 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Morale is broken
|
 |
|
 |
 |
Quote from Frogboy:
This isn't a bug.
Your populations will top off based on their planet quality.
Most leaders in the real world have a hard time getting over 50%. I am not sure why people think that that it is somehow realistic to have approval ratings at >80% without a heck of a lot of effort.
:endquote
I'm not argueing that it's a bug, although I do think there might be a bug in the global moral modifiers. Even so, not a big deal.
I am saying that it's a broken implenentation, even if working as intended. The most obvious indicator is the benefit of spacing half your population occasionally. IMO, any implementation that rewards that kind of micro-management (we'll ignore the morality of it ) is broken.
The same goes for the lack of feedback in the whole morale model. It might be working as intended, but a system where you're whole empire can suddenly go from 55% to 30% without any type of feedback is, by it's very definition, broken.
I dunno, maybe it's an abheration in certain games where a rival empire suddenly overloads you with destablization and pushes you over the edge.
Maybe all it would take to fix is a dialog box to let the player know something bad is happening.
Maybe certain morale changes need to be a bit more gradual and there needs to be a gradual drift between current moral and a target morale.
Maybe a lot of us are just missing something that the experienced players take for granted.
Hell, maybe I'm building some many project with +moral benefits that my pop is going critical at some point and spacing them is the only answer.
Gimme some feedback and I'll work with it but I don't think it's a whole lot of FUN the way it currently works.
| |
|
I've played over a dozen games now, and the only times I've had serious morale trouble is with the Trogdor event, and getting overwhelmed by destabilisation attacks.
If the final population growth is determined by x times a final modifier for morale, and the modifier is 0 at 50% morale then there's only two ways a planet's morale can drop significantly below that (invasions and pop-dumping notwithstanding)
1. You did something to cause morale to drop. Either raising taxes, getting yourself deep in debt, that sort of thing. Solution: don't do that. Especially fiddling with the tax rate... that seems to have the single biggest long-term impact on morale.
2. You're being destabbed. The only solution to this is propaganda, or annihilating the empire that's doing it (or at the very least, forcing them to stop by damaging their economy). Just as an aside, although people have asked for an empire-wide propaganda slider, it seems to me that this is about the same as handing out a tax-cut (how realistic  )
I think there needs to be more detailed feedback in the game about how it's arriving at each planet's morale, so that players can make an better choice about how to fix it. Also, I think we'd *all* like an outline of how, exactly, destabbing works.
 
| |
|
#27
by Citizen Alltus - 4/1/2003 9:44:08 PM
I agree with LordTheRon. The morale consideration adds to the strategic subtlety of the game. If this and other aspects of GalCiv could be mastered within a week of the games release I would be very disappointed with the purchase and go back to playing Spades  . Kudos for a deep, yet fun, strategy game Stardock!
| |
|
Is there a better way to manage propaganda than by going to each and every planet clicking on "Details" and then sliding the slider?
/ds
       
| |
|
#29
by Veteran wampyre - 4/1/2003 11:13:44 PM
I'd kill for 50%. We're not complaining about not going over 50 constantly. we're complaining about way below 50 AFTER building every improvement and MINING morale resources and relying on sending colonists into space as fast as colony ships and transports can be built.
| |
|
|
|
Just want to throw one more thing in here... I've found that when I'm militarily way behind the leader (as according to the military graph) I tend to have morale problems. If I build up my military for awhile (or get another race to attack the leader) to where I'm ahead my morale starts doing much better. Now this may just be coincidence since I haven't done any real tests.
Also, the way I play I generally ignore building up starbases except for defenses unless my empire is stable. The best ways to deal with morale is to build social improvements. Stadium and teleporters are awesome but you have to be sure to put them near the frontof your build queues. These come mid-late game so its easy to just stick them at the end but these are really cheap improvements for the morale increase they give. And if you've got them behind some of the 500 or 1000 cost improvements you'll never get to them.
| |
|
|
|
Frogboy,
After having a chance to play around with a saved game where I'd just been hit with a massive loss of morale, I think that kind of problem that a lot of us are seeing is due to destabilization. You're right in that it's really the only thing that seems to be able to cause that kind of a sudden, massive hit. Maybe not so sudden but unless you keep an eye on it there's no feedback to let you know it's happening.
I have to start out by saying one thing.
I was wrong! ... about the efficiency of spacing pop. At some point, if you let massive destabiliziation hit you for too long, it might be the only option, but from a productin standpoint it looks like you're never better off by spacing. That takes care of one of my major gripes.
Having now had the chance to try different strategies to combat economic warfare from one save game starting point, I see two problems with the current model. The first is kinda minor but still a micromanagement pain, lack of a global propaganda slider, lets call it counter-espionage.
The major problem just seems to be lack of feedback. You've got something that doesn't occur in every game but suddenly a player finds his empire in a death spiral economically without any visible signs as to why it's happening. THIS IS A BAD THING, imo. Some kind of feedback is a necessity for newer players in that situation.
Sure I can counter it now, but I just spent about 4 hours with a save-game where I knew who was doing it (only one empire had the potential) just trying different strategies and seeing what did and didn't work. That's fine, I don't want this game to be easy. Problem is that if I hadn't had that save to play with, I'd still be in the dark as to how to deal with an economic attack.
Don't be surprised when people get frustrated at seeing their empire go into a death spiral with no idea what's going on. Sure, next time I'll be able to counter it (I even enjoy the economic warefare) but that's hardly the point I'm trying to make here.
Regards, Frank
| |
|
Frogboy,
After having a chance to play around with a saved game where I'd just been hit with a massive loss of morale, I think that kind of problem that a lot of us are seeing is due to destabilization. You're right in that it's really the only thing that seems to be able to cause that kind of a sudden, massive hit. Maybe not so sudden but unless you keep an eye on it there's no feedback to let you know it's happening.
I have to start out by saying one thing.
I was wrong! ... about the efficiency of spacing pop. At some point, if you let massive destabiliziation hit you for too long, it might be the only option, but from a productin standpoint it looks like you're never better off by spacing. That takes care of one of my major gripes.
Having now had the chance to try different strategies to combat economic warfare from one save game starting point, I see two problems with the current model. The first is kinda minor but still a micromanagement pain, lack of a global propaganda slider, lets call it counter-espionage.
The major problem just seems to be lack of feedback. You've got something that doesn't occur in every game but suddenly a player finds his empire in a death spiral economically without any visible signs as to why it's happening. THIS IS A BAD THING, imo. Some kind of feedback is a necessity for newer players in that situation.
Sure I can counter it now, but I just spent about 4 hours with a save-game where I knew who was doing it (only one empire had the potential) just trying different strategies and seeing what did and didn't work. That's fine, I don't want this game to be easy. Problem is that if I hadn't had that save to play with, I'd still be in the dark as to how to deal with an economic attack.
Don't be surprised when people get frustrated at seeing their empire go into a death spiral with no idea what's going on. Sure, next time I'll be able to counter it (I even enjoy the economic warefare) but that's hardly the point I'm trying to make here.
Regards, Frank
| |
|
Grr, sorry for the double post but I can't see any way to delete it
| |
|
Just out of interest, do populations drop when morale is very low? I haven't seen any evidence of it, but it would make sense.
 
| |
|
I'd kill for 50%. We're not complaining about not going over 50 constantly. we're complaining about way below 50 AFTER building every improvement and MINING morale resources and relying on sending colonists into space as fast as colony ships and transports can be built.
I simply don´t understand that. I have played on difficulties from average to crippling and never had any problems with morale.
Try not doing anything that is really weird. 
  
| |
|
#38
by Citizen redshift8 - 5/21/2003 3:52:05 PM
I also haven't had problems with morale except on culture-flipped systems. There was also a time when the altarians took out 2 of my fully upgraded morale starbases within a few turns and I had to drop my taxes significantly after one of my planets went independant. I've never used offloading population to cure my morale problems, except when an invasion strategy bug caused me to have 2455234234 population on class 17 planets after an invasion.
As far as indications of morale problems, I usually use the little red unhappy faces as my indicator, and also if my empire-wide approval is low.
As an aside, and in response to the 6th paragraph of post 25, Miriam-Webster has this definition of broken:
Main Entry: bro·ken
Pronunciation: 'brO-k&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English brocen,
from past participle of brecan to break
Date: 13th century
1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having
undergone or been subjected to fracture b
of land surfaces : being irregular, interrupted, or full of
obstacles c : violated by transgression
d : DISCONTINUOUS, INTERRUPTED e : disrupted by
change f of a flower : having an irregular, streaked, or
blotched pattern especially from virus infection
3 a : made weak or infirm b : subdued completely :
CRUSHED c : BANKRUPT d : reduced in
rank
4 a : cut off : DISCONNECTED b : imperfectly spoken or
written
5 : not complete or full
6 : disunited by divorce, separation, or desertion of one
parent
- bro·ken·ly adverb
- bro·ken·ness /-k&(n)-n&s/ noun
   
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
One thing I do is have low populations throughout the game b/c I tax people to death, and just keep it there. I.e. 45% - 50%. They are always 'used' to that tax level so they don't complain so much, and the moral improvements i guess are more effective w/ lower populations. I agree with the sentiment expressed here, it's really hard to figure out what is affecting your moral. I wish something could be done about that. 
