by heavy cavalry? Armies sustaining like 70% casualty rates? What is this garbage?

I mean, managing to kill 70-80% of your enemy should be reserved to outstanding strategy. Legendary, genius grade material. Where you pull your enemy into a specific trap, and it goes off without a hitch. Then, sure, those insanely high casualty rates make sense, because you earned it. It is a reward for doing something absolutely amazing.

Having 70% casualty rates because the army is a bunch of soulless cyborgs that refuse to run away is absolutely absurd. This is not okay.

This is my favorite era in history, too. I've researched material for almost two decades. I've talked to generals, historians. I have talked to officers from six different militaries from around the globe about the strategies and tactics used by the persians, romans, franks, etc. I've read all the books. I love this stuff. Then they ruin it with this little kid nonsense. What a shame.

[Raider Deci]

To be fair this game does give some penalties for units losing men very rapidly,
ex like this when the AI decided to sacrifice some;

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=603921918

So its not completly devoid of it. My game is btw vanilly (camera-mods doesnt count in the same sense) and yes I know that was light stuff

But I do agree that sometimes units hold out for redicoulus amount of time, bouncing charges off like a tennis-net.

[Powerfulnnz Vikingcat]

You're claiming they made battles longer? Dude, there's hardly a TW game where units break more quickly and battles are over sooner than Atilla.

The morale *does* make sense. Maybe it's not 100 percent realistic, but who cares? I think you have unrealistic expectations, coupled with an overbearing feeling of superiority because 'you know real world tactics.' If you wanted full realism units would have to break apart to rest after fighting for a couple of minutes and you'd have to sit around to wait for them to recharge, 'cos that's how battles were fought. Sounds soooo much fun.

If units were to rout as quickly as you seem to want them to the game would suck. Besides under the right circumstances a cavalry charge can and will break and rout an enemy unit. When I manage a maneuver like that the battle usually ends less than two minutes later.

It almost seems as if you've got this game confused with Rome 2, where you could pound enemy infantry's flanks and rear with cavalry endlessly and end up doing virtually no damage at all.

The game does reward you for using strategy and proper tactics - if you create the right circumstances, like having them attack a fortified position, or a hill, or forcing them to cross a river, or creating situations where you avoid fighting multiple of their armies at once and instead are able to field multiple of your armies against one of theirs... you can generally crush them without losing too many men. The possibilities are endless.

And guess what? This is historical. Battles weren't as common as you think - commanders rarely risked an all out confrontation unless they were forced into it or felt they had the advantage - and the high casualty rate is simply a simulation of the army falling apart after a defeat. Not all Anglo-Saxons were killed at Hastings, but the army was totally destroyed. Not every soldier in Pompey's army was killed at Pharsalos, but the army ceased to exist nevertheless.

If you're just going to send your army straight at the enemy, in an all-out confrontation, the penalty is the casualty rate will be higher, although, I've seen really experienced players lose not too many forces even when facing two stacks of units with only one at their command, on an open battlefield.

I won't argue that fully historical deployments and tactics don't always work, but if you're really so smart, I'm sure you can find a way around that, rather than simply trying to copy what you've learned from history?