Morale

[Johny Reb]

I don't think we should have the game decide if a Captain makes a good tactical move or not. A Captain may expose his stern in order to take the final shot on an enemy. Morale shouldn't go down for this reason. A computer cannot determine the purposes and value of our moves so it shouldn't try.

 

Although I am leaning toward morale being something decided before the fight for the most part there are some possibilities for crew morale to be reduced temporarily that Arisu brought up that I agree with. Striking or firing on a friendly ship, the sinking or striking of a friendly ship, grounding, etc.

[Alex Connor]

Wondering about using morale as a mechanic based on damage. After all, the objective of an age of sail battles is less to sink your enemy and more to force them to surrender. So if your morale is based on how much damage you are dishing out and receiving, the balance of morale between sides becomes an ongoing part of the battle.

 

Focus fire on one ship and do a lot of damage, that ship loses a lot of morale, the rest of that side also loses some morale. Defeat an enemy (capture/surrender or sink) and that side takes a morale penalty, the side who defeated them gets a morale bonus. Turns the fighting sides into something of a whole, more than just individual ships sailing together.

 

Then again, might make it very hard to change the course of a battle, turn defeat into victory. Would depend on how much impact morale has on your fighting ability.

[Chunx]

Well perhaps we could also take a different turn with moral. Bear with me while I present the idea.

 

This game is going to be based around a time when at least two nations are at war, the English and the French. By this time both of those powers were investing heavily in colonial assets and so ship's captains would quite often make journeys of months at a time to get anywhere OR a military vessel would be out on patrol for months at a time.

 

So, I'm guessing going for the realism factor, if/when this becomes open world I assume that ships would have provisions (a limit as to how long they could be out at sea, also effecting the distance they can travel).

 

Again so, what if instead of making moral a big mechanic for combat, you instead add it for other worldly things that aren't going to upset a large majority of people. For instance, the lower the moral on a ship (Can be effected by time at sea, distance from home port, battles won and lost, prize money captured, provisions left, fame of captain etc) the faster they will consume provisions thereby limiting how long you can be at sea. Also might add things like not being able to sail as fast in anything but clear weather, caused by sluggish handling of the sheets and tackle.

 

So my idea is, rather than moral have a big impact on battles specifically, make it have an effect on the all around performance of your ship while OUT of combat and instead have the outcome of combat play some sort of impact on your ship moral.

[BrutishVulgarian]

Crew density can really effect morale on a long voyage. If you pack your ship full of sailors, you should be able to excel in boarding actions, good for short jaunts close to port but there is only so much space for sleeping. A three watch system, with only one watch at a time getting to sleep can lead to grumpiness.

I would keep morale simple in battle mode. You would go into battle with whatever morale you cleverly earned on the big map and casualties and depth of water in the hold would be the only two things that would drop morale on the battle map.

I don't think a computer is smart enough to quantify the value of ship maneuvers or how much damage you did to another fleet.

[maturin]

Morale needs to be a dual system, in-battle and out. Happiness vs hitpoints. I thought there was more of a consensus on this point.

 

Because frankly, the idea that giving a crew rum and lots of sleep will make them fight more bravely is silly. If that were the case, I would crew my vessel with frat boys and conquer the world with the power of careless hedonism.

 

Sure, a happy crew that isn't pissed off at the officers will fight better. But to repeat an earlier example, if I have a bunch of privateersmen who signed up to pick off fat prizes, they're not going to fight to the bitter end when the navy catches us. Not even if the naval crew is half-starving and my men have just spent three weeks on leave in Tahiti.

 

 

 

I don't think a computer is smart enough to quantify the value of ship maneuvers or how much damage you did to another fleet.

The latter is simplicity itself, all numbers.

[BrutishVulgarian]

Morale needs to be a dual system, in-battle and out. Happiness vs hitpoints. I thought there was more of a consensus on this point.

 

Because frankly, the idea that giving a crew rum and lots of sleep will make them fight more bravely is silly. If that were the case, I would crew my vessel with frat boys and conquer the world with the power of careless hedonism.

 

 

 

 

The latter is simplicity itself, all numbers.

Who said fighting bravely, was the only goal of morale? I just want to squeeze an extra 1/2 knot out of my barkee to run away. I'm afraid your argument that sleep and overcrowding doesn't effect morale, or that Georgian era sailors don't like drinking, is absurd.

I think you just don't like the idea of morale in the game, which is fine.

[maturin]

I'm afraid your argument that sleep and overcrowding doesn't effect morale, or that Georgian era sailors don't like drinking, is absurd.

Not even remotely what I said. Please.

 

 

 

I think you just don't like the idea of morale in the game, which is fine.

Read the thread. Although I suppose that's too much to ask if you're going to ignore the substantive part of just that one post.

 

 

To reiterate: I envision morale as an out-of-battle characteristic that crews have, based on living conditions, treatment, success or hardship and officer qualities. But in battle, these factors are simply a modifier for the separate HP-like quantity of 'fighting spirit,' which is the willingness to take hits but keep resisting. In battle, the latter is used like a HP bar that causes the ship to surrender or become combat ineffective when depleted. But you don't have a unified measure where cannonballs gradually remove the points you got for increasing the booze ration. If you used out-of-battle morale like a HP bar for battles, every ship would be miserable after each action, and the whole balance of shipboard life would be thrown out of whack.

 

Morale is sometimes used as a proxy for general combat effectiveness in games, but this only makes sense when the combatants are all equal. Sure, if you have two groups of professional soldiers, the ones that are more enthusiastic and trusting in their leaders should have an edge. But things aren't going to be equal. Morale is just a passing mood of a group of people. The will to sacrifice and resist is something that depends more on innate qualities of the men and the context of their struggle.

 

A seasoned jack tar who has seen his share of action and tasted prize money will take more to break than a raw pressed hand. Privateersmen might fight bravely, but only if their opponent is a worthy prize. Merchant sailors will not give their lives to defend someone else's cargo. It doesn't matter how well-fed the fisherman is or how disgruntled the naval seaman is. The latter is going to outfight the former, because the former has no reason to fight.

 

The idea of having morale as a single measure that works both in and out of combat makes me cringe. So I grab fifty urchins from the docks and get them all incredibly drunk. +100 morale! Now I take them into a fight with a superior warship. The seasoned enemy crew is annoyed at the lack of fresh vegetables, so I'm in luck. Each cannonball that hits the ship cancels out two bottles of rum until my crew's morale is back to base-level. But the poor depressed enemies are so sore about their vegetables that they give up their superior vessel to my tub full of clueless vagrants.

[Alex Connor]

The idea of having morale as a single measure that works both in and out of combat makes me cringe. So I grab fifty urchins from the docks and get them all incredibly drunk. +100 morale! Now I take them into a fight with a superior warship. The seasoned enemy crew is annoyed at the lack of fresh vegetables, so I'm in luck. Each cannonball that hits the ship cancels out two bottles of rum until my crew's morale is back to base-level. But the poor depressed enemies are so sore about their vegetables that they give up their superior vessel to my tub full of clueless vagrants.

I'd suggest the crew has a skill level based on experience (50-100%) and whatever morale rating you have is applied to that.

 

Crew skill level is based on experience from combat time spent sailing, something like a 75:25 ratio in favour of combat, so a warship is likely to have a better trained crew than a merchantman. Not to mention, a much bigger crew.

[maturin]

I'd suggest the crew has a skill level based on experience (50-100%) and whatever morale rating you have is applied to that.

That's the basic idea. So long as morale isn't turned into an alcohol-fueled resource that is "spent" by taking fire.

 

Crew skill level is based on experience from combat time spent sailing, something like a 75:25 ratio in favour of combat, so a warship is likely to have a better trained crew than a merchantman. Not to mention, a much bigger crew.

Skill would need to be split in two categories, of course. Seamanship and combat. This would distinguish marines from seamen of all stripes.

A merchantman is going to have a very small crew of excellent seamen. Likewise, a helpless fishing smack might be crewed by expert sailors. But that doesn't mean they will fight. A large warship will have hundreds of men who are there to fight, but are only trusted to pull on ropes from the deck.

Seamanship can be represented as a straightforward skill level. But it doesn't help them fight, unless they've been blooded, and unless they have motivation. So you can have a seamanship stat and a combat veterancy stat, the latter of which gets dynamic bonuses according to the situation. Specifically, bonuses if prize money or national pride is at stake.

 

And while I'm a big fan of skills, I also don't necessarily want to spent time staring at an RPG-style interface in this game. There's no reason all this stuff can't be under the hood, with only rough characteristics sketched for the players. And it's not like every crew member needs a stat, either. It could be an averaged-out attribute of entire crews or portions of them.

[Thomas Blackwell]

Well, neither merchant men nor fishers were pressed, while sailors in the navy were. If you are taken from your life ashore and placed aboard a wooden tub for the next two-six years, you either run when you next make port, or try and make the best of it (to a point.)

Keeping humans happy, no matter where they are or what they are doing is about striking a balance. A smaller crew with more room to sling hammocks will rest easier. A well rested crew will haul on lines and fight with more strength. Things like fair officers and decent crewmates coupled with some decent 'of the times' propaganda will motivate the crew to fight. Training, leadership and daily routine will hone the crew into a more effective body of men. Discipline on ceremony will also provide a sense of 'knowing where one stands.' If you break the law on a kings ship, you will be punished. For those who have been wronged, it adds a sense of satisfaction to see the wrongdoer punished for his crime.

If there should be too much of one thing, and not enough of the other, it will cause unrest. An officer is too quick to bring out the cat, the captain is too cowardly to fight and bring in prize money. A string of bad winds keep the crew from port and the grog dries up. The crew is trained relentlessly on an overcrowded ship. Crew will grow less cooperative and may even start talks of mutiny. If they get it into their minds to hate one of the officers, it will be next to impossible for that officer to do the right thing in their eyes.

I don't think there is a simple way to accurately represent morale, as there are so many factors that come into play. Many of them out of mortal control. The most simple thing I can imagine, is a 'Prison Architect' approach, and create a day plan for your crew to follow. Monday to Saturday with Sunday being their day off weather and service permitting. A time for breakfast, a time for training on the guns, a time for school for the younger officers, a time for the changing of the watch. A two watch ship or a three watch ship would also effect morale.

The morale system could be the next big thing for Naval Action next to the combat. Something that makes the game unique. Or, it could just be another bar in the top left corner of your screen.

[Alex Connor]

That's the basic idea. So long as morale isn't turned into an alcohol-fueled resource that is "spent" by taking fire.

 

If morale changes in battle are implemented I'd be thinking along the lines of a simple damaging the enemy raises morale, taking damage lowers morale mechanic. Now this might have the effect of making a battle that's going one way already very hard to turn around, alternatively destroying the enemies morale might be an integral part of victory, providing a way to force surrender without having to batter the ship into ruin or kill most of the crew.

 

Rum could be fun. The daily tot simply raises morale, no penalties. A double tot further raises morale but produces a slight skill level penalty, along with minor risk of guns going off accidentally and sailors falling overboard. Further tots keep raising morale but impose increasingly large skill penalties and continue to raise the chance of accidents. Get the whole crew raging drunk and there is a sizable risk of the ship spontaneously catching fire   

 

 

Skill would need to be split in two categories, of course. Seamanship and combat. This would distinguish marines from seamen of all stripes.

A merchantman is going to have a very small crew of excellent seamen. Likewise, a helpless fishing smack might be crewed by expert sailors. But that doesn't mean they will fight. A large warship will have hundreds of men who are there to fight, but are only trusted to pull on ropes from the deck.

Seamanship can be represented as a straightforward skill level. But it doesn't help them fight, unless they've been blooded, and unless they have motivation. So you can have a seamanship stat and a combat veterancy stat, the latter of which gets dynamic bonuses according to the situation. Specifically, bonuses if prize money or national pride is at stake.

 

And while I'm a big fan of skills, I also don't necessarily want to spent time staring at an RPG-style interface in this game. There's no reason all this stuff can't be under the hood, with only rough characteristics sketched for the players. And it's not like every crew member needs a stat, either. It could be an averaged-out attribute of entire crews or portions of them.

 

Good points.

 

Definitely should be the split combat and sailing skills. Different crew types would be great too, the regular crewmen for the guns and sailing, marines for close combat and boarding. Mix and match to suit requirements.

 

Layers to crew management might be a good idea though. At the top you'd just have those average attributes, if you want to play like that could quite happily ignore everything but the need to replace losses in combat. Delve a little deeper and there might be things like crew to promote based on merit, or assign to the jobs best suited to them. Or maybe you want to go from a big ship to a smaller one and make up its crew from the most experienced members of your current crew. Nothing gamebreaking but little advantages for those who put the time in and manage their crew carefully.

[Reki]

I don't think we should have the game decide if a Captain makes a good tactical move or not. A Captain may expose his stern in order to take the final shot on an enemy. Morale shouldn't go down for this reason. 

Oh, so all crew around is more like suicide team who loves to make great tactical moves with price of theyr Life?) Anyway i talk about conception, which is non damage based, to avoid double penalties to side with more damage taken (dmg+negative morale balance)

[maturin]

Arisu brings up a good point. Most of the rational reasons for dynamic morale change in battle are just 'double jeopardy,' punishing the people who are already losing. It will make the gameplay full of feedback loops and remove unpredictability. Even if the mechanics are reasonable and realistic.

[Alex Connor]

Arisu brings up a good point. Most of the rational reasons for dynamic morale change in battle are just 'double jeopardy,' punishing the people who are already losing. It will make the gameplay full of feedback loops and remove unpredictability. Even if the mechanics are reasonable and realistic.

I have mentioned this a couple of times 

 

If dynamic morale is included then combat must be balanced around it. Like dismasting or shooting hull, breaking the enemies morale could be an important and integral part of combat.

 

But this is all still up for discussion.

[Johny Reb]

Oh, so all crew around is more like suicide team who loves to make great tactical moves with price of theyr Life?) Anyway i talk about conception, which is non damage based, to avoid double penalties to side with more damage taken (dmg+negative morale balance

This was just an example I pulled out of the air but it stands. I'm speaking toward the idea that a computer can judge if exposing your stern is a good or bad decision, not that you exposed your stern and got fired upon. A Captain may expose his stern because he believes he has time to do it safely. If hes right then shouldn't morale go up? If hes wrong then it goes down but the computer can't judge the maneuver, only the outcome of it.

 

I think this highlights a point that should be made and has come to me in the preceding posts. Its possible for one action to have a positive effect on morale in one case and a negative effect in another. For instance, a ship is loosing a fight and has a chance to run. Depending on the quality of the crew's character, having to run may reduce one crew's morale but another crew may have a boost in their morale and work harder because they see a chance to escape. How does the computer choose between the two. Maybe the loss of a mast has an immediate morale loss but is followed by a large morale boost and the urge to fight harder because they know they are at a disadvantage. How about the ability of the officers to rally their crew. Shouldn't that be a part of this as well? How about a dying man yelling to his crew mates to "hold fast"?

 

Morale is not easy to mimic properly and unless modeled exceptionally, then fluctuations in battle should be avoided. More people are gonna be pissed off when they think their actions should have raised morale but the computer thought otherwise. The only way I see it working atm would be a morale bar that is reduced over time with no effect until it is empty. At this point debuffs are applied to the ship. Primarily in tacking and reload speeds. A (repair) skill to rally the crew would need to be added to the game to restore morale. I'm not necessarily advocating for this mechanic. I'd have to test it. I don't prefer something that feels to "gamey" but it will rid us of inaccurate and unrealistic fluctuations in morale and rely more on the morale that the ship comes to the battle with. It allows effects of morale during a battle but it also gives the ability to repair it in a way not linked to damage given. I'd suggest that positive morale would only serve to build the morale bar back up but would never have any effect beyond that. Only the morale you bring to the fight would have any effect on the efficiency of your crew. This way the effect is overall small.

[BrutishVulgarian]

Old time sailors love debauching ship mascots, especially ones that hang in the rigging and originate from exotic locals. Orangutans, sloths, night apes, pontu's, parrots, kaola bears, raccoons....

[Mirones]

i surely dont want a black cat named Oscar on my ship

[Thomas Blackwell]

"Jack! You've debauched my sloth!"

[Wigster600]

I was redirected here after making a post, here's my two cents on morale from the now locked and redirected post I made.

Hello, just joined the forum, love the look of the game so far

After recently watching a few Hornblower episodes, I feel it would be great for ship life to be more indepth, like sailor morale/fatigue/illness affecting themselves carrying out tasks, perhaps if supply boats/food trade networks are being harried by pirates and/or the enemy the captain has to order less than normal rations (Option to give 3/4 or 1/2 or 1/4 rations), resulting in increased risk of ilness, low morale and fatigue increasing, perhaps even chance of mutiny if the crew isn't satisfied with your role as captain.

 

[ThePandanator2]

 

Let's talk about crew morale! 

 

So, in the open world, where everything will be like putty in your hands, I feel that the morale of your crew should have massive impacts on your play. How your crew feels about you should be very influential in how far you get.

 

Of course there are many ways for a captain to handle his crew, and each one should have its merits and fallacies. However you treat your crew, it should have an affect on the other parts of the game.

 

Now how should this be implemented? I personally see this as an "as you go". You don't pick out a personality for yourself from the beginning, you shape your personality through decisions and treatment. Let me give an example. 

 

You have chosen to be the captain of a fine trading frigate. On your first trip, you make a profit of 500 golden doubloons. Now you have some choices. You can take all the gold for your self, which will of course increase your personal profit, but will make you rather unpopular with the crew. Your other option would be to split it with your crew, which, while decreasing your personal profits, will grow your popularity with the crew. You will have the option to take all of the profits or split them on a case by case basis. 

 

This is but one example, but I want more! This is one thing for us to discuss, what are some scenarios that you could see? Playing as a naval power, or a pirate, or anything else, what do you think would affect the crew? Let's discuss this.

 

Now let's talk about what morale will do to you.

 

High morale

Having a high morale and happy crew will gain you benefits. Some benefits like faster sail movements, or reload times if you are a military boat. Your crew is happy to have you as their captain.

 

"Indifferent" morale

Having a crew that is "indifferent" to you is neither bad nor good. There are no benefits like mentioned above, but there is nothing to hurt you either. Your crew follows your orders and that is all. They are essentially here for the ride

 

Low morale

You've upset your crew and they are unhappy. Now, they will be more reluctant to follow orders. Some may desert, leaving you short of crew, and, if you don't appease them, it could lead to....

 

MUTINY!

You've upset your crew so much that they want you OUT, whether peacefully or violently. You must figure out a way to please your crew, be it a pay raise or something else, or else you lose your ship.

 

Here's another talking point. What do you think should be associated with each morale level? What should be the transitions between levels? Should there be more morale levels? More complex morale levels? Discuss!

 

Morale of course is not simply based on you (the captain). It is based on environmental and situational factors. Example: Your sailing through a hurricane. Your crew begins to lose hope of ever seeing land again. Morale drops. Let's say you're playing for the Royal Navy, and there is war against those dirty Spaniards. If you win a battle, crew morale rises. If you lose a battle, morale drops. The list goes on.

 

Now let's discuss how we treat those dirty bastards lovely crew members!

[Guest raat]

Sounds good to me.  However, I would see this affecting pirates and privateers much more than ships of a navy.  While still possible to mutiny, it should be extremely difficult to incite mutiny amongst a crew of a national naval ship.

[Grim DeGrim]

If not mutiny on naval ships, quite possibly desertion.  Someone please feel free to correct me as to the time period, but I read:

 

• Once a seaman was impressed into the Royal Navy, he was in His Majesty's service until the crew was paid off29, say, at the end of the war. In the army it was a little different. Back then, the law provided that, for a certain time period beyond the enlistment, a man could get himself released. What was necessary was to return the money -- refereed to as the King's shilling -- given to him at the time he signed on, plus an additional sum which was called smart money. Trouble was that these young men rarely had any money. So, it was usual for the young man's family to come up with the necessary funds. The total sum was paid to the enlistment officer who would normally divide it among his recruiting party.  (ref., http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk2/Part5/Ch07.htm#Impressment)

Well, not the source I was looking for, I read another passage elsewhere...but this one is close.  Many times impressment was required.  Ship to ship, conditions were different, but typically overcrowded and often disease ridden.  So once port was made, it was not uncommon to have deserters...

 

An off night.  I'll continue to look for the desertion reference

[Guest raat]

If not mutiny on naval ships, quite possibly desertion.  Someone please feel free to correct me as to the time period, but I read:

 

• Once a seaman was impressed into the Royal Navy, he was in His Majesty's service until the crew was paid off29, say, at the end of the war. In the army it was a little different. Back then, the law provided that, for a certain time period beyond the enlistment, a man could get himself released. What was necessary was to return the money -- refereed to as the King's shilling -- given to him at the time he signed on, plus an additional sum which was called smart money. Trouble was that these young men rarely had any money. So, it was usual for the young man's family to come up with the necessary funds. The total sum was paid to the enlistment officer who would normally divide it among his recruiting party.  (ref., http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk2/Part5/Ch07.htm#Impressment)

Well, not the source I was looking for, I read another passage elsewhere...but this one is close.  Many times impressment was required.  Ship to ship, conditions were different, but typically overcrowded and often disease ridden.  So once port was made, it was not uncommon to have deserters...

 

An off night.  I'll continue to look for the desertion reference

 

Perhaps then, captains could have the option to select/hire crew from the navy or impress them.  Impressed men prone to desertion but cheaper while crew from the navy much more expensive to maintain and harder to come by?

[ThePandanator2]

Sounds good to me.  However, I would see this affecting pirates and privateers much more than ships of a navy.  While still possible to mutiny, it should be extremely difficult to incite mutiny amongst a crew of a national naval ship.

I agree. But there is still the possibility to decrease your crew's morale, thereby making them less excited to fight, increased time for reloads, etc.

 

And as mentioned, desertion as well.

[Brigand]

besides immediate applications during boarding combat there are other uses for morale

here are the directions/example for thought to streamline the discussion

 

1. morale can be used for realistic skills - for example certain fleet commander orders, or special orders for the crew requiring extra performance giving short term bonuses under whip

2. morale can to a certain extent influence overall performance for the crew. Over time at sea morale degrades, so on the long journey or fleet duty away from your home port your ship will be a bit less effective

3. high base morale caused by experience or your renown can allow for certain heroic feats like boarding a 300men xebec with only 140 experienced crew and winning. 

4. what else?  all ideas are welcome. 

 

 

but yes. ship will not surrender because of morale - we think its ultimately a captain decision

and

We will never take control away from the player. There were cases when crew revolted in RL but we are not sure it is useful in the gameplay environment.

Right now, if your ship sinks, control is taken away from the player. Taking away control from the player in case of really bad morale (crew surrender) is no different: it will only result in an alternate win condition; alternate win conditions are good.

 

Loose conditions should be: 1. your ship sinks, or 2. your crew surrenders.

• A sunken ship will result in the ship being lost for gameplay purposes,
• Crew surrender will allow for an easy capture by the enemy.
  • If the enemy does not capture the ship, the player could maybe regain control of his crew and try to escape (more gameplay options == good).

 

 

 

However, morale is only part of the story. In point 3 of the first quote, you mention: "high base morale". Let's call this 'base morale' loyalty.

 

So, we have both the slowly changing loyalty and the quickly reacting morale as the building blocks of our crew attitude system.

 

Loyalty acts like a buffer: it defines the maximum and minimum effects of moral, in both positive and the negative extremes.

 

If the crew's loyalty is very high, they will have faith in the captain, they will be more disciplined and fight ferociously. If things go well, the captain gets all the credits for it. If things go bad, they will be blamed on external factors (the enemy, the bad weather, etc.), they may be disgruntled, but at least they think the captain is not to blame. Most important of all, they will not surrender the ship in any case: they will stand with the captain till the end.

 

If the crew's loyalty is very low, they don't have any faith in the captain, discipline is low and they would rather kick the captain overboard than safe his sorry ass, in a battle they think cannot be won. If things go exceptionally well, they will be happy, despite the captain. If thing go bad, the captain takes the full blame. If pressed for service after being captured, a high percentage of the crew will be willing to join the victors.

 

If the crew's loyalty is Ok, you can expect your crew to do their duty, if things go well (high morale), they will shine, if things go bad (low morale) they will be more likely to give in.

 

Building loyalty:

Changes in loyalty take time. Basically, continued high moral increases loyalty and continued low morale decreases loyalty.

Loyalty can be increased by continues success with the same crew. Building up loyalty can, for example, be done by winning a fight, feeding your crew well, giving them their regular shot of rum and providing them with a fare share of loot often enough. Loyalty will decrease if you threat your crew bad, constantly loose fights or don't pay them their wages.

For gameplay simplicity, loyalty could maybe only change after a fight has ended or while in the open world; during combat, some may prefer loyalty to be a given constant.

 

As a side effect, keeping (a portion) of your highly loyal crew after a fight gone bad, could be a good motivator for a player to surrender his ship, instead of fighting to the dead: starting out with a new undisciplined crew would be quite a setback.

 

Morale is the short term swing of confidence of the crew. There are 3 separate cases where morale plays its role:

• In ship to ship combat:

  High morale will result in better performance, low morale will result in worse performance. Rock bottom low morale combined with a low loyalty and a badly damaged ship may result in crew surrender.

• In boarding actions:

  In boarding, morale makes all the difference. A crew who think they will win will fight better, kick harder and just outperform a low morale crew. A crew who doesn't believe winning is possible, will much sooner give up. Low morale will cause crew members to be more easily defeated, albeit, with lower fatality numbers.

• In the Open World:

  High morale will give you a slightly better performance, low morale a slightly worse performance. Rock bottom low morale in combination with rock bottom low loyalty should result in a mutiny. Low morale combined with low loyalty would highly increase the chances of desertion when laying in a harbour, etc, etc.

The negative effect of low moral could partly be mitigated by good officers, who keep a proper discipline, even when the spirits are low.

 

Morale changers:

Morale is influenced by many external factors. Morale typically goes up if good things happen, goes up a lot if those good things are exceptional and go down when bad things happen.

 

Let's say our snow is engaged by an enemy HMS Surprise: Initially, our crew is neutral, loyalty is quite ok. On our first broadside is fired from a long range, but happens to take down the fore top mast: morale of my crew rises spectacularly (cheers all around), while the moral of the crew aboard the HMS Surprise, drops a bit (but they are, of course, still quite confident they can win from snow). Somewhere next, the HMS Surprise at close blasts away at our snow with its carronades loaded with grape. As by a miracle, only two members of our crew get hit and crew feels that the lady of luck must be smiling upon them (morale goes up): they load the cannons with renewed energy and I get to fire a return broadside I might otherwise not have been able to bring to bear, etc, etc.

 

Morale would take a hit if a ship is raked fore and aft and the blood spews out of the gutters (people don't like seeing their mates dyeing all around them). Morale rises if the crew thinks they win, or if they are fighting unexpectedly good against a superior enemy.

Loosing against a smaller enemy would cause morale to take a bigger hit than loosing against a superior ship.

As such, a good morale system can make battles far more interesting, maybe even more so in an uneven match-up. A well designed morale system would give a strong motivation to surrender to the captain, may even cause a mutiny if a captain doesn't care about their well-being for prolonged periods of time and would provide the motivation to higher good officers and train your crew to the highest levels of discipline and competence.

 

The major changes to morale should not come as a result of winning or loosing the battle. Instead, the major changes to morale should be the result of how succesfull you are at beating the odds: if you fight better than expected against a superiour enemy, morale should be high (on the flip-side: if you fight badly against a weaker enemy, morale should be low).

Also, morale should not be influenced by morale. In other words, a low morale score should not increase the chances that morale will stay low or vise versa.

 

I could write a lot more about morale and how it could be tied into the intricates of the game, but I think my wall of text is large enough by now, so I'm going to leave my suggestion at this (for now).

 

Cheers,

Brigand