Frank Egerter Frank Egerter

Morale is broken

Morale is broken

Hi,

I hope this post isn't taken as a troll, especially since this is my first post here, but I've been playing GalCiv since release and I just can't see any other way to descibe how morale works.

Bear with me a bit and hopefully I can back up that statement.

First, I'd call it broken from a micromanagement perspective since the only obvious solution to Morale problems is spacing half the population of your planets every few turns. Not exactly intuitive from a gameplay perspective, not FUN from a personal perspective, and it adds a lot of MM that there's really no need for. In the later game, the biggest hassle for me is the MM needed to try and keep morale up.

Second, I consider it broken from a gameplay perspective in the sense that there's a total lack of feedback when it comes to morale. There are things you do that should have a noticeable affect on Morale that just don't. The obvious examples are any of the items that globally raise morale (Galactic Resouces, unique items). Last night I had a game where I grabbed a morale resource late in the game and in one turn got a +20% global increase. The affect wasn't even noticeable. Changing government is another example. Going from Imperial to Democracy I would expect to see a drop in morale, not a marginal increase.

The same lack of feedback also causes problems with destabalization. I can only assume that the major difference between games where moral is a huge problem and games where it isn't has to do with other races destablizing you. But there's absolutely no feedback as to who and how, and no way to counter it (that I've found). It's almost MOO3-like in that regard. :)

Finally, I'm starting to think it's bugged from a coding perspective. I've noticed two incidents now where my homeworld had a major jump in morale (30 to 80) right after getting a global resource, but it only seemed to affect my homeworld. Unfortunately, I didn't pay close enough attention to rule out other variables at the time.

Anyways, I'd like to offer a few suggestions, possible solution.

The first thing I'd like to see is a global slider to counter the destabalizing influences of other races, along with a bit of feedback as to exactly how much your morale is being impacted in this regard.

The second is maybe to tone it down a bit, in the sense that you appear to get to a point where nothing affects the huge negatives that one gets from overpopulation. Even in the late game, the game should be noticeably reacting to what one is doing.

Finally, I'd like to see a pop cap or more elegantly, a morale cap. Let me set a morale level and if a planet drops below that, don't grow the pop (or just grow it very slowly).

I'm not sure how any of these solutions fit in from a balance/AI perspective but I really think something needs to be changed. For me it's almost gotten to be a gamebreaker. I cringe every time I build a useless transport just so I can space some colonists.

Rgds,
Frank


6,264 views 40 replies
Reply #26 Top
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.

~SDC~
Reply #27 Top
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 :D . Kudos for a deep, yet fun, strategy game Stardock!
Reply #28 Top
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
Reply #29 Top
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.
Reply #30 Top
Look - population doesn't increase if morale is less than around 55%.

Therefore, if it is less than 50% it means one of the following:

1) You have messed around with tax rates
2) You are in debt or have been <0 a lot
3) Someone is destabilizing you (not likely at lower AI levels).

~SDC~
Reply #31 Top
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.
Reply #32 Top
/Quote

Finally, I'd like to see a pop cap or more elegantly, a morale cap. Let me set a morale level and if a planet drops below that, don't grow the pop (or just grow it very slowly).

/Quote


I have suggested exactly the same, in my opinion, this would solve all the problems.
Reply #33 Top
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

Reply #34 Top
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

Reply #36 Top
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.
Reply #37 Top
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. ;)
Reply #38 Top
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
Reply #39 Top
Just to add more fuel. I noticed that moral *increases* when I am at war with a major civ. I am not really sure why. It may have to do with the loss of pop due to invasions. Maybe it has something to do with destabilization?

I used to have a problem with moral in early games, now I don't really. Again, not sure why :( 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.

In retrospect my populations are habitally low, this could be why I have no problem with moral (or few problems). I think the moral aspect of the game does 'work', but we can't really figure out how it works and whats affecting it. That's the crux of the issue, IMO.
Reply #40 Top
A lot of mid to late game morale problems are because of destabilization and not a broken morale system. Destab is a silent killer. You don't know when it is really hitting you until it is hitting hard it seems. Solution to long term destab, besides a war? Fight fire with fire. Spend a hundred or three a turn destabilizing the guy you think is responsible and watch his economy react to it. It will become a drain on both economies, sure, but the hope is that you have the stronger economy and can afford the spending cuts or increased costs of new improvements to weather it better than the other guy. And try to get that other guy into a real war (preferably with somebody else) so that he can't trim the budget because of the huge military demands of the war machine.