Morale and deserting

[entropomorphic]

IMO, players should be punished somehow for going into debt. This could be done like this: If the upkeep on a unit is not paid, that unit loses morale. A unit with bad morale has some chance of deserting, which could be either becoming a neutral (lawful) or aggressive (chaotic) unsided unit, or maybe just being removed from play. Thus, a player could not recruit a large army and then ignore their income sources while they parade around the map. This may not be appropriate for some scenarios ("mission"-type scenarios where the leader and a few hombres fight it out come to mind) so perhaps "allow_deserting" should be a map option.

Morale could potentially also be used to affect unit effectiveness; a unit with poor morale just wouldn't have his heart in the fight. Chaotic units might be burdened with a greater chance to desert, where Lawful units might suffer a morale hit when ordered to attack another Lawful unit. Other factors like terrain (think Northern Winter where Delfador warns that the men might desert if forced to fight too long in the snow), time of day, and surrounding unit health could affect a unit's morale. Perhaps this is too involved. Still, it could encourage players to take better care of their units.

[Deathtenks]

Units are just pawns I send into battle.....Like I should care if they die.....Unless they are lvl 2...then I care if they die....But I really don't like the concept of a "Morale" system..I always go into debt at the beginning of the scenario and it is annoying so as you see...I really dislike this idea...

[Darth Fool]

While I've generally disliked the few previous ideas for morale that I've seen, this is actually quite an interesting proposal. It wouldn't work if first the proposal(I don't recall from whom) to allow units at full health on a castle (or maybe even village) hex to be dismissed. I also would not want to have to keep track of individual units morale (an hp and xp bar already clutter the graphics enough). That means that the morale would need to be determined instantaneosly, and not be a cumulative value.

As always my main concern with this is the effect on gameplay. Currently, it is possible to amass a large army and briefly go into debt while you expand to grab enough villages to get back to positive income. Overall, I suspect that the effect of this sort of change would be to quicken the endings of games while increasing the value of villages.

Some possible improvements to your proposal:
-units on a village or castle hex would not desert.
-As long as the income was positive, units would not desert.
-If the debt was not greater than the units cost it would not desert, or perhaps there would be no desertion if the total debt was not greater than the total cost of all units on your side.
-The units probability of deserting would be determined in random order. It would
be proportional to how much greater than the threshold (above) the debt is, and the cost of the unit.
-When a unit deserts, it would reduce the players debt by some amount (not sure about this one)
-If the income was positve, units would not desert
-Units with a high defense rating on the terrain they are on would be less likely to desert then units on terrain where they are vulnerable.
-deserting units should become neutral (so that they are still around for xp if killed by opponents.)
-they should desert at the end of the players turn (so that you don't get extra xp by killing units that deserted at the beginning of the turn.)
-units that would desert, if next to a unit that isn't deserting, won't desert. (groups of units might still desert if your debt was great enough!)
-loyal units (which don't require upkeep) would obviously never desert (and if combined with the above, would enable you to keep rings around them of units that won't desert.

edit:
-should higher level units should be less likely(better trained) to desert than lower level units, or more likeyly(higher upkeep). perhaps determined by chaos/neutral/lawful
-units that have deserted should try to get to a village where they can fully heal and then depart?

[Simons Mith]

That's starting to sound, erm, rather complicated.

[turin]

I don't think random desertion is a good idea... instead, I would prefer a system where, if you leave everything the same at the end of a turn, you will know for sure whether 1) anyone will desert, and 2) who it will be.

[romnajin]

That is a problem I see, how would the deserting unit be chosen?

[turin]

That is a problem I see, how would the deserting unit be chosen?

I didn't say chosen (IMHO that would be bad), I said would be known beforehand. As in, "if I end my turn now, that unit will desert next turn, and I won't be able to stop it". Not "that unit might desert next turn, so I should probably compensate a bit for it, but not exactly sure how much."

[Simons Mith]

I'm not convinced this should be done on a per-turn basis. You pay a soldier's upkeep per turn. They get their wages six times a day, do they? Even when they're out in the wastes, miles away from civilisation? And what if they're in dangerous terrain surrounded by hostile units who are killing all living beings? Deserting isn't going to save them, and routing is not necessarily appropriate either.

I believe the most sensible way to represent deserting troops would be to remove them from the recall list at the end of the scenario. Presumably the troops with more experience points would have higher seniority, so they would be the ones retained.

Troops fleeing in fear should be considered as a different matter because it is triggered in radically different circumstances. Unfortunately given that the AI often needs a significant numerical advantage to win against a human player, I think this would be really hard to implement. I would be seriously irritated if a unit I had left to hold a key point took it upon itself to flee - especially if help was coming, and frankly the AI can't be trusted to accurately determine whether help really is coming or not. So I'd anticipate units fleeing that shouldn't, and units getting trapped and killed that ought to have fled.

[Invisible Philosopher]

IMHO not being able to recruit is quite enough of a punishment for having negative gold and upkeep. Income is very important in multiplayer, and the negative gold carries over to the next scenario in campaigns.

[entropomorphic]

Unadrieldor, tell me again why we're sitting in this stinking swamp at 4:00 in the morning, waiting to ambush an unstoppable army of the undead?

Don't be silly, Fil-Gathiel! Konrad told us to.

I see. Is he paying us well at least?

Not a cent, of course! Konrad's going to be the king! He doesn't need money, he's all royal and such! Besides, where's he going to get money in this swamp?

Good point. By Anduin, I am famished, Unadrieldor! Why don't you and I go down to the village and have ourselves some fresh bread, and maybe a few cups of mead?

A village, Fil-Gathiel? Are you daft, the undead control all the villages!

Oh, Unadrieldor, a shaman can get so lonely in these trying times! Come to me, you beautiful, beautiful hero!

Get off me, wench! I'm... not interested.

Oh, I... see... Look, behind you! A Nightgaunt! (runs)

[Na'enthos]

I agree with Invisible Philosopher.. in campaigns you have the money issue making it hard to survive following scenarios.

In multiplayer, however, it may be more sensible to implement something like this.. especially since a person who recruits a lot at once (perhaps even using up nearly all the money he/she has) has the advantage of having a lot of units, and having them in the field earlier than a player using a more realistic recruiting policy. But I don't have a lot of multiplayer experience..

[elanthis]

Upkeep, like most things in Wesnoth, is an abstract concept. Fights are abstract. Villages are abstract. I think getting into "I don't have my pay so Imma gunna leave ya" is trying to add too much detail to something that is intentially void of much detail at all. Gold is just a simplistic mechanic used to control how many troops you can recruit or recall.

Additionally, adding deserting troops pulls more of the focus of the game away from combat strategy and more into resource acquisition and control.

[Monkey]

I like it, in medieval times there were rules about honorable surrending, so a unit that doesn't wanted to die, or fight for no money, could just surrender.

[CyberJack]

I agree with Invisible Philosopher.. in campaigns you have the money issue making it hard to survive following scenarios.

In multiplayer, however, it may be more sensible to implement something like this.. especially since a person who recruits a lot at once (perhaps even using up nearly all the money he/she has) has the advantage of having a lot of units, and having them in the field earlier than a player using a more realistic recruiting policy. But I don't have a lot of multiplayer experience..

But then can't recruit even a single replacement for unit that gets killed until the whole outstanding debt is paid off.

I don't think we need desertion, but if anyone does want a deterministic desertion scheme, how about cheapest-unit-first. Units desert as and when the debt exceeds the cost of the unit; except for loyal and zero-upkeep units which are exempt. Further, desertion credits the player with the cost of the unit, returning the balance to just below zero (so the player still can't recruit a replacement just because a unit has deserted).

Example: Knalgan Alliance with these units:

• 1x Dwarvish Steelclad, cost 36 (leader, obviously can't desert)
  1x Dwarvish Guardsman, cost 19
  3x Dwarvish Fighter, cost 17
  2x Thug, cost 13
  1x Thief, cost 12

(total upkeep=9), no villages (gross income=2) and no cash left after recruiting.

After 1 turn, cash=-7; no-one deserts.
After 2 turns, cash=-14; the thief deserts; now cash=-2 and upkeep=8
After 3 turns, cash=-8; no-one deserts.
After 4 turns, cash=-14; one thug deserts; now cash=-1 and upkeep=7

And so on ...

Finally I think that desertion should only apply if both cash balance and net income are negative; troops won't desert while there's still money in the coffers, or they see money coming in indicating better times ahead.

[xtifr]

Hmm, I wasn't too impressed with the whole notion at first, but Cyberjack's variation is actually starting to sound interesting.