Morale

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • In the recent updates it has come to light that all conquered provinces/cities are limited to 75% total morale, and the build up to this has been slowed dramatically.

      There is clearly a problem with this, and other aspects of morale.

      1. A blanket limit of 75% takes no account of the fact that some countries may welcome being conquered; perhaps their government is a cruel dictatorship, etc.

      2. Limiting to 75% does not give an incentive to invest in infrastructure to anywhere near the same degree.

      3. If a war is going well then the morale in the homelands should remain as previously, or indeed grow - NOT decrease, that is illogical.

      Once a war is over, and all conquered cities have abeen aannexed, they, and the provinces should be integrated into the homelands, or there shoudl be an option to have them as self-governing provinces at lesser cost in resouces.

      All constructive comments welcome . . . .
    • 1) It's not a blanket 75% - conquered territories have a "base morale target" of 75% so it depends on player action to set the actual morale

      2) as explained there is no limit at 75% = you can for instance get it to 100% by investing into infrastructure such as bunkers to increase the target morale to 100%

      3) The war negative modifier in modern countries both realistic and essential.

      When in the last wars on this planet has the population emphatically embraced their nation going to war? None that I am aware of in the last 50 years - see US Vietnam war or Soviet Afghanistan war as examples

      When have defeated countries welcomed their occupiers with open arms in the last decades? Same answer. Never to my knowledge. Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see recent examples.

      Morale in occupied or annexed territories is generally lower than in home provinces: and that is what we are simulating - even allowing the player to circumvent this by constructing buildings.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • @Germanico I see where you're coming from, especially in terms of realism. I really do. But the fact that I still need 2-3 units to keep cities that I conquered on Thursday or Friday from rebelling (despite having conquered all the territories around them) is tying down tons of units and having a substantial and negative effect on the playability of the game. I was able to produce more units and work around the problem, but thats a late-game-only fix, as my economy is over 90k tons.

      The current morale settings degrade the playability of the game and make the experience of playing it less fun.

      If you're really set on making the average morale 75% (which I find makes the game more confusing because when you produce units, it'll never take the time it says it will in the production screen), you should make morale increase more rapidly to get to the magic number where rebellions dont happen (or lower the magic number).
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation

      The post was edited 1 time, last by RasczakRough: Added multiple ways of addressing complaint's underlying cause ().

    • If after a long time, conquered countries often eventually become completely integrated and becomes indistinguishable from the original homeland. Vietnam doesn't have groups that want the North-South Vietnam divide.

      I think after a few weeks in the game of holding conquered territory, the morale target goes up slowly, by 5% or so per week.
    • I am sorry in advance if this looks like more complaining and others have a love for realism that perpetuates hundreds of countries in modern society in sacrifice of playability that I don't fully appreciate. This description of two scenarios is to give examples of what the morale recharge is doing in these cases. I have voiced my concerns on another thread and those concerns still stand, despite the mechanics of morale working as intended. Even In a game where I had one war going, nearby my homeland, and only 3-4 civilian casualties caused, it took 3-4 days to get cities up to 34% morale. In my game were I had 3 wars going (which is common if you anger a group of allies) and am trying to take out a player that had 1200 vps, overseas homeland, 7-civilian casualties, and a huge negative for neighboring morale, It is taking 5-7 days because I had to fight rouges often. Some of my cities that are annexed are stable only in the low 50s morale.

      This would bother me less if leaving one infantry unit was enough, but leaving one just asks for casualties at day change. You have to either put 4 in there or cover them with aircraft at every day change for up to a week.

      Some suggestions you can work with for speeding up and making the game enjoyable. Feel free to try some, all, or aspects of these suggestions.
      1) Increase the morale recharge rate slightly
      2) Make units more effective in preventing rouges, including patrolling aircraft and better values for tanks and TDs to match their effectiveness against rouges. I would like 1 unit be effective in preventing rogues.
      3) make units add to happiness recharge just like bunkers
      4) Once a province goes rouge, don't let the rogue forces keep adding up by stacking multiple revolt on an already rouge province.
      5) Reduce the percentage chance of rouges attacking for any given morale to something, anything lower. I.e. 40% instead of 60%
      6) If you successfully beat back a revolt, the morale goes up or at least the likelihood of a revolt next turn goes down.

      Awaiting patiently for improvement before I start a new game, yours truly- Life is Good.

      PS- I have ideas on getting the gold use up, but I think getting the free player base up is even more pressing and important for getting future gold sales up so I will postpone it.
    • Germanico wrote:

      1) It's not a blanket 75% - conquered territories have a "base morale target" of 75% so it depends on player action to set the actual morale

      A. I was told via Facebook that it IS a blanket 75%


      2) as explained there is no limit at 75% = you can for instance get it to 100% by investing into infrastructure such as bunkers to increase the target morale to 100%

      B. Investing in infrastructure has, in my experience no effect whatsoever since the readjustments. Cities never changed their morale no matter what I did over an entire three day period !!


      3) The war negative modifier in modern countries both realistic and essential.

      C. Based upon what evidence?


      4) When in the last wars on this planet has the population emphatically embraced their nation going to war? None that I am aware of in the last 50 years - see US Vietnam war or Soviet Afghanistan war as examples

      D. So you're seriously trying to tell me that morale dropped across the board in the US aand USSR by as much as 25% because of overseas wars? That is faintly ludicrous to say the least. Most people just get on with their lives, period !


      5) When have defeated countries welcomed their occupiers with open arms in the last decades? Same answer. Never to my knowledge. Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see recent examples.

      E. I rather think you are being deliberately obtuse in this instance. Try the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia for just one instance, when the remaining civilian population welcomed them with open arms, for quite obvious reasons!


      6) Morale in occupied or annexed territories is generally lower than in home provinces: and that is what we are simulating - even allowing the player to circumvent this by constructing buildings.

      F. As mentioned elsewhere, once all cities have been annexed, then the surrounding countryside, in real terms ceases to be "occupied" and the whole should then become "homeland" until or unless there is revolt or they are taken in war. Also, in the event that one captures a city which is highly built up, fully intact (as I did on more than one occasion) , how on earth is one supposed to "stimulate" growth? :(
      I'm afraid this hasn't been very well though through.


      //G
    • Hi Antony N,
      I'll have a shot at answering your questions and concerns even further.

      1) It's not a blanket 75% - conquered territories have a "base morale

      target" of 75% so it depends on player action to set the actual morale

      A. I was told via Facebook that it IS a blanket 75%
      Definition of "blanket" seems a bit unclear to me. Essentially it works as Germanico said - annexed city will have no hard cap to morale and it will be gearing towards 75% morale +/- other factors.

      2) as explained there is no limit at 75% = you can for instance get it

      to 100% by investing into infrastructure such as bunkers to increase the
      target morale to 100%


      B. Investing in infrastructure has, in my experience no effect whatsoever since the readjustments. Cities never changed their morale no matter what I did over an entire three day period !!
      In order to rule out bug skewing the perception of the matter, it would be great if you posted "Morale Details" tooltip.


      3) The war negative modifier in modern countries both realistic and essential.


      C. Based upon what evidence?

      Since you deliberately asked for evidence, here's one recent example.

      4) When in the last wars on this planet has the population emphatically embraced their nation going to war? None that I am aware of in the last 50 years - see US Vietnam war or Soviet Afghanistan war as examples



      D. So you're seriously trying to tell me that morale dropped across the board in the US aand USSR by as much as 25% because of overseas wars?
      That is faintly ludicrous to say the least. Most people just get onwith their lives, period !
      Having a single war reduces target morale by 3. Only by having more than 8 wars will make the target morale of cities reduced by 25. For rest, just see the picture above :)
      5) When have defeated countries welcomed their occupiers with open arms in the last decades? Same answer. Never to my knowledge. Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see recent examples.

      E. I rather think you are being deliberately obtuse in this instance. Try the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia for just one instance, when the remaining civilian population welcomed them with open arms, for quite obvious reasons!

      Since Conflict of Nations is at it's core a war game, and not really a political game, current mechanisms are not designed to stimulate political attitude of countries in ways other than military.
      6) Morale in occupied or annexed territories is generally lower than in home provinces: and that is what we are simulating - even allowing the player to circumvent this by constructing buildings.

      F. As mentioned elsewhere, once all cities have been annexed, then the surrounding countryside, in real terms ceases to be "occupied" and the whole should then become "homeland" until or unless there is revolt or they are taken in war. Also, in the event that one captures a city which is highly built up, fully intact (as I did on more than one occasion) , how on earth is one supposed to "stimulate" growth?
      I'm afraid this hasn't been very well though through.

      Rest assured, that mechanics has been thought through. Conflict of Nations puts emphasis on cities, making provinces places of lesser importance in order to remove the necessity of micro-managing them. The other thing you're asking for is a possibility of coring cities (making them homeland), but that's a whole different story, but it's something that might happen sometime :)
    • @Gorczyk Explains some of it, thank you.

      But demonstrations against war in Iraq don't equate with a loweing of morale.

      Conversely, we all know the Cambodian civilian population welcomed the Vietnamese army with open arms when they invaded. Similar things have happened in very many African conflicts as you may be aaware.

      In my last game, with just one war in progress, I was lucky enough to take a number of cities with their infrastructure fully intact, yet morale dropped from a high of between 70/80 to 25% - that clearly equates to a bug or flaw given your explanation.

      As for building infrastructure stimulaating morale,that is clealry not currently the case. In my present game where neighbouring countries have cities with half the infrastructure (or less) to mine, and equal or greater morale (and neither they nor I were at, or had been at war)
    • I'm currently facing a major problem in an Alliance match concerning morale.
      In a team game you will use a lot of bombardment, so my civilian number is -21 i think.
      I was at war with 10 nations. So that is -30 or so.
      Fuel is no longer balanced. I have plenty of Fuel Cities yet my fuel was at -260. This is another -16, -42 at times (not sure why this is)
      I have other negatives in most all categories. Each rogue pop puts my other resources in the red every 24 hours.

      Some of this is simply attributed to using a lot of gold.
      But I just had 45 rogue pops. Past two days in a row I had 31 each.

      I can think of many things I could have done differently. But I believe that the morale change is too much. I also believe fuel needs to be adjusted in the large VP area.
      It is very hard to sustain over 750 VP right now if you did not earn it painfully slow.
      The new morale system punishes gold users severely. Isn't the point to encourage gold spending? This is not the way.

      At the very least, I recommend making team games -2 or even -1 VP instead of -3 per nation at war. In a team game you are expected to be at war with multiple nations. But what makes this scenario even worse is that team games are over quickly. Always within 48 hours. The rest is just VP farming for statistics. This morale change makes the VP farming drag on forever. Almost seems like it is demanding gold just to finish a game. This is not the path we should be on.
      In a pub i can see how having to control the cities and manage morale is fun and realistic. In a team game, this only affects the post game farming. And this is not fun at all. Only the most dedicated player would even do such a thing.
    • Life is Good wrote:

      I am sorry in advance if this looks like more complaining and others have a love for realism that perpetuates hundreds of countries in modern society in sacrifice of playability that I don't fully appreciate. This description of two scenarios is to give examples of what the morale recharge is doing in these cases. I have voiced my concerns on another thread and those concerns still stand, despite the mechanics of morale working as intended. Even In a game where I had one war going, nearby my homeland, and only 3-4 civilian casualties caused, it took 3-4 days to get cities up to 34% morale. In my game were I had 3 wars going (which is common if you anger a group of allies) and am trying to take out a player that had 1200 vps, overseas homeland, 7-civilian casualties, and a huge negative for neighboring morale, It is taking 5-7 days because I had to fight rouges often. Some of my cities that are annexed are stable only in the low 50s morale.

      This would bother me less if leaving one infantry unit was enough, but leaving one just asks for casualties at day change. You have to either put 4 in there or cover them with aircraft at every day change for up to a week.

      Some suggestions you can work with for speeding up and making the game enjoyable. Feel free to try some, all, or aspects of these suggestions.
      1) Increase the morale recharge rate slightly
      2) Make units more effective in preventing rouges, including patrolling aircraft and better values for tanks and TDs to match their effectiveness against rouges. I would like 1 unit be effective in preventing rogues.
      3) make units add to happiness recharge just like bunkers
      4) Once a province goes rouge, don't let the rogue forces keep adding up by stacking multiple revolt on an already rouge province.
      5) Reduce the percentage chance of rouges attacking for any given morale to something, anything lower. I.e. 40% instead of 60%
      6) If you successfully beat back a revolt, the morale goes up or at least the likelihood of a revolt next turn goes down.

      Awaiting patiently for improvement before I start a new game, yours truly- Life is Good.

      PS- I have ideas on getting the gold use up, but I think getting the free player base up is even more pressing and important for getting future gold sales up so I will postpone it.
      I agree with this post and support most of these ideas. The only one I wouldn't support is to stop allowing rogues to stack. I think if all the other nerfs were implemented, the stacking is fine.

      The realism and ideas with Rogue State are interesting and well thought out. We commend the Developers for this very much. But it is just not what your player base is paying for. We want to fight each other.
      Unfortunately, again... this is something that affects your Alliance Matches more than your Solo Pub base. And affects it differently.
      If you have top solo players complaining about it, just imagine how much worse it is on us team players... when we are always at war with 10+ people.
      Now consider that the team games are ALWAYS over in less than 48 hours of war. Often over in only 12 hours of actual war.
      Please understand that farming rogue pops for weeks after your game is over just to get your win... this is not entertainment of any type.

      Edit: Another big problem that the fuel shortage has exposed is that we can not destroy field bases and airstrips. Without being able to destroy these, the daily upkeep is not manageable. You can not conquer a Province with one. If you do, you are in trouble.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Cyclone46 ().

    • it is clear after seeing one of Germanico's posts to raise moral he said to use the humanitarian button the GOLD button.....and he says he is not here to make money lmao All of the updates are strickly to fatten thier wallets no matter what it does to the people paying him his fat check. For EX. what did he do for the hundreds of games that closed down due to them changing the vp without saying anything to anyone about it. WE spend alot of time and some spend alot of money but they can just take it all away in a second and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Has anyone been given anything for losing games during the updates...i think not, but u know who does get paid....Dorodo Games does.
    • mllr420tm wrote:

      it is clear after seeing one of Germanico's posts to raise moral he said to use the humanitarian button the GOLD button.....and he says he is not here to make money lmao All of the updates are strickly to fatten thier wallets no matter what it does to the people paying him his fat check. For EX. what did he do for the hundreds of games that closed down due to them changing the vp without saying anything to anyone about it. WE spend alot of time and some spend alot of money but they can just take it all away in a second and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Has anyone been given anything for losing games during the updates...i think not, but u know who does get paid....Dorodo Games does.
      I lost a game during the stupid morale updates by having well over 100 units tied up in recently conquered cities to avoiding them going rogue, and preventing me pursuing victory due to the very VERY slow morale build-up. As it was the last day of the game, and no chance of building new units in time, I was left with having to attempt a diplomatic stalling tactic - which inevitably failed.

      The nonsense talked about building up the infrastructure to improve morale is beyond belief. At the present time it just does NOT work like that, and you're just throwing resources down the drain, whether you are a gold user or not!!!

      If they would just implement the automatic core-ing of cities and provinces once a country is completley conquered, or allow the then to be self-governing provinces within your territory, then we would have more sensible approach.


      Also, if they introduced different levels of war it would make a difference, i.e. if one were to be able to guarantee a country's borders/independence,or if you offer an alliance, then the said country is invaded, it woudl make sense that your morale should not suffer when you go to war with the agressor.

      But sadly the diplomatic element is lacking in this game - and no mattter how they dress it up, there is rarely a war without a diplomatic presence positive or malign. Besides, it would make it much more interesting to be able to wrestle diplomatically with an opponent, defusing situations, stalling for time etc. . . . .
    • I had another 50+ rogue pops today. And lost around 100 VP.

      Keep in mind... We won this game almost a week ago. We are just trying to collect 3750 VP to win. 3750 VP which is good for a 20 vs 20, not a small 9 vs 9 game such as ours.

      The game is currently "Conflict of Rogue Pop".
      It is unfortunate that so many mistakes are made. But at least we have an active team working on the game. I just wish they would listen to us a little better. It takes too long to acknowledge the mistakes once the community informs them.
    • Hello gents,
      last update has decreased chances of cities going rouge from 60% to 50%, also right now a single infantry unit already decreases the chance of revolt significantly, so essentially, the amount of units required to keep peace in freshly conquered cities should be significantly lower, as keeping as low as 2 units of Level 1 Motorized Infantry should lower the risk to somewhere close to 15%. Also time required for a city to recover above revolt threshold should is lower now (providing the morale penalty is around -25% tops). However. if you find that not to be true, that would mean we're facing some issues and I would be grateful for some more info on that.
    • Gorczyk wrote:

      Hello gents,
      last update has decreased chances of cities going rouge from 60% to 50%, also right now a single infantry unit already decreases the chance of revolt significantly, so essentially, the amount of units required to keep peace in freshly conquered cities should be significantly lower, as keeping as low as 2 units of Level 1 Motorized Infantry should lower the risk to somewhere close to 15%. Also time required for a city to recover above revolt threshold should is lower now (providing the morale penalty is around -25% tops). However. if you find that not to be true, that would mean we're facing some issues and I would be grateful for some more info on that.
      I do believe there are issues. 2 fulll days after war is over with only one country (and annnexation of the first cities), I still have no more than 35% and some provinces taken early in the war are still below 30%.

      Leaving just one or two Motorized Infantry would never work in the present scenario; besides which the recovery rate is so slow that the time to reach 51% safe threshold is likely to be 26 days (or more) , before it is safe to go to war with another nation.
      Either that, or risk provinces and cities going rogue on a wholesale scale.
    • Antony N wrote:

      Leaving just one or two Motorized Infantry would never work in the present scenario; besides which the recovery rate is so slow that the time to reach 51% safe threshold is likely to be 26 days (or more) , before it is safe to go to war with another nation.
      The safe point for cities to certainly not revolt is 34%, at which point there is no longer any risk of revolt. Just to make absolutely sure, please state you in-game name and gameID so we ca take a look.
    • Gorczyk wrote:

      Antony N wrote:

      Leaving just one or two Motorized Infantry would never work in the present scenario; besides which the recovery rate is so slow that the time to reach 51% safe threshold is likely to be 26 days (or more) , before it is safe to go to war with another nation.
      The safe point for cities to certainly not revolt is 34%, at which point there is no longer any risk of revolt. Just to make absolutely sure, please state you in-game name and gameID so we ca take a look.
      Really? Because in the previous game both myself and my main opponent had cities going rogue at figures above 34. My cities in Italy, Norway and Sweden were going rogue in the oddest manner too - When cities were occupied and above 35, they often had rogue state takign over the city without even attacking he occupying forces.

      So in this game I haven't risked it yet.
    • Antony N wrote:

      Really? Because in the previous game both myself and my main opponent had cities going rogue at figures above 34. My cities in Italy, Norway and Sweden were going rogue in the oddest manner too - When cities were occupied and above 35, they often had rogue state takign over the city without even attacking he occupying forces.

      So in this game I haven't risked it yet.
      Well, that is possible only in one specific case - someone ran propaganda campaigns to lower your morale in cities. There's just simply no other way of this happening, but if you could provide specifics - gameID, city names, etc., we could still investigate if possible.