Town Morale - Conquest Mechanic Suggestion

[KrakkenSmacken]

So with the apparent choice in the poll by Admin 

 

"Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances (339 votes [53.55%])"

 

I have decided to start a thread on a conquest model that I think would be fun if implemented.  I have a few other posts here and there that contain the bones and some meat for the system, but decided with the poll results to build a separate thread dedicated to the discussion of the idea (if warranted). If not much discussion happens, I will stop polluting the forms with the idea and discuss whatever the devs tell us they plan to implement..

 

I have tried to build in both slippery slope and decent perpetual comeback mechanics into the model.  I know that numbers will need tweaking.

 

[Development note]

Being a developer I tried to design the system so it could be built simple but deep.  The end result may look and behave in a complex way but in reality it could rely in large part on a few rather simple controllers (playerAlterTownMorale, eventAlterTownMorale, changeTownOwnership) tied to two or three models, (townMorale, nationalMorale, moraleChangeLog, eventImpactConfiguration). The permutations and combinations are huge, but by simply adding calls to events you want to effect town moral you could plug any event into the basic system.

[End Note]

 

Basics

 

I have changed all my previous numbers to a new baseline founded on BR rating, so it more neatly plugs into existing in game systems. There is nothing about diplomacy in this system, that is a separate issue, but diplomatic events could alter town morale on a national level.

 

• Ports have a base morale that can be thought of as health. 
  
• In the simplest terms events that should impact a towns morale will damage or heal.
  
• There are two values associated, natural, and current.
  
• Natural is the morale the town will settle on if no other factors are present.
  
• Natural morale is based on buildings and active ships based in the town.
  
• Current morale is what the morale is after damage, or bonus morale is factored in. 
  
• Activities related to the town can lower or raise the current morale.  
  

 

Port capture happens when morale is taken to zero or below in a port battle event.

Towns become neutral if taken below zero out side of a port battle event.

 

Every hour morale will drift towards it's natural value.  Moving up if low (damaged), moving down if high (Bonus). Current guess at rate would be 2% of natural so could go from 1 - full in 50 hours, but player activity and impact could make that value too fast or too slow. 

 

Changes to natural value will not make the same change to current. Only events that effect current will do that.

 

Now some details (all numbers subject to change/balance).

 

Natural Morale

• Towns start at 2000 natural morale.
  
• For every outpost natural morale gains GP cost/1000 natural morale. (not licence cost, just the 10,000 and warehouse upgrade costs.)
  
• For every building natural morale gains GP cost/5000 natural morale. (+42 per max upgraded resource building)
  
• Every ship docked by a currently active player (logged in within the last 24 hrs) at an outpost at the town raises natural morale by (1/4 it's BP).
  

 

 

Current Morale  

• For every 1000 GP earned by the town (taxes on transactions) the town gains 1 morale.
  
• Running out of stock on a 'consumes' item causes 1 morale per 10 units short to be lost.
  
• For every ship sank on a mission issued by the town, morale equal to the BP of the sunk ship is gained.
  
• For every player ship lost that is based from that town (last place the ship docked) the BP of the sunk ship is lost.
  
• Every open world AI ship sunk by a player gains .25 * BP of for the town. Missions are worth more because they are directed by the town.
  
• Sending a captured ship to "admiralty" raises morale by BP.
  
• ...
  

 

 

Quick examples:  Town is at 2000 morale and a player takes a mission.  Ship destroyed BR is 130, so town morale becomes 2130.  A hour later drift causes the morale to loose 40, putting it back to 2090.  Four hours after the mission is ran, the morale has settled back at 2000.

 

(Note: Bonus or extra morale could be calculated at a reduced rate, so that gaining bonus morale rate is 1/10th of normal, or decay of bonus takes less time.  Again a possible point to balance things on)

 

Player builds a new outpost at a natural 2000 morale town currently at 1700 morale.  Natural morale becomes 2010, but current morale will not reach 2010 for 8 hours unless that player starts doing things to raise the towns current value.

 

Player loses a Victory after leaving a town.  That towns morale drops from 2500/2000 (The player had been running mission from that town so there was a bonus) to 1800/2000.  The possible impact of dramatically losing a major open sea battle is a port that flips to neutral instantly.

 

The cost of buying an attack flag against a port should also be influenced by morale, both of the target and the originating town. For example (100gp * target town current morale) - (25gp * flag purchase town current morale) 

 

Flags can only be purchased if town morale is lower than a certain threshold.

 

The objective is to influence all national players into operating in an area and targeting ships based in the town they are going to attack prior to purchasing a flag to reduce cost and make taking the port easier. With the ability of the target side to see, falling port moral and active fleet reports in the area ([Morale Change Log]), players will be able to respond in kind. PvE players can target AI fleets of the attacking town, take missions from targeted town to boost moral, and all can build outposts and moves ships to the town in an effort to bolster defenses.

 

Finally, when a port battle starts it is more of a climax to a developing situation. The attacking team has been operating against the town, and now the port flag is cheap enough, and morale low enough, that winning the fight could flip the port.  At the end of the fight all BR remaining is calculated and awarded for or against the town in question. Due to the importance of the port battle a multiplier could be added to this number, on one or the other sides. For example the defenders could only receive (.5 * BR killed) in morale gain if they win, while the attackers get (2.0 * BR) when they win.  

 

This is a balance decision.

 

In some cases towns will have enough morale to not be lost even though they lost a close port battle. These would have current morale impacted, and the attackers would need to make a second or even third attack. Each attack would be cheaper to stage unless the defenders worked very hard to restore morale between fights.  Out side of the port battle, other players could be engaging each other, or AI, in a desperate attempt to bolster/degrade town morale to assist those in the protection/flipping of the port.

 

Moving forward then the system only needs to have new mechanics and enhancements plugged into the basic model.

 

Add in trade missions, assign a call to [playerAlterTownMoral] on completion.

Want to factor in diplomacy, assign natural morale, adjust the natural morale balance rate, or otherwise change morale based on current treaties, and change morale swings if attacking or attacked by "allies".

 

This system or one that is similar, I believe could tie in everyone into national awareness and participation.  Even new players hitting the chat for the first time with "what should I do" questions would be told where to operate and take missions that will benefit the current national objective.

 

In this way PvE would help PvP players and could even dictate/influence national direction.

Future mission development can be made with the model in mind, and not just be isolated events that have zero impact on the world.

 

Basically tie in and give a reason for as many actions as possible.

 

Discuss (Please)

Edited March 25, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Pigafetta]

At first sight it looks like a complex mechanism, but I can see what you mean when you talk about the permutation among the events that could influence the city status. 

IMHO it is a good idea but, as all the good ideas on paper, has to be tested. My fear is that in a couple of days all the cities will go back neutral for lack of players aka lack of modifying events. i am sure you studied the system well (you created it LOL) so do you think my fear coming true is a possibility or not?

[KrakkenSmacken]

At first sight it looks like a complex mechanism, but I can see what you mean when you talk about the permutation among the events that could influence the city status. 

IMHO it is a good idea but, as all the good ideas on paper, has to be tested. My fear is that in a couple of days all the cities will go back neutral for lack of players aka lack of modifying events. i am sure you studied the system well (you created it LOL) so do you think my fear coming true is a possibility or not?

 

Well I have seen models like this in play in few conquest games, and I can say thing for certainty, those games really brought groups of people together for a common cause.  I still talk to some of the players of those games years after we all stopped playing.

 

As to the concern about cities going neutral, there is only one mechanic above that requires zero player activity to trigger, and that is resource starvation.  All the rest require someone, either friendly or hostile, to be operating for/against that city.  So if player activity is too low, that one mechanic can be suspended, or limited, say for example it can not drop a town below 500 morale, to create the requirement that at least one person was acting against a town to cause it to flip.

 

Additionally the modifier for losing an AI could be adjusted easily, so that AI fleet farming won't trigger flips as quickly.  My example had it at .25 of BR, but it could just as easily be .1 of BR.

 

EDIT: Actually I removed the AI fleet farming example from the initial post before posting, because I saw the potential problem with reducing morale without activity.

 

Also, the natural drift rate could be raised from my example of 2%, to something higher so that towns stabilize at the default 2000 more quickly.

Edited March 27, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Hethwill]

Ports demand resources.

 

They never get them.

 

This simple thing could be used once economy passes majorly to players responsability.

[Lytse Pier]

I've posted earlier in a similar thread about this as also a solution in which no port timers would have to be used.

 

We need to think more of what makes a port vulnerable to attack now and what the consequences are of a port battle. I think it is the wrong mechanic for a port to switch sides using solely the port battle mechanics and I proposed to use something called Port Loyalty. I think it is somewhat similar to your Town Morale, but also with a more economic trigger, like Hetwill suggests above.

 

Port Loyalty is the measure of which you can swing a port's governor/mayor/leadership into your favor and towards your faction. The more you can convince the port to leave its Neutral Stance or stance towards a certain nation the better it will be for your faction.

 

Port Loyalty convincing is done by:

- Number of people of your faction getting docked each day (raises money to man the forts and buys their gatling gun cannonballs);

- Supply the demands of the ports that are being met (happy people will like you);

- Winning a port battle (or rather call it a port raid) significantly contributes to the ports loyalty. (showing muscle gets respect);

- Formal war declarations, bribes and economic support by nations will certainly give modifiers to Port Loyalty for own or against rival countries. (Politics matter);

etc.

 

Port Loyalty should deteriorate if supply demands are not met and hardly any of a faction is docking at its ports. (If you cannot maintain your empire, you shouldn't have it);

 

So it will not become a simple Port Battle that swings the loyalty of a port towards a threshold to join your faction (or leave your faction). An effort on more than one front, using several game mechanics that are now in place to convince a port to join your side, so to speak.

 

Port Loyalty is measured towards all nations, so it would be also possible then to dock also at ports of a different nation, as long as Port Loyalty does not go below a certain threshold (which also can be raised or lowered with politics)

.

Hope you like this direction of ideas as an addition to your well thought out Town Morale ideas!

[KrakkenSmacken]

 

I've posted earlier in a similar thread about this as also a solution in which no port timers would have to be used.

 

We need to think more of what makes a port vulnerable to attack now and what the consequences are of a port battle. I think it is the wrong mechanic for a port to switch sides using solely the port battle mechanics and I proposed to use something called Port Loyalty. I think it is somewhat similar to your Town Morale, but also with a more economic trigger, like Hetwill suggests above.

 

Port Loyalty is the measure of which you can swing a port's governor/mayor/leadership into your favor and towards your faction. The more you can convince the port to leave its Neutral Stance or stance towards a certain nation the better it will be for your faction.

 

Port Loyalty convincing is done by:

- Number of people of your faction getting docked each day (raises money to man the forts and buys their gatling gun cannonballs);

- Supply the demands of the ports that are being met (happy people will like you);

- Winning a port battle (or rather call it a port raid) significantly contributes to the ports loyalty. (showing muscle gets respect);

- Formal war declarations, bribes and economic support by nations will certainly give modifiers to Port Loyalty for own or against rival countries. (Politics matter);

etc.

 

Port Loyalty should deteriorate if supply demands are not met and hardly any of a faction is docking at its ports. (If you cannot maintain your empire, you shouldn't have it);

 

So it will not become a simple Port Battle that swings the loyalty of a port towards a threshold to join your faction (or leave your faction). An effort on more than one front, using several game mechanics that are now in place to convince a port to join your side, so to speak.

 

Port Loyalty is measured towards all nations, so it would be also possible then to dock also at ports of a different nation, as long as Port Loyalty does not go below a certain threshold (which also can be raised or lowered with politics)

.

Hope you like this direction of ideas as an addition to your well thought out Town Morale ideas!

 

 

 

It sounds very much like the same basic idea with a different name.  I am not really hung up on Morale, for some reason I have a bad habit of typing in moral instead.

 

The name also makes more sense if you take into account part of what was in my head but never made it into my post.

 

That being that Neutral ports that have fallen in loyalty could be accessed and facilities established by anyone, with a national threshold set so that if your nation had a significant presence the port could flip to your nation without any battles at all. (Political conquest)

 

Additionally under treaty, if partial outposts could be set up by allies, like only tier one resource extraction sites and non-expanded warehouses, then said ally could attempt to weaken National Loyalty by using a large number of players to set up shop, so that in a time of war it would be far easier to flip simply because of a large economic presence.

 

Also calling it National loyalty would enable the description, and therefor the system, to track that value for each nation, for each port.  It may be that the French have a far easier time flipping a previously french port, than see them turn over to the pirates for example, while a previously neutral port may have a penchant to go pirate at the slightest provocation.

 

This could be of huge benefit in managing slippery slope/perpetual comeback mechanics, with ports having a natural but not absolute tendency to return to a favored/original nation.

 

Thinking about it I much prefer your title to mine, far more versatile than a single morale number, without really being much more complex to program.

 

I think the "Number of people docking" portion you described is better represented by port trade income, that little tax we all pay when using the port services.  Just docking could be gamed much easier than something that required financial sacrifice to trigger.

Edited April 8, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Porpoise]

I like it, but we will see probably more discussions about this topic, but the basic idea is good. It would be nice to have battles without towers to reduce the morale and once the port is eligible to be captured, the standard battle with forts should come in place. 

[Lytse Pier]

I think the "Number of people docking" portion you described is better represented by port trade income, that little tax we all pay when using the port services.  Just docking could be gamed much easier than something that required financial sacrifice to trigger.

 

I totally agree with you there! Much better!

[Babble]

suggested something similar already

 

Section 14.

 

 

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12747-the-road-map-sections-13-14/?hl=roadmap

[Skippy]

I think i prefer your idea here than the new one the admin posted recently.  This would work better for a game like this.

[KrakkenSmacken]

I think i prefer your idea here than the new one the admin posted recently.  This would work better for a game like this.

Thanks for the endorsement.

 

I did some testing of the smuggler mechanic, and it seems you can build new outposts on disputed ports, keep storage, and even construct new resource buildings, but not collect from them.

 

With that mechanic in play, Port Loyalty could be undermined for the possessor of the port by players smuggling goods in and out in a lawless fashion. As money is spent by a different nation through smuggling, eventually the port could flip as it's loyalty swings towards economic interests.

 

That smuggler tag could be just the thing a nation on it's heels needs to hold onto a port/area without military might, constantly fighting an economic insurrection as it were.

 

Enemies wishing to stop such activities would need to patrol the local waters and intercept smugglers and cargo.

 

Seems like a decent addition of depth and fun to me.

 

I am beginning to see less and less need for free ports, and with the direction of production being stopped in free ports altogether, smuggling has far more utility than free ports do.

 

If deliveries were handled by AI to any port rather than deliveries restricted to free ports, smuggling, with your manufacturing based in your capital, would be all you needed to bring a nation back from the brink.

Edited June 8, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Lytse Pier]

Very nice analysis Krackensmacken. I fully agree with you. Just add some risk vs reward mechanism into the AI deliveries and it's game-on!

[KrakkenSmacken]

So with the recent bump of this thread, I'm going to put on the record that I think the current stated implementation of "Hostility" planed by the developers is simply a reversal of this terminology, and the described mechanic is almost identical, with one thing missing.

 

That being a clear statement that outposts, buildings, shortages and other economic factors create a variance in how fast hostility can be raised.  More buildings, harder to raise to port battle levels, starvation of resources, easier. 

 

Other than those missing parts, I support the new model, although I think the word "Hostility" is a not exactly the correct term for something that is increased the more you are attacked, as the word is something that describes a build up of aggression, rather than a loss weakening of resolve to defend a position.

 

Loyalty or moral is still a better word for it if you ask me, but hostility is simpler to understand given that loyalty or moral could technically be at 100% in a port that simply does not have the resources to defend itself.  The fact is no single word I can think of really encompasses the idea that after repeated attacks and setbacks, that a town would succumb to aggression. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Lytse Pier]

Indeed Krakken.

When I continue to use your observation of hostility being the reversed implementation of the loyalty suggestions in this thread, I can safely say also that a decay of loyalty is not possible anymore.

We will get a system of once conquered through hostility remains conquered and not a system of once conquered remains conquered through hostility. (Yes, read this one at least twice and slowly).

This will leave parts of the map totally the same when it gets no player conquest attention from enemies and leaves a dead map, instead of a vibrant and living one that needs continuous player attention.

So, seemingly the same, but totally different and in my eyes a wrong design decision, however I am hoping to be totally wrong and to get pleasantly surprised. ;-)

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lytse Pier