Emotions and Critical Strikes

[Darathor]

It's as Visscher said earlier, it's gameplay over realism. I would get very angry and frustrated if my army started to flee even though I know if they would have stayed I would have won. I don't want to lose because of my soldiers stupidity. I want to lose because of my own stupidity if anything, at least then I know that I can improve, and I don't hate the game as much then.

[nickson104]

Perhaps if such a system were implemented, higher leveled troops had a higher base morale and so less chance of fleeing? Another advantage of having trained troops rather than a untrained mass

[Darathor]

I still wouldn't like it. If your kingdom had a peaceful disposition, and were attacked by a warmongering one, the attackers would have a huge advantage that not only would their troops be better, but wouldn't run away. The defenders would have all their peace-keeping troops destroyed as they run away like idiots. They would run and die, why not fight and maybe win?

[Aametherar]

Originally Posted by Darathor

I still wouldn't like it. If your kingdom had a peaceful disposition, and were attacked by a warmongering one, the attackers would have a huge advantage that not only would their troops be better, but wouldn't run away. The defenders would have all their peace-keeping troops destroyed as they run away like idiots. They would run and die, why not fight and maybe win?

Silly elves, you would have production bonuses etc. and therefore be able to build larger armies as well as have higher research levels etc. :P

[Darathor]

Foolish orcs, that scenario was already described, the smaller but better army would triumph over the larger but inexperienced army, unless some skill differences are involved.
And also, as for technology, wouldn't the warring nation have better war technology than a peaceful one, who would be more focused on their economy and diplomacy?

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by Darathor

It's as Visscher said earlier, it's gameplay over realism. I would get very angry and frustrated if my army started to flee even though I know if they would have stayed I would have won. I don't want to lose because of my soldiers stupidity. I want to lose because of my own stupidity if anything, at least then I know that I can improve, and I don't hate the game as much then.

You say you want to lose only because of your own stupidity, not the game - controlling morale is just another aspect of the game, if you can't handle it how is it the games fault and not your own? If your opponent has units that cause fear/reduce morale and you didn't scout/bother to build units that increase yours/prevent fear or focus down his morale/fear causing units, you deserved to lose, not the game's fault at all.

[Joseph Visscher]

fear & morale and such doesn't fully fit the story of dof either, Elves fight for their Great Forests and their livelihood, Orcs simply want blood! Rendarg!!! Fight to the end for no defined reason! Humans are noble, have honor and pride.
Players' control over all of their units increases the contrast between new players and hardcore players. When you let the game control more aspects of the game that is just less you can get better at.
A good player will know when it is some to retreat, IT IS YOUR ARMY AND YOU CHOOSE THEIR FATE OR VICTORY.

[Aametherar]

Joseph wins. that's a valid point and I have to agree 100%

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by Joseph Visscher

fear & morale and such doesn't fully fit the story of dof either, Elves fight for their Great Forests and their livelihood, Orcs simply want blood! Rendarg!!! Fight to the end for no defined reason! Humans are noble, have honor and pride.
Players' control over all of their units increases the contrast between new players and hardcore players. When you let the game control more aspects of the game that is just less you can get better at.
A good player will know when it is some to retreat, IT IS YOUR ARMY AND YOU CHOOSE THEIR FATE OR VICTORY.

You seem very set in stone on this one heh, I'd disagree with the more control thing though in this sense, I don't think it applies. Normally I'd say yes, the less automation the less normalization. Thus raising the skill ceiling. however, morale? it's another level of depth. Much like a second health bar, if you let either one run out your army dies, you must balance both. Part of that is ordering a fighting retreat or at the least ordering a retreat to a specific point instead of a panic-ridden retreat in every direction in order to regroup before panic sets in, or using abilities that bolster morale, or simply killing the units that are causing all this fear and panic. Handled well morale is a great mechanic, poorly, yes it's a frustrating one. There are some games where morale seems arbitrary and stupid, just as there are some where it feels solid and right, where a strategic retreat to a safe point and leaving behind a small portion of you army to be lambs to the slaughter and slow them down so your army can recover it's morale and fight again without panic and fear killing them, or again taking control and adapting by making your own morale units to bolster your troops, or knocking out his fear units.

I sort of rambled on there, sorry, I really feel that done right it adds a lot of depth and adds more that a player has to look out for and adapt to.

The one question I have to ask though is, somewhat off topic, you mentioned the difference between new and hardcore players - where do you draw the line for the skill ceiling? How much better are we going to be able to be in the grand scheme of things. I know games where I could easily take on new, relatively competent people without breaking a sweat at 3-4:1 odds, and others where 2v1 is literally impossible short of a severe case of stupid developing in one or both of your opponents. Can't really think of a good way to put it. Typically they don't punish new people, when it's like that, the latter games. A game that does for example, company of heroes, if you screw up and lose a squad early. You've lost the game right there, and it's easy to lose one if you get caught out of cover. Other games are very forgiving to tactical mistakes and played on a more strategic level, it's based moreso on army composition and well timed activated abilities and a little bit of positioning to go with the composition of your army. Where the skill lies in creating the right units based on what your opponent has, using your abilities correctly and to go in line with the first - scouting, lots of scouting. In order to make the right army composition you must know what you are going to be up against.

[Jean=A=Luc]

tldr but TW-like morale system doesn't really fit non-TW-like games.