Troop Morale Meter????

Please take this into consideration for upcoming Halo Wars 2. What if we had a Morale meter that told us how well our troops are willing to fight in an impending war. A battalion of ‘one-star Marines’ wouldn’t be as hyped as a Battalion of Marines with Spartans. Or the pure size of two armies attacking would make the smallest one become fearful of the bigger. Or you could split your large army into halves and wait until the cavalry arrived to destroy the other player’s troop morale and increase your own.
Please just consider this as an idea that potentially could help the game out by adding a little more depth to it!!!

Your explanation of troop morale is confusing. What does it do exactly?

> 2717573882290912;2:
> Your explanation of troop morale is confusing. What does it do exactly?

Seen it in other games. Basically high morale or veteran troops will fight to the death, while the opposite will high tail it out of there, especially if they were facing a veteran force or bigger. You would have to rally your troops before they left the field of battle or you would lose them for the rest of the battle. Which would be no biggie if they did this in Halo Wars bc you can make more troops.

I had a civil war game that had this option. After a while you would have to merge troops so your low star/morale troops wouldn’t run after the first attack. The difference was it was a turn base game not RTS

> 2717573882290912;2:
> Your explanation of troop morale is confusing. What does it do exactly?

It would basically make troops more willing to do better/worse, and you would have to mix in some High morale to help raise the other troops effectiveness E.g.-Higher precision, faster reloads

Please no. While I’m sure it adds interesting mechanics to the game, I’m also sure that all it would do multiplayer is make the losing team extremely depressed and the winning team overalls confidant.
This would make the winning team win more and the losing team loser harder (and quicker).

I’m thinking like in DoW 1, when every unit starts at full morale, and as they lose more squad members or take heavy damage, they drop in morale, allowing them to re-cooperate, or reinforcing them will allow them to regenerate morale, with the DoW affects associated with high and low morale.

> 2533274882881665;5:
> Please no. While I’m sure it adds interesting mechanics to the game, I’m also sure that all it would do multiplayer is make the losing team extremely depressed and the winning team overalls confidant.
> This would make the winning team win more and the losing team loser harder (and quicker).

I think your a little confused on the concept, the morale is for single units in that game. So once the game is over win/lose, you start over with a clean slate in the next game.

And if morale is added then you need to add punishment for low morale troops because there is no incentive to add that feature in the game.

Now I’m making this into a simple concept to help follow. Say I have a 1 star morale unit and a Five Star morale unit. Why would I merge them to make a 3 star unit. Yes I get more troops in that unit but I rather have more stars then soldiers bc high morale can win battles even when your outnumbered. So what do I do with this 1 star unit? I’ll just kamikaze them so I can make a new unit that starts with 3 stars (if that is the starting point). So I don’t get penalized for that.

Now going back to my Civil War game, these battles were based on history so they have the exact number of soldiers that took place so I don’t get more and I can’t make more. So I had to pick my skirmishes wisely and if a unit is routed with 3,000 men I had to do my best to rally them to stay bc if they left the field their gone for the rest of the field.

So if they implemented morale, they have to punish you some how like you can’t make more units after a certain period of time or the rest of the game if you kamikaze them or they are cowards and retreat. And with RTS that won’t fly bc the best part of those types of games is making a huge army and sending it to the enemy base. If you lose, you just make more troops and try again

Yeah, Dawn of War 1 did it well. CA’s own Total War series also implements morale quite well.

Perhaps it shouldn’t effect Spartans though… It would be a bit weird to see Red Team freak out- a Spartan wouldn’t do that.

> 2533274799834163;7:
> > 2533274882881665;5:
> > Please no. While I’m sure it adds interesting mechanics to the game, I’m also sure that all it would do multiplayer is make the losing team extremely depressed and the winning team overalls confidant.
> > This would make the winning team win more and the losing team loser harder (and quicker).
>
>
> I think your a little confused on the concept, the morale is for single units in that game. So once the game is over win/lose, you start over with a clean slate in the next game.
>
> And if morale is added then you need to add punishment for low morale troops because there is no incentive to add that feature in the game.
>
> Now I’m making this into a simple concept to help follow. Say I have a 1 star morale unit and a Five Star morale unit. Why would I merge them to make a 3 star unit. Yes I get more troops in that unit but I rather have more stars then soldiers bc high morale can win battles even when your outnumbered. So what do I do with this 1 star unit? I’ll just kamikaze them so I can make a new unit that starts with 3 stars (if that is the starting point). So I don’t get penalized for that.
>
> Now going back to my Civil War game, these battles were based on history so they have the exact number of soldiers that took place so I don’t get more and I can’t make more. So I had to pick my skirmishes wisely and if a unit is routed with 3,000 men I had to do my best to rally them to stay bc if they left the field their gone for the rest of the field.
>
> So if they implemented morale, they have to punish you some how like you can’t make more units after a certain period of time or the rest of the game if you kamikaze them or they are cowards and retreat. And with RTS that won’t fly bc the best part of those types of games is making a huge army and sending it to the enemy base. If you lose, you just make more troops and try again

I had to read it several times, I understand the concept a bit better now and my mind has changed to I wouldn’t mind if it’s in but doesn’t seem likely. The concept isn’t very inviting to new players, Halo Wars 2 is going to be packed with players 100% new too the genre.

I don’t like the idea to much. Morale seems like an unnecessary addition. Why should my troops perform better (or worse) in any battle due to size? If a smaller army has a lower morale than a larger one, why should the the larger army gain a boost and the other a drawback? The battle is already in favor of the larger force, no need to hinder the smaller one any more. It also seems very random at how you could raise or lower morale. Defeating enemies raises morale? So whoever gets the early leads gains more morale and the losing team has no morale? It makes the mid to end game much harder for the losing side.

CA has stated they intend to create a Halo Wars sequel as opposed to Total War: Halo Wars. I think they won’t include a morale function, but who knows.

I think morale is a fine idea. To make fair though I suggest adding that moral does not count near the last base on account that the person playing is likely about to loose and have scardy cats for soldiers would just be frustrating. But I think its cool and should strongly be considered.

> 2717573882290912;10:
> I don’t like the idea to much. Morale seems like an unnecessary addition. Why should my troops perform better (or worse) in any battle due to size? If a smaller army has a lower morale than a larger one, why should the the larger army gain a boost and the other a drawback? The battle is already in favor of the larger force, no need to hinder the smaller one any more. It also seems very random at how you could raise or lower morale. Defeating enemies raises morale? So whoever gets the early leads gains more morale and the losing team has no morale? It makes the mid to end game much harder for the losing side.
>
> CA has stated they intend to create a Halo Wars sequel as opposed to Total War: Halo Wars. I think they won’t include a morale function, but who knows.

They could have a different playlist for this, separate from 3v3 standard to add some options

> 2533274883482056;1:
> Please take this into consideration for upcoming Halo Wars 2. What if we had a Morale meter that told us how well our troops are willing to fight in an impending war. A battalion of ‘one-star Marines’ wouldn’t be as hyped as a Battalion of Marines with Spartans. Or the pure size of two armies attacking would make the smallest one become fearful of the bigger. Or you could split your large army into halves and wait until the cavalry arrived to destroy the other player’s troop morale and increase your own.
> Please just consider this as an idea that potentially could help the game out by adding a little more depth to it!!!

I think what your asking for is well served by the star system attached to every unit.

Most troops start at one star (think fresh recruits) and are leveled up through victory in combat. This reflects real life, where the best troops are the veterans who have seen a lot of action (think five star troops).

I don’t think having a morale system where troops can actually break and run if their morale is low enough is a good thing for a game like Halo Wars.

I hope we get morale mechanics. At the very least something similar to DoW. I can’t see CA not making it apart of gameplay.

Please, no. It was fun as normal, all it needs is space combat and some more base building.

Halo Wars already had a veterancy system in place, so it wouldn’t be unrealistic for it to be incorporated again in HW2. As a single unit killed more units over its lifespan, it slowly gained an attack proficiency which was indicated by a number of stars.

This is somewhat like what you’re asking, but more consistent and predictable. Increased combat exposure (killing) increases a unit’s ability to kill. I’m not aware of any modern 1st world countries that have units that decide to cut and run on their own accord (not ordered to) so why should your units in a super sci-fi universe where the military is such a highly strict and well oiled-machine as it is in the Halo universe?

NO! There will be no morale, they will die for me, that’s why I built them. I don’t want an army of depressed units not feeling like fighting today. The veteran stars were fine.

> 2533274809541057;16:
> Halo Wars already had a veterancy system in place, so it wouldn’t be unrealistic for it to be incorporated again in HW2. As a single unit killed more units over its lifespan, it slowly gained an attack proficiency which was indicated by a number of stars.
>
> This is somewhat like what you’re asking, but more consistent and predictable. Increased combat exposure (killing) increases a unit’s ability to kill. I’m not aware of any modern 1st world countries that have units that decide to cut and run on their own accord (not ordered to) so why should your units in a super sci-fi universe where the military is such a highly strict and well oiled-machine as it is in the Halo universe?

You’re comparing modern day to 500 years in the future in a war against genocidal aliens. If you send a unit of green Marines into combat and their friends start getting ripped apart by Jackals and Elites, they’re going to run.

Almost all RTS’s nowadays have a veterancy system. All the ones worth playing also have morale systems. It isn’t as though a full strength unit is going to flee the second combat breaks out. That’s not how a good morale system would work. If CA is smart, they’ll base it kind of like Company of Heroes. For instance, if a full strength squad of Marines (6 troops let’s say) get’s caught in a cross fire and they’re getting their teeth kicked in, one of two things would happen: you would signal them to retreat, or if you’re a ruthless commander, leave them to fight to the death. But depending on that unit’s veterancy and therefore their morale, they might fight to the last or they might break from combat with only two or three men left in the squad. Keeping your troops alive and making sure they have support is what -Yoink!- in the strategy part of the game, instead of using them like suicidal cannon fodder.

If Halo Wars wants to be a successful RTS, it has to be built like an actual RTS instead of just being bare-bones with tons of restrictions that take all the strategy out of it.

> 2533274808694897;17:
> NO! There will be no morale, they will die for me, that’s why I built them. I don’t want an army of depressed units not feeling like fighting today. The veteran stars were fine.

Preach it, Brother

> 2533274807472927;18:
> You’re comparing modern day to 500 years in the future in a war against genocidal aliens. If you send a unit of green Marines into combat and their friends start getting ripped apart by Jackals and Elites, they’re going to run.
>
> Almost all RTS’s nowadays have a veterancy system. All the ones worth playing also have morale systems. It isn’t as though a full strength unit is going to flee the second combat breaks out. That’s not how a good morale system would work. If CA is smart, they’ll base it kind of like Company of Heroes. For instance, if a full strength squad of Marines (6 troops let’s say) get’s caught in a cross fire and they’re getting their teeth kicked in, one of two things would happen: you would signal them to retreat, or if you’re a ruthless commander, leave them to fight to the death. But depending on that unit’s veterancy and therefore their morale, they might fight to the last or they might break from combat with only two or three men left in the squad. Keeping your troops alive and making sure they have support is what -Yoink!- in the strategy part of the game, instead of using them like suicidal cannon fodder.
>
> If Halo Wars wants to be a successful RTS, it has to be built like an actual RTS instead of just being bare-bones with tons of restrictions that take all the strategy out of it.

All the “ones worth playing”? I suppose Starcraft 2, the largest and most successful of RTS’s isn’t worth playing because it doesn’t have a morale meter…

Yes, I did compare futuristic soldiers against modern day ones. It would be expected in such a highly militaristic society as that of the one in Halo would be extremely well disciplined… The UNSC is not the local militia or a bunch of reservists. They are a highly militaristic organization that has been at war for decades. If they are even remotely like any current day modern army they will not have units (brigades, regiments, squadrons, platoons or whatever desert or retreat willy-nilly on their own accord.

What you’re asking for isn’t ridiculous, but is more inline with simulation-type RTS’s, which Halo Wars was not. As such, the current veterancy system worked appropriately. There is more to strategy than monitoring unit morale. There are many, many more elements that need to be controlled, balanced, exploited, monitored, and sacrificed in a successful RTS. Incorporating morale, or not, will not significantly change the overall achievement of HW2.