Fleet Efficiency

I agree with @Hala’s sentiment. It seems if we try to figure out how to replicate morale’s past effects, we’re taking a guess at what our goal will look like and shoehorning an experiment into what should be a well-designed piece of the game.

As it stands, the math is a black box. Even knowing what it does, it’s practically impossible to understand why it does it. Its purpose is not clear.

Going back to the basics: the goal is to prevent larger empires for totally destroying smaller empires through sheer size. I wonder if morale as a feature needs to be rethought and/or replaced with something else.

An alternative:

Fleet Efficiency Penalty (and Bonus?)

Empires start with 100% fleet efficiency. They can attack as much as they want, but incur an efficiency penalty that lowers their fleets effectiveness in battle. This is expressed as a penalty in the battle formula itself.

Battles between similarly sized empires will not incur much of this penalty, but massive empires that target smaller empires will incur this overhead due to mobilizing a larger military force than is necessary.

The rationale here is that coordinating a massive military campaign against a small target is a waste of your military’s resources, and incurs unnecessary logistical costs. Empires will suffer from choosing targets that are significantly smaller than they are, given that their military would be better used against more appropriate and worthy opponents.

This efficiency penalty requires a cool down period for your military to restore its balance. So, instead of having to wait to regain morale, empires can choose to wait for their efficiency penalty to wear off.

They can always ignore it and keep attacking, but given that the penalty is part of the battle formula itself, slamming smaller targets will at some point become prohibitively wasteful as units become increasingly inefficient and worse at combat.

In other words: continually fighting downward actually makes your military less skilled.

On the flip-side, fighting upward (repeatedly attacking larger empires) could actually give your fleet an efficiency bonus. The rationale is that with limited manpower, a military would out of necessity learn to be more resourceful and efficient. As you fight larger empires, your military becomes more skilled.

I’ve never been a fan of morale/fleet-readiness. It always felt like an attempt at a battle-fatigue feature that made sense as a concept but never really felt right. Moving this effect directly into the battle formula makes more sense to me than simply using morale to determine eligible targets.


Worth a try!

So the fleet eff factor would be included in defense as well? I.e. attacking smaller empires would result in being the big empire being more open yo attacks?

Yep, that’d be the case. It would be a good reason for players to not beat up on little guys.

That would be awesome… it would be good to have way to discourage the small attacker too, maybe have a function related to fam size and/or nw nd/or score

1 Like

Would getting attacked also impact the fleet efficiency penalty?

I’d say that regardless of your size of empire, getting attacked should help your fleet get stronger right? It’s like a real deal training :smiley:

i dont want to be a negative nu nu, but i cant help but feel that all this is fixed by limited attacks via a certain networth. it dosnt matter to be fighting inefficiently if you have the economy to back it up, so if you grow large enough that no empire can ever hurt you economically then your always going to beat the family with the smaller economy. simple as that.

i dont remember morale ever being an issue in the past, but i do remember net worth being the governing factor for wars. In fact having more morale was good as if your fighting someone the same size of you then its a fair fight.

going to drink more beer now, rant over.

1 Like

Networth limitations can be sidestepped by having a well-funded family; this is what has always made smaller attackers in large families so dangerous. It works decently in solo rounds, but in fam-based rounds it is exploitable.

This is indeed already true, and is not a good thing. A smaller family should have some chance of beating a larger family, even if they have to work for it. Right now it’s practically impossible, or at least prohibitively difficult.

Fleet efficiency would alleviate this by reducing the impact of economic advantages during war. No matter how much money a larger empire or family could throw at their fleet, they’d more quickly weaken themselves militarily if they focus on smaller empires, while also leaving them vulnerable to other empires regardless of size.

The end result, in theory, is that attacking smaller empires can still be profitable, but less so and with a stronger negative impact on your might compared to fighting like-sized opponents. It could deter farming via its effects on your plans, instead of just via a hard nw restriction limit on targets.

not saying the problem is going to be simple to fix, dont envy you pie ;p :smiley:

Yeah it’s gonna be tricky. That’s why your input is appreciated! :+1:

i think its a good thing to think in new ways, and i might be bit of topic here but when i initialy campaigned for the battle formula fix, it was to bring it back to how it used to be or atleast in terms of race attack bonus not working in defence etc. couse imo this game is great, it dosent need much changes only tweeking for it to run more smoothly :stuck_out_tongue: with big changes come new challanges and some case of butterfly effect that we have seen change the game allready in how its played with the free yama and public income ranking that was removed recently (thank God and Pie for that) :stuck_out_tongue:

imo there are 2 types of changes

  1. Not game changing changes, These being smaller tweeeks to enhance the game experience( visual, making operation more “easy” like not having to copy paste a battle report to save it, or send a Find target planet list to map. etc.

  2. Game changing changes, These being completly new features, that we dont know 100% how will effect the game and how its played. like Free yama, New ops.

To me it seems in the prosess of trying to make the game "run smoother, look better, make it easier to operate an empire etc, we thend to move from type 1 change to type 2.

For excample.

the free yama list (map feature) is to me full on game changing type 2 change, a complete game changer but could be implemented, as a “tweek” type 1, to maintain the stealth feel of the map, strategic element of hiding and so called fog of war. By giving a the FTP spell (p-list) the option of being shared with fam memebers in map with the push of a button or sent to spesific fam member.

what i am trying to say, please be carefull and i hope we can test these “type 2” changes on a test server before they are implemented into the game, couse normaly it seems the goal for the change is within the scope of a type 1 change, but end up being a type 2…

I dunno it this made any sence, :stuck_out_tongue:

I think I get the basic idea of what you are proposing @I_like_pie and am in favor of any attempt to fix this aspect of the game. If it is not already in the plan, I suggest that Fleet Efficiency also be rolled into the formulas deterring the success for casting spells and agent operations.

How does this only have TWO VOTES? Did @I_like_pie just make it a little too wordy and hard to understand. Well, here’s a quick recap:

TL;DR A complete revamping of attacking to fix morale issues. This may even rebalance the game for smaller empires that fall victim all too often to monster empires.

1 Like

Is this project to replace morale with fleet readiness still under way or has it been cancelled?

What will be the measure for “size”: NW or planets? Something else?

Additional info:
In a preceding thread the question was asked where the heck this morale formula originated?
If I recall correctly there was no morale in the 4 beta rounds. It was introduced in the first (non-beta) round, perhaps in the 2nd. Responsible for the original morale formula was Starstrike (who had quite a good math background and suggested it as a way to reduce “farming”) but I remember that he was utterly unsatisfied by the way “his” formula was actually introduced into the code and game and called it already then causing more pain than being a solution.

And basing the whole thing on planet count instead of NW was obviously a really horrible idea and led to a complete restructuring of how IC was/is played.


Altruist… ltns! hope your well.

I concur and confirm StarStrike originally posted in the mod forum about it… it was mutated greatly by mastermike due to how he had to code it… so, as written, it wasnt a match to StarStrike… The 1/(1-1^(n-1)) decline curve apparently was heavily burdensome on the processors back then… so instead of a true decline curve… it was whatever MM came up with…

I hated both and voiced that as loud as i could back then…

But i had no alternative then…

1 Like

To avoid confusion, this isn’t fleet readiness. FR was morale’s precursor.

The idea here for fleet efficiency as an entirely new feature is still planned though, yes.

It’s to be determined and will depend on testing before it goes live.

1 Like

Yes actually, it did.

Reading is hard.