Remove the War Morale Penalty for Insurgents

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

    • Germanico wrote:

      "....but MY people, of MY country should have a morale boost because of fighting terrorists, a patriotic backlash, not a penalty"

      Yeah - that's why generally we've seen so many pro-war rallies and demonstrations of support for the army in the UK, US, France and all other nations embroiled in wars against insurgents ;) *sarcasm off

      I have said all there is to say from the dev's side about this. My participation in this thread ends here...
      Understood. Watches as Germanico missed the entire well of support after 9/11
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
      When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
      So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
      We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.

      It's how we envision the game.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Germanico wrote:

      It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
      When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
      So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
      We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.

      It's how we envision the game.
      Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
      When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
      So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
      We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.

      It's how we envision the game.
      Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.
      Those were all targeted assassinations where nothing went wrong and people who killed civilians without a single thought were killed. Not a war against insurgents created by invasions that are disliked in the first place.
    • Dude fighting insurgencies is NOT FUN, however if you suggest that system then it will not only lead to absence of realism but also abuse. People will just start an insurgency in a city or two and then get morale boost for rest of the game.
      Declaring war isn't enough, one must also know how to wage war.
      Lost battles can be summed up in two words: TOO LATE
    • Pafufu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
      When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
      So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
      We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.

      It's how we envision the game.
      Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.
      Those were all targeted assassinations where nothing went wrong and people who killed civilians without a single thought were killed. Not a war against insurgents created by invasions that are disliked in the first place.
      Those were MILITARY OPERATIONS against Terrorists.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • blue44elephant wrote:

      Dude fighting insurgencies is NOT FUN, however if you suggest that system then it will not only lead to absence of realism but also abuse. People will just start an insurgency in a city or two and then get morale boost for rest of the game.
      I was being sarcastic about an actual boost, that's why I said something like "if anything"
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Maybe it should be based on so many days without conflict or potential conflict. Just cause I take a city around 23:00 the insurgency starts, I take care of it the next few hours, but now I am at war with them forever, even though I have addressed the insurgency and there is no neighboring insurgency. Yeah, that's bad coding and game play. Any other country once you conquer their land, that's it. You can wipe the insurgency off the map, and you're still at war with them.

      That's not a fear based thing, and to treat as such is just glossing over it. Just be honest and tell us that you don't have the current resources to address or consider addressing, or that it is too far coded to address at the current time.
      CON Gamertag: ewinner
    • Here how to fix it. If you guys are so much into "the people not happy with war with insurgency! here -2"
      just move it to the moral base line (change it from 90(?) to 88). BOOM all problem solve, no more annoying -2 and you get to keep it without anyone know about it any way.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Pafufu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
      When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
      So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
      We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.

      It's how we envision the game.
      Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.
      Those were all targeted assassinations where nothing went wrong and people who killed civilians without a single thought were killed. Not a war against insurgents created by invasions that are disliked in the first place.
      Those were MILITARY OPERATIONS against Terrorists.
      Targeted military assassinations against terrorists, yes. I don’t know why you put that in caps.
    • Pafufu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Pafufu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
      When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
      So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
      We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.

      It's how we envision the game.
      Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.
      Those were all targeted assassinations where nothing went wrong and people who killed civilians without a single thought were killed. Not a war against insurgents created by invasions that are disliked in the first place.
      Those were MILITARY OPERATIONS against Terrorists.
      Targeted military assassinations against terrorists, yes. I don’t know why you put that in caps.
      well at least we can start another ridiculous thread chain again :D