Morale

AbstractGR

Calydonian Boar
I don't know if this happens already, but morale should be locked with the attack. Let me explain, if I send an attack while having 100 morale against the opponent, and suddenly he loses points and I have 80 morale against him, my attack that was sent before the morale change happened should be with 100 morale.
Morale manipulation is straight up bad for the environment of the game, both on revolt worlds and conquest, it is firstly unethical and afterwards frustrating...
 
Well ... morale is a factor that should have never entered in this game, as it is not realistic in a war game and most of all it is not correctly handled...

It is just a way to gain free battle points from enemies and having the minimum loses... and on top of that no even worry if the town is lost or not!!!
 

AbstractGR

Calydonian Boar
I don't think it shouldn't have entered, I just think it needed more optimization before it entered. But after so many years, nothing has changed and probably nothing will so...
 

rudolf621

Calydonian Boar
I don't think morality is that bad. One sees again and again that Ali and alliances take targeted action against newcomers. You let them build diligently and in the hope they can at least begin to play along and then they are mercilessly smoked away. This way we will not win any new players for Grepo.

Moral manipulation is another issue. The newbies are not guaranteed to master this either. The moral should always apply here that I had when I sent the attack.

But you shouldn't forget that I can also take advantage of bad morals if, for example, I want to land on a hostile island. Here I get a city from a player where I have very bad morals. During my takeover, the morale conditions apply to my troops if the island ruling alliance tries to kick my kolo. At least for siege worlds a very good possibility to be able to land on enemy islands.
 

AbstractGR

Calydonian Boar
I don't think morality is that bad. One sees again and again that Ali and alliances take targeted action against newcomers. You let them build diligently and in the hope they can at least begin to play along and then they are mercilessly smoked away. This way we will not win any new players for Grepo.

Moral manipulation is another issue. The newbies are not guaranteed to master this either. The moral should always apply here that I had when I sent the attack.

But you shouldn't forget that I can also take advantage of bad morals if, for example, I want to land on a hostile island. Here I get a city from a player where I have very bad morals. During my takeover, the morale conditions apply to my troops if the island ruling alliance tries to kick my kolo. At least for siege worlds a very good possibility to be able to land on enemy islands.
Mate that is exactly why morale manipulation is bad. It makes, not newcomers, but players that know how to exploit it irritating. I never said it shouldn't exist since a newbie needs to have it. But my team mass attacks someone and the enemy alliance take his cities fast before my attacks land, it is plain manipulation and exploiting. Morale should be locked and carried with the attack. If I send someone an attack and the game says before I send it 80 morale (f.e.) then when it lands it should be 80, not 50
 

rudolf621

Calydonian Boar
That's right. I would even go a step further. The moral of my attack should stay that way even until the end of the conquest.
 

rudolf621

Calydonian Boar
I didn't have that on my screen. Thanks for the hint. Personally, I would think it would be better and more compliant with the rules if the morale of the city owner, who he still is during a siege, is maintained as long as the siege is not through. This also makes it difficult for any other attacker who either wants to break the siege or who wants to conquer the conquest himself. The owner's morality should always apply to him as well.
 
Personally, I would think it would be better and more compliant with the rules if the morale of the city owner, who he still is during a siege, is maintained as long as the siege is not through
No, I don´t agree. Larger players (and those spending more gold) will always be able to break the defenses of smaller players, no matter what their morale is. As per your suggestion the sieges of those larger players would be protected by the lower morale of the "victim", and the city owner´s alliance might not be able to break the siege just because of that low morale.

This also means that sieges/conquests of cities owned by smaller players would be even more "attractive" for larger players than before, and weaker alliances won´t have any chance to kick colony ships out of the cities of their smaller members.
 

rudolf621

Calydonian Boar
Then we may have misunderstood each other. I'm conquering a city and only have a morale of say 35%. The attackers from the owner's alliance have a 100% morale on me. I thought my morale should remain at 35% until the end of my conquest to still be a city owner.
 

rudolf621

Calydonian Boar
You should also make sure that a conqueror who has just taken over a city cannot attack with a slinger, although units have already been produced in the city. You should also pay attention to the fact that a conqueror who has just taken over a city and had a morale of less than xxx compared to the former city owner cannot attack with a slinger afterwards, although units have already been produced in the city.

Foreign alliances, of course, only have the moral as if they would conquer against the city owner, not against the conqueror.
 
Last edited: