SUGGESTION ON MORALE

[glvaca]

Ok, perhaps another idea to toss in the devs direction.

How about the following:
1. National morale starts at a certain preditermined point for 1941. German high, Russian average.
2. National morale can rize and fall depending on how the campaign evolves. This would be measured by how many combats are lost and won, but also by ownership of cities. The more cities the German player captures, the higher his morale will remain, or possibly even improve.
For the Russians, losing key objectives would hit their morale pretty strongly. For instance, losing Moscow/Leningrad for example. Running away, and hence losing a lot of cities would automatically reduce national morale.

This is just a raw idea, but the effects would be an additional reason for the Russian to fight AND would actually model the morale system in accordance with how the battle is actually evolving and reward the players who are doing well.

This seems to me like a much better system then fixed/scripted lowering/increasing of morale.

....

[Captain B]

Oh I whole heartedly agree...If I start 1942 with both Leningrad, Moscow, the Finns are released, and the casualties are within some predetermined standard, I believe the "national morale" should be better than historical values.

This would definitely enhance the game!

[CarnageINC]

This would be a great idea for any WitE 'Field Marshal Addition'.  Its probably not possible to change the hard code to enable this feature.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

This would be a great idea for any WitE 'Field Marshal Addition'.  Its probably not possible to change the hard code to enable this feature.

Glad you like it, with so few responses I was already giving up. But why would it be difficult? I'm guessing it's not really difficult to code. It will probably require some serious thinking about the possible effects but it would add so much to the game it would be a major factor in any planning.

Imagine losing Moscow as the Russians would set you back something like, just a thought, 5 morale AND would gain the Germans 5 morale (starting from national morale). Recapturing it would reverse this process. That would certainly add a very interesting element in the game.

IT would also be very historic, afterall, what gives soldiers the will to fight and hence keep morale up? Winning battles and success in the field? If so, capturing Moscow, the capital of the Soviet Union, was seen by the large majority of the soldiers as the ultimate strategic goal of Operation Barbarossa. Capturing it would have been a tremendous morale boost. And certainly a morale drain for the Russian soldiers.

There's a lot more for the designer/devs to play with in such a system and, again, would certainly be an alternative to the fixed/scripting of morale increases/lowering based on history rather then by what is happening in your game, your new laternative history.

[jaw]

As I've said in other topics, National Morale was a poor choice of terminology. It has nothing to do with the "morale" (willingness to fight) of the troops. It reflects the quality of the training including lessons learned from combat. Germany starts the game with high national morale to reflect their excellent training program and the experience of nearly two years of combat operations. The excessive casualites of the Eastern campaign slowly erodes German national morale as the training cycle is continually shorten and personel standards are reduce to provide replacements.

Non-finnish national morale is both lower than German and static not because they didn't want to fight but because they simply didn't make the investment in training. The Finns get an artificial benefit in that their national morale is held static at a high level to discourage the Soviet player from knocking them out of the War too early.

Under the most current version of the game, Soviet national morale actually falls for the first year to the War to reflect the devestating impact of the massive losses of experienced personel during Barbarossa and the winter counteroffensive. The Soviets had to do two things that negatively effected their army: send replacements into the field with very basic training and promote junior officers above the level they were adequately trained for. The result was an army that was progressively less efficient in 1941 and for much of 1942.

[glvaca]

Isn't quality and training abstracted in the EXPERIENCE of the ground elements in a unit?
And isn't the reason EXP can't get higher then the morale of a unit because morale (as in the motivation) is actually just that.
Why would a unit lose morale (in game) after an unsuccessfull combat and gain it after a successfull one. Allowing Experience to increase.

Hmmm, I don't really support your interpretation. I think it is exactly what it says it is. The belief of soldiers the war is going to be won and as such their willingness to die for the cause.

[daft]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Glad you like it, with so few responses I was already giving up. But why would it be difficult? I'm guessing it's not really difficult to code. It will probably require some serious thinking about the possible effects but it would add so much to the game it would be a major factor in any planning.

Nothing is ever hard to code in theory.

[Captain]

In the thread on the upcoming 1.05 changes, Joel Billings said the "national morale" level represents more the overall capabilities of the armed forces. As such, it should only really be affected by casualties. In the game, the Germans start out with very high quality troops, but as their units are bled white, they receive replacements of increasingly poorer quality, which is what happened in real life.

3) Changes to national morale levels. Basically Motorized, Cavalry and Mountain units will get varying amounts of higher national morale levels. This should especially help German units retain their higher morale and experience of their Motorized formations (Panzer and Motorized Divisions). Some other changes to national morale levels and replacement morale levels, most small for the Axis, but for the Soviets a major change to have their morale slightly higher at start in 41 but declining to reach a low in 42. It will then rise again and reach higher levels by late 43 then in the current game. We think this will better simulate what happened in the war as the Soviet losses added up and they found themselves with very poor armies in 42, but by the end of the war with much more efficient armies with better doctrine. Remember, morale as used here is not like morale in a Napoleonic game, it represents the training levels and doctrine capabilities of the countries more than reflecting the willingness of the soldiers to fight.

tm.asp?m=2883185#

[Flaviusx]

Bad idea. The nomenclature here is indeed confusing people as to what NM is about.

Substitute the phrase "proficiency rating" for it. Which has little or nothing to do with geographical objectives.

[PeeDeeAitch]

This thread on morale has lowered mine [:)]

Plus, all caps makes my eyes sad.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Bad idea. The nomenclature here is indeed confusing people as to what NM is about.

Substitute the phrase "proficiency rating" for it. Which has little or nothing to do with geographical objectives.

Well, I'm proved wrong in my interpretation by Captain. Such is life, you can't always be right (not even close), best to accept that fact and not pretend.

That does beg the question, isn't a part of the proficiency of soldiers their morale (as in morale as willingness to fight...)? It certainly was a major factor and concern during the real war. How is that refelcted in the game?

Or isn't it factored in?

Anyway, since morale is profiency and refelects reduced training levels and such, wouldn't it be a more elegant solution to:
1. Reflect training reduction by reducing the exp level with which new replacements arrive.
2. Measure the reduced proficiency by losses sustained instead of fixing it to certain dates regardless of what happens in the game? At least for the Germans.
3. It's certain that the Soviets improved their doctrine during the war. But does this also mean that the Germans doctrine decreased?

Anyway, bad idea or not, perhaps out of place under the morale heading, an advantage/disadvantage above and beyond what is currently modelled for losing key cities might be worthy of some sort of consideration. there was a good reason why Stalin remained in the Kremlin and didn't just go camping 500km behind the front. There is also a good reason why most countries surrender when their capital is lost.

Perhaps an increased attrition rate (more surrenders) for the Sovs, and less for the Germans? There are som many things you can do to make capturing Moscow mean something except manpower and industry (if not evaquated).

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Isn't quality and training abstracted in the EXPERIENCE of the ground elements in a unit?
.

It's not just "Training", as Flav says it's overall military proficiency.

Regardless of how "green" the recruits are, these are factors such as officer quality, general staff work, planning, institutional experience and memory, and quality of NCOs. The Wehrmacht scored very high in all of these, even as they were putting raw recruits into the line.

These are also factors that are not affected by the fortunes of war or capture of territory, but were rather impacted by losses of officers and NCO's at the front. More were created through combat to replace them, but the Wehrmacht experienced a slow degradation in this area, and this was the main cause of their slow loss of military proficiency as the war advanced. I don't think German "morale" really collapsed until the very end of the war.

Many have pointed out that Italian and Romanian troops often fought bravely, and it's unfair they have low "Morale". They did fight bravely, but the Italian and Romanian armies had numerous other problems which hindered efficiency; an office corps that advanced more on social status than merit; poor staff training; lousy communications arms; crappy logistical services.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Plus, all caps makes my eyes sad.

I'll keep that in mind [:)]

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Isn't quality and training abstracted in the EXPERIENCE of the ground elements in a unit?
And isn't the reason EXP can't get higher then the morale of a unit because morale (as in the motivation) is actually just that.
Why would a unit lose morale (in game) after an unsuccessfull combat and gain it after a successfull one. Allowing Experience to increase.

Hmmm, I don't really support your interpretation. I think it is exactly what it says it is. The belief of soldiers the war is going to be won and as such their willingness to die for the cause.

No, experience is the sum of both training and actual combat and that is the reason you can't train above your national morale. To get more experienced than your national morale you've got to fight.

I do agree with those who think overall casualties should somehow influence national morale changes but that idea has never gotten any traction with the designers. I presume their assumption is that if you do substantially better or worse than history with respect to losses you've either won or lost and it is time to start a new game.

[Uedel]

But still no matter how you Explain Morale, it is set in stone and doesnt reflect the way you fought the War. If u manage to keep the German Army in good Conditions and avoid the Bleeding you will still get punished like the historical outcome. So hard code bad choice........

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Uedel

But still no matter how you Explain Morale, it is set in stone and doesnt reflect the way you fought the War. If u manage to keep the German Army in good Conditions and avoid the Bleeding you will still get punished like the historical outcome. So hard code bad choice........

If you suffer lower losses then historical your units will end up with a higher overal "morale".. The only thing now affecting your units in a negative way is the influx of new (lower quality) recruits so I don't think you raise a valid point.

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Isn't quality and training abstracted in the EXPERIENCE of the ground elements in a unit?
And isn't the reason EXP can't get higher then the morale of a unit because morale (as in the motivation) is actually just that.
Why would a unit lose morale (in game) after an unsuccessfull combat and gain it after a successfull one. Allowing Experience to increase.

Units cannot train their elements higher than it's current morale, but losing battles can decrease the morale, without automatically decreasing the experience level of it's elements.