Monday, July 10, 2023
Monday, August 4, 2014
Friday, June 1, 2012
Friend's Thoughts on Diablo3
A post by a friend of mine who bought D3 at the release and has compared how it goes with D2. He's pretty analytical and is a lecturer at a Russell Group university, so I'd take his word for it.
http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4209822134?page=4#70
http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4209822134?page=4#70
|
|
"I've managed to dodge most of the server problems and got
a DH up to inferno, but have a review related question for all Diablo fans:
Why did people keep playing Diablo 2 for over a decade? IMHO there were 5 reasons. 0/ Gameplay 1/ Skill system encouraged you to restart with new chars to see what would happen if you put the stat points somewhere else, and yes it was possible to build a strong toon that way. 2/ Item drop was frequent and it was fun trying to combine unique stuff with the skill choices. 3/ Enough good things were found that sooner or later you'd try another toon type with all the gear you found. 4/ Runes and runewords. What we have left (asided from better graphics) is gameplay. But as for the rest, the game works the same as [World of ] Warcraft. Will people want to play Diablo 3 for another decade? Oh! I forgot to mention inferno... y I did. Kinda sick of being spiked out of nowhere."
I hope Blizz will fix it with the expansion(s) somehow.
|
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Facebook sneaks spam in my feed
Soo, I was commenting on some referenda at the uni and my post, as well as those of my friends, were categorized under some totally unrelated performer. Noticing that this "bug" bordered suspiciously close on "spam" I took these screenshots and I'm uploading them here, on a Google-run website, for security from unfriendly admins.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Part 5: Information/Intelligence
Information in war is never perfect. In even the simplest wargames we don't know everything about the enemy. In chess we can see his every move, yet we don't know his plans. In battles in the Total War series we can see his units but usually not their stats. In most RTS's we can't see enemy bases or units unless some of our soldiers are near them. In even more realistic games, like the Project Revolution mod for Battlefield 2, commanders can't accurately tell what the players themselves are doing.
1 Obtaining Ingelligence
Getting information, aka intelligence, is done several ways in real life. We can try to intercept enemy communications and spy directly on them. We can hire spies to collect data for us. On the operational or tactical level, we can do reconnaissance. We can send special troops like AWACS planes or light cavalry to approach the enemy and tell us what they see. Or, we can do reconnaissance by force, which is probing the enemy with some troops without committing our forces to a full combat. The enemy's response gives us some information on what he's planning to do.
We could try to guess how the enemy acts. One way is learning their doctrine. For instance, in the High and Late Middle Ages the Byzantines knew that Western armies preferred direct confrontation and generally had poor supplying and did their best to find food from the surrounding area. The Byzantines exploited that and when fighting Western Europeans avoided the enemy army for some time until the soldiers began to starve. Only then, when the Franks' dps and hp were lowered did the Byzantines risk their own troops' hp and dps. Another way is to try to understand the enemy general's methods and personality. Even Sun Tzu advocated that. If we do, we can send our spearmen to where he usually sends his cavalry, or exploit his weaknesses and taunt/provoke him if he is impatient or easily angered.
2 Using Intelligence
Predicting the enemy plans
As I already mentioned, if we know the habits of the enemy general, we can be better prepared for his most likely ways of attacking, the most likely routes of cavalry or positions of archers.
Controlling the enemy's actions
We can also manipulate the enemy. As a universal rule of wargaming, players attack weaker or equal enemy armies and try to flee from bigger armies. Therefore, if they know our army to be stronger, they will pull back, hoping to fight another day (minute?) when the odds are more favorable. If they see that we have less hp/dps, they will attack and use the opportunity to destroy our troops before we can muster more. So, if we are stronger, we can hide half our army and let the enemy approach in fighting range. Then, we get out of the cover and our whole army will drain a lot of the enemy's hp, while the smaller enemy army will not drain as much. Then the opponent will pull away, but only after being deceived into coming to our force.
Similarly, we can pretend to be stronger than the enemy and make him avoid confrontation. In the Battle of the Falernian Territory during the Second Punic War, Hannibal was campaigning in Italy when at one point he found his army trapped in a river valley by the Romans. Unwilling to risk a direct confrontation with the Roman general Fabius, Hannibal could do little other than stay there and be surrounded. When the night fell, however, he ordered his men to tie torches to the horns of the two thousand oxen of the army and direct them at the Romans. The Romans, not sure whether Hannibal had hidden troops or surprising reinforcements or some supernatural power, moved away and Hannibal escaped.
A more extreme example is that of Zhuge Liang, a Chinese general from the Late Antiquity. At one point he was residing in a town with few soldiers, away from his army, when he heard news that an enemy general, Sima Qian, was very close with his army. Capture seemed inevitable. Throughout Ancient China, Zhuge Liang had a reputation of laying traps and using cunning. He decided to bluff and ordered the town gates to be opened and he himself stood on the wall above them, chanting religious chants and looking innocent. Seeing this, Sima Qian naturally suspected a trap of some sort and withdrew.
Just as people make a fight or flight decision based on the size of the eny army, they also decide how much troops to send in specific parts of the battlefield based on how strong the enemy is there. Thus, the same logic works on the tactical, as well as the operational level. However, it is restricted by the game mechanics and how much we can hide.
1 Obtaining Ingelligence
Getting information, aka intelligence, is done several ways in real life. We can try to intercept enemy communications and spy directly on them. We can hire spies to collect data for us. On the operational or tactical level, we can do reconnaissance. We can send special troops like AWACS planes or light cavalry to approach the enemy and tell us what they see. Or, we can do reconnaissance by force, which is probing the enemy with some troops without committing our forces to a full combat. The enemy's response gives us some information on what he's planning to do.
We could try to guess how the enemy acts. One way is learning their doctrine. For instance, in the High and Late Middle Ages the Byzantines knew that Western armies preferred direct confrontation and generally had poor supplying and did their best to find food from the surrounding area. The Byzantines exploited that and when fighting Western Europeans avoided the enemy army for some time until the soldiers began to starve. Only then, when the Franks' dps and hp were lowered did the Byzantines risk their own troops' hp and dps. Another way is to try to understand the enemy general's methods and personality. Even Sun Tzu advocated that. If we do, we can send our spearmen to where he usually sends his cavalry, or exploit his weaknesses and taunt/provoke him if he is impatient or easily angered.
2 Using Intelligence
Predicting the enemy plans
As I already mentioned, if we know the habits of the enemy general, we can be better prepared for his most likely ways of attacking, the most likely routes of cavalry or positions of archers.
Controlling the enemy's actions
We can also manipulate the enemy. As a universal rule of wargaming, players attack weaker or equal enemy armies and try to flee from bigger armies. Therefore, if they know our army to be stronger, they will pull back, hoping to fight another day (minute?) when the odds are more favorable. If they see that we have less hp/dps, they will attack and use the opportunity to destroy our troops before we can muster more. So, if we are stronger, we can hide half our army and let the enemy approach in fighting range. Then, we get out of the cover and our whole army will drain a lot of the enemy's hp, while the smaller enemy army will not drain as much. Then the opponent will pull away, but only after being deceived into coming to our force.
Similarly, we can pretend to be stronger than the enemy and make him avoid confrontation. In the Battle of the Falernian Territory during the Second Punic War, Hannibal was campaigning in Italy when at one point he found his army trapped in a river valley by the Romans. Unwilling to risk a direct confrontation with the Roman general Fabius, Hannibal could do little other than stay there and be surrounded. When the night fell, however, he ordered his men to tie torches to the horns of the two thousand oxen of the army and direct them at the Romans. The Romans, not sure whether Hannibal had hidden troops or surprising reinforcements or some supernatural power, moved away and Hannibal escaped.
A more extreme example is that of Zhuge Liang, a Chinese general from the Late Antiquity. At one point he was residing in a town with few soldiers, away from his army, when he heard news that an enemy general, Sima Qian, was very close with his army. Capture seemed inevitable. Throughout Ancient China, Zhuge Liang had a reputation of laying traps and using cunning. He decided to bluff and ordered the town gates to be opened and he himself stood on the wall above them, chanting religious chants and looking innocent. Seeing this, Sima Qian naturally suspected a trap of some sort and withdrew.
Just as people make a fight or flight decision based on the size of the eny army, they also decide how much troops to send in specific parts of the battlefield based on how strong the enemy is there. Thus, the same logic works on the tactical, as well as the operational level. However, it is restricted by the game mechanics and how much we can hide.
Part 4: Combinations of Factors of Combat Power
In real life and most games, we will see combinations of the described determinants of combat power. In some areas we will have more troops with higher morale against elite enemy units on a high ground. In others, we will need to send to mass spearmen to fight other enemy infantry. In such cases one side will have the advantage of greater numbers and terrain while the other side will have higher quality troops with increased morale. This makes it very ambiguous to determine who will win.
In wargames we may sometimes predict who wins by doing lots of calculations. If the game mechanics considers morale or dps to be numbers, which it should, when we can crunch the numbers and decide whether to attack or not.
Whenever we have no time to do maths, or we don't know the numbers, we only have experience to help us decide.
In wargames we may sometimes predict who wins by doing lots of calculations. If the game mechanics considers morale or dps to be numbers, which it should, when we can crunch the numbers and decide whether to attack or not.
Whenever we have no time to do maths, or we don't know the numbers, we only have experience to help us decide.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Part 3: Qualitative Advantage 2
3 Maneuvering (and importance of terrain)
Terrain in real life can be very beneficial for the performance of the army. In games it may be, depending on the game mechanics. This chapter is how it is IRL.
Terrain and speed
Terrain can affect speed, and with it how flexible we are in concentrating troops (and combat power) wherever we need. Consider this map. In the first case, we have chosen to meet the enemy on the clearance of land in the northeast, but the wetland/marsh will be right behind our lines. This means that the left flank will be much harder to send reinforcements to, because the terrain leading to it will slow troops down.
In the second case, our position is even worse, because both the right and the left flanks are hard to get to, mostly. In addition, the troops in the river/marsh/wetland will have their speed reduced, making our army vulnerable when having to maneuver. That is, move spearmen/archers around if it's a medieval game, or move infantry/cavalry out of enemy cannons' range if it's a Napoleonic setting.
The last case is the best one, because the road is just behind us, and in the real world troops move fastest on roads. Additionally, the marsh is just in front of us and that will slow the enemy troops down as they approach. This means that our ranged units will deal damage for longer before the enemy troops start draining the hp of our frontmost soldiers.
We should generally avoid terrain that may slow our troops if we expect to fight in it. If we get caught in it, we cannot move around to mass superior combat power against the enemy. The troops won't be able to move and attack the enemy together, or to direct our scissors against his paper and avoid his rock. The Old Fritz made this mistake due to bad planning during the Battle of Prague in 1757. Although the Prussians improved their situation, at one point the infantry was stuck in wet ground in range of the Austrians' cannons, with the cannons out of range of infantry muskets. This precedes a massive loss of hit points while the enemy is safe and such situations should be avoided.
Having the high ground lets our units be faster when moving down towards the enemy and slows down the enemy units who move up the slope towards our troops. This means that we can aim our 'rocks' at the enemy 'scissors' slightly faster than they can send their 'paper' against our attacking 'rocks.' The enemy units that respond to our incoming units will also be much more tired than our attacking units. In the meantime, attacking down a slope is very easy, plus the cavalry can perform charges with greater momentum, hence dps, than usual.
Using terrain to increase dps/hp
Damage per second and hit points can also be increased by the terrain, but it depends on the game mechanics. Melee attacks are easier if we are standing on a higher ground. The helical staircases in medieval castles were made as a 1 on 1 combat area where the defender would be above the attacker. For the record, those staircases go clockwise so that the defender can swing with his right arm more easily, while holding the shield in a helpful position. Shooting arrows or some artillery is easier if the enemy is further down the hillside than we are.
Taking cover is the most obvious way to increase our troops' relative hp or reduce the enemy's relative dps. We can do it on a big scale, like the Duke of Wellington or Hannibal, placing our troops on the back side of a hill, hidden from enemy sight or long-range weapons. On a smaller scale, our troops can move behind solid objects and fire from behind.
In the end, whether our troops can make use of cover or high ground depends on whether we position them in the right time. That depends on out-calculating and out-maneuvering the enemy.
4 Morale
In games, soldiers are automatons but in real life they are people. Like an automaton, an individual
has a certain physical strength and quickness and agility and can lift x kilograms or walk/run y meters. Unlike automatons, real troops can be optimistic and enthusiastic or discouraged or frightened. When the troops are enthusiastic like that, victory seems very possible and everybody wants to be fighting the enemy, they have high morale. When they aren't, when fighting seems futile and everybody expects the enemy to beat them sooner or later, they have low morale.
This psychological factor of combat power is important for the troops' hp and dps. When the people in a company of grenadiers or spearmen or whatever are enthusiastic and optimistic, they fight better, withstand more damage and rout harder. They reload faster, aim better and hit harder in close combat. When they are frightened or pessimistic about whether they can win, it doesn't take much enemy presence to break discipline and send them running away. They are also more clumsy when operating their weapons and weaker in hand-to-hand combat.
Of course, it depends on the technology to some extent. If the troops have shields and spears, the morale plays a big role in how hard they hit and how well they defend. If the troops have assault rifles, on the other hand, they will deal the same damage in all cases, because the rifle has the same firepower regardless of who's using it and how he feels, ignoring the worse aim or slower reloading caused by low morale.
Real field manuals don't try to weight the importance of the psychological factor, because human feelings are incommensurable. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that the ratio of the physical to the psychological is 1:3 and that's as far as the MCDP1 Warfighting field manual decides to go. Whether you want to conceptualize morale is up to you. Wargames, however, may emulate morale and when they do it's calculable. This means that it can be used in plans.
Decreasing morale
Things that decrease morale are losses of friendly troops and greater enemy numbers/quality. I've seen people argue that things that make life uncomfortable like tiredness, hunger, extreme heat/cold and so on demoralize troops. Such things do, but not directly. All of these factors we can use them in our plans to weaken the enemy both in dps and hp.
- Loss of hp
When something appears that makes our troops lose hp, their morale drops. Most often it is enemy fires, artillery shelling or other troops shooting at ours. It should be noted that it is the ratio of losses rather than the absolute losses that demoralizes men, according to Christopher Duffy. The Soviets noticed in WW2 that units who had endured 60-70% losses over several days still maintained some cohesion as opposed to units who lose 40% of their men in, say, 1 hour.
Therefore, if we want to demoralize an enemy company, we should try to aim everything at it and blast it as powerfully as possible. To make sure that we aren't opening any gaps
We don't need to drain a company's hp directly to reduce its morale. If the men see that the company next to it is being decimated by enemy cavalry or cannons, they will be frightened and lose morale. Similarly, if a company at the front has been routed and runs back, the beaten soldiers will run past companies in our second and third lines, giving the organized troops a ghastly image of the fighting – and the morale will be decreased.
This is exploitable. Consider the Napoleonic setting example.
In this example we have broken one company and the soldiers ran close to our next target company, making it demoralized. 'Goading' the enemy in the right direction can aim retreating troops towards fresh ones and decrease enemy morale, preparing the units for our attack. This can be done as a part of a larger battle, if the general can plan the maneuvers and fires of the troops well.
- Greater enemy numbers
When the troops face a larger enemy force, or one that is better trained/equipped/etc., they expect to lose. Unless they have had a good day or are well-trained and have high morale to begin with, the men are likely to run even before they start exchanging fires with the enemy and drain each other's hp.
- Physical comfort
If the troops have not had enough rest or food/water or if they are fighting in uncomfortable conditions, they will lose morale faster even if they have high morale at the start of the fighting. If the troops are tired and see a fresh enemy battalion advance towards them, they will realize they are facing an enemy with more hp and dps and will be discouraged (as in the section just above). The troops can be tired but enthusiastic, if, for example, they have pursued the beaten enemy for a few hours. If they face a fresh enemy force, then, once the combat ensues they will realize how much weaker they are and will be intimidated by the enemy numbers easily.
Physical comfort was a chief factor in the Ottoman defeat in the battle of Ankara in 1402. The sultan, Bayezid the Lightning had led his army against the positions of Tamerlane near modern-day Ankara. Tamerlane, however, managed to divert a stream used as a water source away from the Ottomans during the battle. This was one of the things that weakened Bayezid's troops and Bayezid lost and became the only sultan ever captured in person.
Sometimes, factors work together. Attacking against an enemy who has the high ground makes our troops endure slightly more damage and grow more tired advancing up the hill, so it reduces morale.
- Morale loss positive feedback
Assume our unit normally has the same stats as the enemy's and the two fight. If our unit starts off a little discouraged, while the enemy's is normal morale, our discouragement will mean that our men will fire slower/hit with less force: less dps. Therefore, we will drain less enemy hp per second than the enemy. Losing hp leads to loss of morale, however. Therefore, the enemy will lose morale slower than our troops do. The enemy will have more morale throughout the battle than we do. This will translate in our men shooting/fighting with less deadliness, which means that we will drain enemy hp even slower. Thus, other things being equal, low morale will lead to even lower morale later on (in a sort of another exponential growth curve).
Increasing morale
Things that increase morale are generally the opposite. Seeing the enemy crushed and driven before us (yes, Conan!), being better armed/reinforced and knowing it and being comfortable and well-fed in the sunny morning after a good night's sleep. These things increase our combat power and generals should plan to use them.
As in the above example with routing enemy units one after another, if we use the same companies for the whole job, our men will bolster very high morale once this is over. If this is a part of a biger battle, then our men will have their dps and hp increased due to the high spirits and we could use them for something else, like an attack on a stronger enemy position. That is, assuming they are not too tired.
Terrain in real life can be very beneficial for the performance of the army. In games it may be, depending on the game mechanics. This chapter is how it is IRL.
Terrain and speed
Terrain can affect speed, and with it how flexible we are in concentrating troops (and combat power) wherever we need. Consider this map. In the first case, we have chosen to meet the enemy on the clearance of land in the northeast, but the wetland/marsh will be right behind our lines. This means that the left flank will be much harder to send reinforcements to, because the terrain leading to it will slow troops down.
In the second case, our position is even worse, because both the right and the left flanks are hard to get to, mostly. In addition, the troops in the river/marsh/wetland will have their speed reduced, making our army vulnerable when having to maneuver. That is, move spearmen/archers around if it's a medieval game, or move infantry/cavalry out of enemy cannons' range if it's a Napoleonic setting.
The last case is the best one, because the road is just behind us, and in the real world troops move fastest on roads. Additionally, the marsh is just in front of us and that will slow the enemy troops down as they approach. This means that our ranged units will deal damage for longer before the enemy troops start draining the hp of our frontmost soldiers.
We should generally avoid terrain that may slow our troops if we expect to fight in it. If we get caught in it, we cannot move around to mass superior combat power against the enemy. The troops won't be able to move and attack the enemy together, or to direct our scissors against his paper and avoid his rock. The Old Fritz made this mistake due to bad planning during the Battle of Prague in 1757. Although the Prussians improved their situation, at one point the infantry was stuck in wet ground in range of the Austrians' cannons, with the cannons out of range of infantry muskets. This precedes a massive loss of hit points while the enemy is safe and such situations should be avoided.
Having the high ground lets our units be faster when moving down towards the enemy and slows down the enemy units who move up the slope towards our troops. This means that we can aim our 'rocks' at the enemy 'scissors' slightly faster than they can send their 'paper' against our attacking 'rocks.' The enemy units that respond to our incoming units will also be much more tired than our attacking units. In the meantime, attacking down a slope is very easy, plus the cavalry can perform charges with greater momentum, hence dps, than usual.
Using terrain to increase dps/hp
Damage per second and hit points can also be increased by the terrain, but it depends on the game mechanics. Melee attacks are easier if we are standing on a higher ground. The helical staircases in medieval castles were made as a 1 on 1 combat area where the defender would be above the attacker. For the record, those staircases go clockwise so that the defender can swing with his right arm more easily, while holding the shield in a helpful position. Shooting arrows or some artillery is easier if the enemy is further down the hillside than we are.
Taking cover is the most obvious way to increase our troops' relative hp or reduce the enemy's relative dps. We can do it on a big scale, like the Duke of Wellington or Hannibal, placing our troops on the back side of a hill, hidden from enemy sight or long-range weapons. On a smaller scale, our troops can move behind solid objects and fire from behind.
In the end, whether our troops can make use of cover or high ground depends on whether we position them in the right time. That depends on out-calculating and out-maneuvering the enemy.
4 Morale
In games, soldiers are automatons but in real life they are people. Like an automaton, an individual
has a certain physical strength and quickness and agility and can lift x kilograms or walk/run y meters. Unlike automatons, real troops can be optimistic and enthusiastic or discouraged or frightened. When the troops are enthusiastic like that, victory seems very possible and everybody wants to be fighting the enemy, they have high morale. When they aren't, when fighting seems futile and everybody expects the enemy to beat them sooner or later, they have low morale.
This psychological factor of combat power is important for the troops' hp and dps. When the people in a company of grenadiers or spearmen or whatever are enthusiastic and optimistic, they fight better, withstand more damage and rout harder. They reload faster, aim better and hit harder in close combat. When they are frightened or pessimistic about whether they can win, it doesn't take much enemy presence to break discipline and send them running away. They are also more clumsy when operating their weapons and weaker in hand-to-hand combat.
Of course, it depends on the technology to some extent. If the troops have shields and spears, the morale plays a big role in how hard they hit and how well they defend. If the troops have assault rifles, on the other hand, they will deal the same damage in all cases, because the rifle has the same firepower regardless of who's using it and how he feels, ignoring the worse aim or slower reloading caused by low morale.
Real field manuals don't try to weight the importance of the psychological factor, because human feelings are incommensurable. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that the ratio of the physical to the psychological is 1:3 and that's as far as the MCDP1 Warfighting field manual decides to go. Whether you want to conceptualize morale is up to you. Wargames, however, may emulate morale and when they do it's calculable. This means that it can be used in plans.
Decreasing morale
Things that decrease morale are losses of friendly troops and greater enemy numbers/quality. I've seen people argue that things that make life uncomfortable like tiredness, hunger, extreme heat/cold and so on demoralize troops. Such things do, but not directly. All of these factors we can use them in our plans to weaken the enemy both in dps and hp.
- Loss of hp
When something appears that makes our troops lose hp, their morale drops. Most often it is enemy fires, artillery shelling or other troops shooting at ours. It should be noted that it is the ratio of losses rather than the absolute losses that demoralizes men, according to Christopher Duffy. The Soviets noticed in WW2 that units who had endured 60-70% losses over several days still maintained some cohesion as opposed to units who lose 40% of their men in, say, 1 hour.
Therefore, if we want to demoralize an enemy company, we should try to aim everything at it and blast it as powerfully as possible. To make sure that we aren't opening any gaps
We don't need to drain a company's hp directly to reduce its morale. If the men see that the company next to it is being decimated by enemy cavalry or cannons, they will be frightened and lose morale. Similarly, if a company at the front has been routed and runs back, the beaten soldiers will run past companies in our second and third lines, giving the organized troops a ghastly image of the fighting – and the morale will be decreased.
This is exploitable. Consider the Napoleonic setting example.
In this example we have broken one company and the soldiers ran close to our next target company, making it demoralized. 'Goading' the enemy in the right direction can aim retreating troops towards fresh ones and decrease enemy morale, preparing the units for our attack. This can be done as a part of a larger battle, if the general can plan the maneuvers and fires of the troops well.
- Greater enemy numbers
When the troops face a larger enemy force, or one that is better trained/equipped/etc., they expect to lose. Unless they have had a good day or are well-trained and have high morale to begin with, the men are likely to run even before they start exchanging fires with the enemy and drain each other's hp.
- Physical comfort
If the troops have not had enough rest or food/water or if they are fighting in uncomfortable conditions, they will lose morale faster even if they have high morale at the start of the fighting. If the troops are tired and see a fresh enemy battalion advance towards them, they will realize they are facing an enemy with more hp and dps and will be discouraged (as in the section just above). The troops can be tired but enthusiastic, if, for example, they have pursued the beaten enemy for a few hours. If they face a fresh enemy force, then, once the combat ensues they will realize how much weaker they are and will be intimidated by the enemy numbers easily.
Physical comfort was a chief factor in the Ottoman defeat in the battle of Ankara in 1402. The sultan, Bayezid the Lightning had led his army against the positions of Tamerlane near modern-day Ankara. Tamerlane, however, managed to divert a stream used as a water source away from the Ottomans during the battle. This was one of the things that weakened Bayezid's troops and Bayezid lost and became the only sultan ever captured in person.
Sometimes, factors work together. Attacking against an enemy who has the high ground makes our troops endure slightly more damage and grow more tired advancing up the hill, so it reduces morale.
- Morale loss positive feedback
Assume our unit normally has the same stats as the enemy's and the two fight. If our unit starts off a little discouraged, while the enemy's is normal morale, our discouragement will mean that our men will fire slower/hit with less force: less dps. Therefore, we will drain less enemy hp per second than the enemy. Losing hp leads to loss of morale, however. Therefore, the enemy will lose morale slower than our troops do. The enemy will have more morale throughout the battle than we do. This will translate in our men shooting/fighting with less deadliness, which means that we will drain enemy hp even slower. Thus, other things being equal, low morale will lead to even lower morale later on (in a sort of another exponential growth curve).
Increasing morale
Things that increase morale are generally the opposite. Seeing the enemy crushed and driven before us (yes, Conan!), being better armed/reinforced and knowing it and being comfortable and well-fed in the sunny morning after a good night's sleep. These things increase our combat power and generals should plan to use them.
As in the above example with routing enemy units one after another, if we use the same companies for the whole job, our men will bolster very high morale once this is over. If this is a part of a biger battle, then our men will have their dps and hp increased due to the high spirits and we could use them for something else, like an attack on a stronger enemy position. That is, assuming they are not too tired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
