Morale Manipulation

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Morale Manipulation

      Recently I have seen two instances of morale manipulation that are perfectly legal by the rules but which give unintended (I'm sure) results:
      1. A country declared war on almost every country in the game on day 1 just to give everyone but his friends a 5% morale hit. He never made any attacks, apparently didn't move any units, but kept logging in to the game to preserve the war status with everyone. This lasted until his country was obliterated by several nearby who didn't like the tactic.
      2. Two countries who were beat convinced others to transfer them a territory across the world, secure within an opposing coalition so that their conqueror would never be able to eliminate the 5% morale penalty for still being at war with them. Again, they log in every day to preserve the morale hit on their erstwhile enemy.

      I have seen debate over the merits of declaring war in advance of conflict vs surprise attack, but this is an obvious manipulation of the war declaration mechanic, both in it's initiation and continuation past reason. Perhaps a fix would be for the 5% war penalty to not begin with war declaration but instead with the commencement of actual combat. Similarly, if a certain amount of time passed without combat the 5% penalty should stop until/if combat resumes. This would require disconnecting the morale penalty from the political status and basing it instead on combat.
    • You have a point. There won't be any losing morale if no soldier has ever touched the battlefield yet.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • That’s quite an interesting point... when they harbor an enemy of my country I usually use it as a CB to declare war on them anyway. But I can see how having a -5 constantly in the long run screw your economy.
      Having the malus disappear after X amount of Time that no region has been conquered or battle has been engaged could be a good thing in addition to start at war engagement rather then declaration. :thumbsup:
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • #1 is just a gamey tactic. But, it seems to have been taken care of.

      #2 was a legitimate WW2 tactic. There were many conquered Allied countries with governments-in-exile that caused the Axis fits and depressed their morale.

      A. Poland had the Home Army in Poland, two divisions in France, pilots in Britain that helped win the Battle of Britain, a Polish paratrooper brigade, and a British infantry brigade in North Africa.

      B. France had both the French resistance in France and a growing French army in Britain.

      C. The Philippines gave the Japanese unending headaches after they were conquered.

      D. The Vietnamese, with Ho Chi Minh, freed Vietnam from Japanese control.

      Governments-in-exile are well known in history and a legitimate war tactic. "If you attack me, I will find a way to survive and fight you until you are defeated. Never give up! Never surrender!"

      There are even a couple of quotes on the opening page that talk about a country not being defeated until it officially surrenders. You haven't defeated a country until you have convinced its leader to stop playing. Remember, your enemy is not the electrons dancing on the screen, it is the human mind controlling the fingers on the keyboard. Until you defeat that mind, you haven't defeated your opponent.
    • My problem is not with a government in exile remaining defiant - let them continue to resist. It is with the effect of that defiance. The 5% morale reduction is meant to simulate war weariness - which is, bluntly, the continual drain and strain of blood and treasure. Once a country has lost it's territory that drain stops. If there is guerilla resistance it does not rise to the same level as the open battle beforehand. An example of this is Germany after WWII when guerilla activities persisted for some time after defeat of the official government and military. Yes, it requires effort to put down the guerilla resistance but it is in no way comparable to the war effort mounted beforehand - AND - it did not prevent the immediate change to the Allies in drawing down their forces and turning their attention to civil and economic things.

      Plus, if we want realism (as much as we can without making a game unplayable) it is not remotely realistic that while the subjugated people of a country accepted their lot another group entirely on the other side of the world would suddenly rise up and declare themselves as one with the defeated country and proclaim such resistance. A government in exile is a very small amount of people compared to the population of whatever country, province, or territory is hosting them. The french government in exile did not make London become a french territory. The morale effect a government in exile has is a positive one on their own people but is pretty much irrelevant to their conquerors.

      So, to reiterate, I'm not suggesting rule changes to prevent exchanging territory but instead to base the 5% morale reduction on combat instead of political stance. If the resistance is able to inflict real damage (i.e. combat) then by all means let the morale reduction continue. But if they can't, the conquering people are not going to lose morale - instead they will gain it because the war is effectively over.
    • If the war was over for France after they were conquered, why were they one of the victorious countries of the war, including:

      1. Being one of the 4 occupying powers of Berlin

      and

      2. One of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (These 5 members are the 5 major victorious powers of WW2.)

      "But if they can't, the conquering people are not going to lose morale - instead they will gain it because the war is effectively over."

      Did German families really celebrate when their sons were drafted to serve as occupying troops in France, Yugoslavia, Poland, etc., knowing their sons were subject to having their throats slit at night, being blown apart at a cafe, or ambushed in a supply convoy?

      "Yippee, my son could be killed!"

      What you are missing is that conquering a country in this game is not the end of the war. It is just the end of a single campaign. The war is not over until the game ends and a victor is determined.

      Besides, if a rule change was made, the government-in-exile can simply build a militia (also called guerrillas by the developers), sail it to the enemy, attack, die, and repeat.

      Another thing you are missing is that Call of War, like any multiplayer game, is first and foremost a game of diplomacy.
    • "An example of this is Germany after WWII when guerilla activities persisted for some time after defeat of the official government and military. Yes, it requires effort to put down the guerilla resistance but it is in no way comparable to the war effort mounted beforehand - AND - it did not prevent the immediate change to the Allies in drawing down their forces and turning their attention to civil and economic things."

      The defeat of Germany was the end of a war, the war in Europe. The defeat of Italy resulted in many deaths of Allied soldiers by Italian partisans afterward, even though Italy was actually fielding troops for the Allies now.

      You may want to watch a movie called Schindler's List. Despite being "conquered," the Poles manage to siphon resources from Germany for years while not making a single useful armament for the German army.

      Five years after conquering Poland the Germans were still executing Polish civilians out of reprisal because the Germans were so frustrated.
    • Again, bloozer, I have no objection to continued resistance. If a player has units or can obtain them then by all means let him. Partisan resistance is simulated in this game by revolt possibility and/or actual units such as militia. I have no problem with that.

      But when the South Indians (just to use a random example) are conquered, the revolts have been put down, their former provinces are now stable enough to not revolt (meaning partisan activity has effectively ceased), and they have no units nor the capability to get any, then it is ridiculous if suddenly a province in, say, Peru suddenly says "Hey! We're South Indian now! We have no army, no navy, no air force - our former citizens are no longer even wanting to continue fighting - but we still maintain that the war is NOT over! And you can't do anything about it because we are in the middle of Peru, who protects us, who isn't at war with you but is happy to tick you off. We can't do anything either, but since we are no longer Peruvians ourselves, your people must remain disgruntled with the war and refuse to support you any more."

      Yes, I've seen Schindler's List. Yes, I understand about partisan activity and how France had a government in exile, with allies still fighting, whose eventual victory included them. None of that is simulated in the scenario I described. It's just an exploitation of a rule to achieve an unintended (and irrational) result.
    • BMFox - in the two instances I originally described, the player who declared war on 85% of the world on day one may have joined simply to help someone else, or maybe just felt like being a jerk, who knows? He was taken out fairly quickly anyway.

      The second instance was a player who fought hard for himself originally, but when he was almost dead found a loophole to exploit and a willing accomplice, just because he was mad at losing. So what's to report? A player got mad and used a rule in an unanticipated way? My suggestion is not to bring about a fix for my specific game, but to improve the game for the future. I believe this is the correct place to post such? A suggestion about how the game can be improved?
    • The technique of having a country declare war on everyone from the beginning and not doing anything is something I have never seen in about 40 games. I do not think it is the sort of thing that we need to create a special rule for.

      However, the idea of governments in exile to keep up the war effort and the pressure on the enemy is valuable, valid and as has been indicated historic. I have many times gifted a province on an island or some distant place so that someone can set up a capital there and keep the pressure on the enemy as long as they stay in the game doing something. I would also gift them units around the world so they can run with pirate submarines and mercenary raids of different types. It is fun.

      So leave it be.
    • Looks to me like this tactic would likely fall under the "Wolf-Packing" violation in the code of conduct. Report it. Report the player. Admins might remove the game from rated games, ban the player, ban those who benefited from the tactic, I wouldn't presume to speak for the admins.

      The mechanic functions as intended, it's just being abused. The game mechanic is not malfunctioning, the player is and that's where the correction should be.

      Map/In-Game Rules Link
    • With all due respect, OneNutSquirrel, that's baloney. Rules exist to control what can and cannot be done. Punishment after the fact, which will inevitably be slow, late, clumsy, ham-handed and misdirected cannot solve the problem. Remove the game from rated games? That punishes everybody. Ban the player? For what? Declaring war on others? Ban those who benefited? That's everyone he didn't declare war on, who most likely had nothing to do with it - in the particular instance I saw I benefited but had no connection to him whatsoever. Shoot everyone and let God sort it out? That's what your solution sounds like.

      Better (since this is a suggestion to improve the game) to make sound rule changes. Disconnecting the "war weariness" effect from the political stance would solve the problem.
    • @OneNutSquirrel to be clear, the example posted by OP isn’t wolfpacking.... that would be if that same player keep joining all games of OP and keeps declaring war on him in all of them.


      Join, lose and then hide behind someone else it’s not against the rule, show how much of a sore loser he is but it’s not against the rules



      I agree war morale should start dropping after X time that no fight has happen
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • I read "Wolf Packing" as joining the game not to play but to interfere in another players game.

      First guy joins game.... guy he doesn't like joins... he gets his buddies to join 5 of the smaller countries around him, declare war on the guy he doesn't like, and just check in without doing anything for rest of game while he plays and protects them....

      They 5 friends didn't join to play.... they joined to harass.....

      Not the easiest thing to prove.. but that's how I read it.
    • Yes, that’s wolfpacking, they join just to hunt down and ruin the game for others...... The other example you gave instead it’s not, or maybe I’m too tired and didn’t read it properly :thumbup:
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • Was thinking of what an appropriate "Game Mechanic" could be for such manipulation. Here's a little Idea.

      Spread Propaganda - Spy Action Cost 10,000 Cash per Day (Available ONLY in Capital)

      In Spy menu, an option to spread Propaganda against the following locations to improve their moral
      1) My Capitol (+4% / day)
      2) My Cities (+1% / day)
      3) My Cities and all adjacent provinces (+0.5% / day) (+1% every other day)
      4) All my Provinces (+0.2% / day) ( 1% every 5 days)
    • _Pontus_ wrote:

      bloozer wrote:

      Another thing you are missing is that Call of War, like any multiplayer game, is first and foremost a game of diplomacy.
      BMFox, pls read this quote a few times and than look back at some postings about Diplo-changes....Then pls pls contact the Devs and remind them of what is said above here in the quote...
      I'm pretty good in diplomacy and I never had to buy someone off with resources. Theres still a lot of diplomatic options to work together with other players.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh