Is there any enemy (or friendly) morale on the battlefield?

[[LHI] kaladorn]

By 'morale', I don't mean the state of inspiration of my troops.

I mean the recognition of a mech being in an untenable position (lots of damage, maybe on the ground) where any sensible mech pilot would either a) eject or b) signal surrender.

Or when an enemy lance has lost 50% of its mechs and my lance has lost none and the tonnage balance is heavily in my favour, the other lance shoud flee or surrender.

Is there any such morale considerations in the game?

Is there any sort of mod that would address this?

I know we didn't have that (AFAIK from back in the 80s) in Battletech on the tabletop. But it would add a lot more depth to fights. There's no good sense for valuable mech pilots fighting in suicidal ways.

[wesnef]

No, it isn't in the base game.

Yes, there are mods that add it - at least a 'panic/eject' thing, on a mech by mech basis. Usually also applied to your guys.

(personally, I feel like "make the enemy eject" is just a recipe for getting extra free salvage, but I suppose it depends on what other things the mod does, and if the 'make them panic' system is easily abuseable or not.)

[Tigga]

I've always thought morale/retreating was a weakness of this game. As a player I can retreat at any point - I don't have to reach an evac point or anything. And I get my mechs that have been taken out back.

The AI, on the other hand, fights to the death with every mech. I feel it'd be a better game if the enemy would at some point give up on their objectives and attempt to flee. Or individual mechs would eject in positions they're not going to live through.

[[LHI] kaladorn]

Yeah, that's my issue in part too.

One lone Locust left against my lance that's largely intact should be running for the hills, not committing suicide kamikaze style. It's senseless. So is a small mech that's lost both arms and has not viable weapons. Rushing to head but larger mechs is asking to get smoked.

To address the issue of salvage, to me, if an enemy mech warrior surrenders, there might be a convention (like the one about orbital bombarment, nukes, biological stuff) that says you accept their surrender and they get to keep the ruins of their mech and their lives.

The surrender would then be good for the attacker (you can cease worrying about a surrendered opponent) but it would not up the salvage.

The Mercenary Review Board ought also to ensure such surrenders are accepted (if you don't, you lose rating for violation of the rules). That would also allow your guys to surrender if they are getting shredded and keep what remains of their mech.

The lack of a morale system in any game makes me think of Stormtroopers or other fanatics and not Mercenaries.

----

As to the complaint about extraction:

Spotting ranges for multi-tens-of-tons objects in motion are laughable in the game. It should be kms most of the time, not a few hundred meters. With that in mind, and the way enemy units drop within 500m of you, the expidited extraction is sort of a balance (it gives back what the 'blink monsters' that just show up and the poor spotting ranges take away).

A surrender or quarter mechanism where you surrendered, kept your mechs, and got a small % (not the majority of the contract value as now) of the payout would be the most reasonable.

And then again, some enemies (say horrible pirates or fanatics) might just ignore surrender and keep pounding you. Then it'd be fight to the death.

---------

I know to look for realism in BT (where giant mechs run around and where dropships of lances of mechs are sent to do assassinations or other strikes when a bunch of drones or cruise missiles would be cheaper and not cause loss of attacker life) is ridiculous.

Yet, the game would feel better to me with proper morale rules and surrender/quarter rules.

Also, while I'm wishing, I want to be able to run an actual company of 3 lances. You gave me the ship size and the roster and mech bay scope. You just didn't give me the ability to drop 3 lances on a mission.

That would also require more higher level AI for enemy lances/vehicles cooperating that isn't there, but it seems like it could be.

[Wantoomany]

I disagree, there is already a type of fleeing in the game with assassination targets. It adds nothing to the game, and is a source of frustration for a lot of players. This forum is full of topics from upset players who lost a mission because the target fled and managed to make it to the evacuation area in the same turn. And those are normally bigger slower mechs. Imagine how fun it would be to have to chase down a bunch of fleeing speedy mechs.

With the current system, fixed evacuation points, limited spawn points, small maps, and poor AI. Having the enemy attempt to flee would change the game from a mech combat simulator, to an ambush simulator. Where the only workable tactic would be to overwhelm and destroy each enemy before it can move or respond. Because chasing down a wounded and fleeing enemy just isn't fun. Especially if that enemy getting away leads to mission failure or lost rewards.

[[LHI] kaladorn]

Well, I think it's not unreasonable to sometimes expect fast mechs in the target of an assassination mission. I would go so far as to say any mission that seems to have a time sensitive or location-by-a-time aspect (intercept, stop a getaway) OUGHT to require a fast mech to be in the mix to help catch/stop enemy mechs.

There ought to be mission types that might end poorly for the player if they don't pick the right sort of mechs (like going into really uneven terrain with a lance that has little or no jump jet capability). You should take contracts based not only on the size of the enemy forces, but on the type of terrain and the composition of your lance. And it's also why you should keep a few smaller, lighter, faster mechs in your stable so they can perform those sorts of pursuit/intercept missions.

Then again, with reasonable spotting distances and reasonable setup positions, you wouldn't get such a very short period to get figure out they were gonna run and had quick mechs, so you'd still have some chance.

If your opponent flees or surrenders, that should be considered (in most mission) a mission-kill as the mech is no longer a threat. So if an enemy mech fled when you'd blown up part of its lance, that'd still yield a victory without an annoying chase.

Your argument (if I understand it) is that the game is setup with several characteristics that could lead to failed missions. Failed missions should happen sometimes I think and there should be more strategy in picking missions and having the right mech loadout for them.

But also if some of the silly parts (short spotting distances, 'blink monsters' that show up right on top of you, terrain insertion for your lance that makes no sense - if the enemy can land under 500m from my rally piont, why can't my dropship?) were not there, it'd be a better game.Uneven player and enemy capabilities are usually poor game design (as are systems that say you can buy an item for X and sell it for 1/10th X... that's not at all like real economies).

[Cervidal]

You already get your mechs back if you eject. It's not unreasonable to apply the opposite direction. I like how this would increase long term difficulty; frankly, it's too easy to assemble mechs in this game. Being denied salvage via surrender would go a long way toward helping this.

Go one step further - if the enemy is being trounced, or is outweighed heavily, give them the option to withdraw, same as the player.

Any crier about assassination targets getting away needs to start playing to the missions more. You shouldn't be able to beat every mission with a Steiner scout lance, and low initiatives are supposed to be a penalty. Giving your opponent the half second edge for escape is your fault, not theirs.

[Wantoomany]

It's one thing to fail a mission due to tactical issues. It something completely different to simply fail due to RNG or poor design.

If an enemy decides to flee while standing on or next to an evac point, it's a fail. Doubly so because you can't even see those points until the AI decides to bug out. So you don't even know if you are risking failure until it's already happened.

Put simply the game just isn't set up for fleeing to be anything other then frustrating. The maps are too small, there are not enough of them, and they set up with enough random elements to ensure the AI can completely screw you if RNG isn't in your favor. Like choosing to bug out while standing on it's own evac point

And that is just one mission type. If it already a source of provable frustration, just based on forum rage alone, I see no reason to expand it to potentially all missions.

It simply will not work without major fundamental changes to the base game.

[[LHI] kaladorn]

I'd like to see those changes though.

I mean, there's already some meta-game stuff going on because all the distances (spotting, transit distances for convoys, evac point distances, etc) are all way short.

And when I play a convoy scenario, I know the minute I touch the rally point, the convoy is gonna start rolling to its evac point even if most of my lance is far behind me (nice job waiting....). So when I approach those, I surround on 4 sides the evac point and figure out the most likely path out and ready my move plan so that the minute I trigger the convoy, I can get at least two mechs moving along with the lead elements.

Real convoy protocol would put the security detail in charge and tie the movements to direction from the lance commander as to where and when to move. It wouldn't be a race to keep up with the convoy elements.

Plus there is no recce in this game - once you can see something, combat is kicked off. There's not really a scout element.

I also think it's pretty easy to put mechs together, though you can tweak that in career mode I think during setup.

I just hate games where the AIs behave like blind zombies fighting until they are dead when a human enemy would have recognized a withdrawal situation.

I think I still have your complaint about chasing runners in assassination missions:

I completed a convoy escort, was in diamond formation around the evac zone, and the drop ship came in, landed right on my lance commander's pristine mech, crushed it to death, killing my lance commander (in ironman career mode) and then flew off like everything was fine. The dropships really ought not to land on friendly assets.

[terrycpa1972]

You'll have to stay out of the landing zones which are marked on the map pretty well for convoy escort missions. In some missions you need to pay attention to the warnings that pop up during the movement turn to avoid those landing areas if you are unable to tell where the dropship is going to land.

[[LHI] kaladorn]

In the particular case, there was rocks on about 4 of the hexes surrounding hte evac zone. The other two were a slight rise (versus a rocky outcrop) and the incoming road which was sort of through a chasm in the rock.

I happened to be standing outside the evac zone on the slight rise. Now, it had trees and such so I didn't see it really as 'landing zone' material. Apparently it was. But I honestly got zero warning.

They said hold the thing, I moved one time to start to face incoming hostile pirates, and then the lander swept in and squished me (I never had any indication of their planned landing point).

[Mudpony]

Originally posted by LHI kaladorn:

Real convoy protocol would put the security detail in charge and tie the movements to direction from the lance commander as to where and when to move. It wouldn't be a race to keep up with the convoy elements.

Yeah, really, we should be in charge of moving the convoy elements. Would avoid the entire "vehicle won't move" issue, as well. Of course, that would also make escorting convoys much, much easier, even if there was some sort of "must end each turn within X meters of a road" limitation.

As far as enemies running away, it would sort of suck seeing potential salvage run away. Though on the flip side, seeing those locusts go away when I'm already into heavies wouldn't bother me at all. Just go away, the sooner the better ;)

I'd expect that, given how Battletech is sort of inspired by the European Middle Ages, some sort of ransom system probably exists. So basically, it would mean if the pilot surrendered (or ejected), you'd get cash in lieu of salvage. But then it would also depend on how rich/noble the pilot was. A poor guy will wind up dispossessed, and a pirate? He's probably going to the gallows. And that same sort of logic should apply to you as well, then. If you don't control the field of battle, any mech/pilot you leave behind is lost, unless you pay a nice chunk of change.

But all that would be complicated, and while it might appeal to some players, to most would probably be a turn off. So I can see why HBS kept it simple.

[[LHI] kaladorn]

I figure if the mod capacity is there, that's where some of this could live.

I'd also like to be able to use a full 3 pod/3 lance force in a fight but that would mean enemies would need to cordinate within lances and beyond (between lances) and that's another layer of AI that might be hard to make work.

This game would be awesome with a 3 to 6 player MP though.

The ransom idea makes sense to me. I'd pay $$ to save my long-trained mechwarriors on a blown mission.

Not everyone looks for realism I guess. I kinda prefer things that lean that way (play L4D with realism on). but others just want to play bot-bashing olympics.

[Cervidal]

Originally posted by Wantoomany:

If an enemy decides to flee while standing on or next to an evac point, it's a fail. Doubly so because you can't even see those points until the AI decides to bug out. So you don't even know if you are risking failure until it's already happened.

So the enemy should put a big glowing point to where they're running away to, tip their hand and give away their plan? Should they also kindly put their severed head on a silver platter for you as your drop ship picks you up?

As for being in charge of moving the convoy elements that Mudpony brought up - why? They're not your vehicles. They've no affiliation with your merc company.

Finally - I simply don't believe anyone who says their 'mech got smooshed without warning by an incoming ship. The spaces you move to and risk being crushed are outlined in red. There's a warning message that comes up before you confirm moving there. It's been this way since the dawn of the game. Quit speed clicking through everything and you would actually see it.

[[LHI] kaladorn]

You don't have to believe me. I would not have moved into a red outlined hex. I moved onto a hill with some tree stands. The evac point was beside me, but there was no colour or message to indicate where the dropship would come in. Because I also did not know where the enemy reinforcements I was supposed to hold off, I set up a 4 way defense around the evac point.

Before I could move that unit again, a message telling me the evac was inbound came out then it landed on me and I and my mech died.

That's my experience. You can disbelieve it, but I've played enough not to enter red coloured hexes and there was no such thing when I exectued my movement. Evac wasn't on the way at that time (allied convoy units still not in evac zone I guess) so the difference between my turn and the arrival of the evac allowed the last convoy unit to arrive, evac be announced, and then executed before that mech could move again.

I didn't speed click -> when I moved there, evac wasn't coming yet. There was no red warning area. I'm meticulous with my moves because I hate being stuck somewhere vulnerable or awkward because of bad mouse control, so I'm pretty finicky about that.

You can believe whatever you like, that's your right. But my experience was what it was.

I haven't seen that happen before or since but I have no problem imagining that there is an edge case related to when I moved, when the last convoy unit rolled in, when the fast arriving dust off lander arrived, and my not yet arrived following move that could have resulted in my untelegraphed death. That's not hard to conceive of and that's what I saw.

You could, instead, argue that's the fortunes of war. Sure it is, but here again, these pilots aren't supposed to be idiots and you'd think landing on a 45 ton mech loaded with explosives might be a bad plan for the lander. Plus frankly it might result in the other mechs shooting the lander to bits. So, it would have been better if the evac lander would only land on open hexes or find an alternate space as near as possible that was not occupied.

As to convoys, no convoy escort in any universe is tasked with escorting a convoy to which they cannot talk and with whom they cannot coordinate. That's insane. Only the king of the morons would think that made sense. I don't have to move them, but I should be able to tell them when to hold up and when it is clear for them to move. Or suggest where they ought to move to.

Racing after a convoy I'm supposed to be protecting while the convoy vehicles recklessly put themselves at risk (because I'm busy engaging threats to the convoy, but there are other threats ahead) is just suicidal on behalf of the convoy drivers.