German Moral gains broken or is this BS by "design"?

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, I'm not happy with the Tarhunnas game, this is true, but I don't think the problem with it has anything to do with this. (If it is a problem. I want to see more 1.05 games played to this point, the Tarhunnas game has been so heavily patched it's difficult to read much into it.)

If pressed, I suspect the Soviet NM for the late war is too high. (I also think it is too low in 42.) But even that's not the central problem with a late war Soviet runaway. Retreat losses may just be too high, and grinding is too good. So this can promote runaways by one or the other side.

But you're barking up the wrong tree with this morale business. It's working as designed and is not promoting Soviet wins particularly. If anything, a really good German player who gets the morale system can trash the Sovs with it and force them into all sorts of expedients to keep Soviet morale from crashing. James is a pro at this. That's what grinding is all about, seizing the initiative and never letting the other guy recover his balance. The morale mechanic in this game tends to lend itself to vicious feedback loops. This is perhaps a flaw in it, but it's not either a pro Soviet or pro German flaw. It is a part of the systemic offensive bias of the game in general. Optempo is very high for this and many other reasons.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, I'm not happy with the Tarhunnas game, this is true, but I don't think the problem with it has anything to do with this. (If it is a problem. I want to see more 1.05 games played to this point, the Tarhunnas game has been so heavily patched it's difficult to read much into it.)

If pressed, I suspect the Soviet NM for the late war is too high. (I also think it is too low in 42.) But even that's not the central problem with a late war Soviet runaway. Retreat losses may just be too high, and grinding is too good. So this can promote runaways by one or the other side.

But you're barking up the wrong tree with this morale business. It's working as designed and is not promoting Soviet wins particularly. If anything, a really good German player who gets the morale system can trash the Sovs with it and force them into all sorts of expedients to keep Soviet morale from crashing. James is a pro at this. That's what grinding is all about, seizing the initiative and never letting the other guy recover his balance. The morale mechanic in this game tends to lend itself to vicious feedback loops. This is perhaps a flaw in it, but it's not either a pro Soviet or pro German flaw. It is a part of the systemic offensive bias of the game in general. Optempo is very high for this and many other reasons.

I do not think I am barking up the wrong tree, but I do respect your option. Generally you are right and you do have an open mind and are willing to take a 2nd look at issues.

I think NM is a big part of the late war issues, but retreat losses as you have pointed out could be the main issue.

I will let this die as I can see you guys are looking into it.

Thanks for your input.

Pelton

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Helio, this is one Pelton hobby horse you're well advised to not join in on.

What do you care with whom I join?

I am on the verge of being able to prove that 99% of you are fundamentally wrong about the probabilistic distribution of national morale increase/decrease between Germany and the Soviet Union, but no one will tell me a formula.

Until someone tells me the formula, I interpret the secrecy as evidence of something to hide.

That people such as yourself are defending a secret mechanic and arguing a specific position in the absence of the most meaningful factual data (i.e., the formula) leads me to believe you do not have the same level of commitment to open discussion that I do have.

If you do not have the same commitment to open discussion, AND you're discouraging me from entering a discussion, you share cognitive and emotional characteristics with certain tyrants and would-be tyrants. I despise tyranny.

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Heliodorus04, cher ami,

I consider French to be the bastard of the Latin cognates, utterly vulgarized by weak-minded Gauls who could not understand nor re-imagine the thought processes of their betters, and so they just glossed over their incompetence in pronunciation with accent marks. To refer to me thusly assumes a familiarity that you have not earned, and you are not welcome to call me 'friend' in any language.

ORIGINAL: Marquo
quotes will not change the fact that distortions and twisted logic can't change the fact that morale is not broken.

The game is broken, unless you have low standards of competitiveness.

Morale is one of the chief reasons the game is broken and anti-competitive.
That you don't understand it is to this point a factor of limited imagination and concealed (by Matrix) factual data (i.e., the formula).

I have tried to explain to the community that the arbitrarily set NM levels for Germany pull it down to uncompetitiveness almost completely irrespective of on-map performance in the most important theater of the war (I bring this up because presumably national morale would be preserved when one saves preserves resources and manpower and achieves a higher performance level than did Germany historically.

ORIGINAL: Marquo
And sometimes, vendors do not reveal all that is "beneath the hood."

Regarding this, my point is not that I necessarily know something. I believe I have a statistical trend that I can point to, but I cannot create a fully functioning model with incomplete data. I need the morale change formula to determine if my analysis is factually accurate and materially significant. (It should be emphasized that I am certain this mechanic is materially significant). Absent the formula, I can prove nothing.

Absent the formula, no one else can prove anything (relative to my position that it's the probabilistic distribution that is punishing Germany based on the formula, as I once believe I saw it written down).

In this particular thread, my point is only that there is a near-unanimous consensus that nothing is aberrant with national morale, and anyone who questions its implementation (especially Pelton) should be branded a charlatan who is only here to stir trouble and impugn others based only on emotion.

If one looks at the quote you posted, it is rather apparent that you have not taken it to heart yourself, because you are asserting through the white teeth of bias in your own mouth that nothing need be re-examined, when I have proven that we do not have enough facts to make a mathematical determination of the consequence of the morale system.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
But you're barking up the wrong tree with this morale business. It's working as designed and is not promoting Soviet wins particularly.

Did anyone ever tell you that 'particularly' is an exceptionally weak adjective?

Of course, nothing 'particularly' is causing Soviet wins. It is death by a thousand shitty design decisions that obviate the need for Soviets to actually play the game with any consideration to strategic limitations. The Soviet side has no meaningful strategic limits.

National morale contributes to this
Rail cap contributes to this
The one-sided nature of creating your own units contributes to this
The hindsight advantage differential between German and Soviet contributes to this
The free divisions for 20 turns contributes to this
The super-efficient administrative advantages of Soviet divisional transfer contributes to this
The fact that ZOCs are equal whether one is a 45,000 man corps or a 1,500 man tank brigade contributes to this
The superiority of Soviet Air forces relative to history contributes to this
etc., etc.

What I am telling you in the community is that if you tweak the national morale system so that Germany has even 1/3rd (predicted based on my analysis thusfar) the chance of national morale increases that the Soviet Union has, the game will play much more competitively from 1941 to 1945: it is one of the two chief ways to improve the game without seriously requiring re-coding. You simply adjust formulae.

The other issue is the prohibitively expensive cost of moving divisions for Germany relative to the Soviet Union: fix these two, and Germany can finally deal with what Marquo arrogantly calls "bad play."

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
If anything, a really good German player who gets the morale system can trash the Sovs with it and force them into all sorts of expedients to keep Soviet morale from crashing.

I am asserting that you 'misunderestimate' the problem with increasing national morale in an arbitrarily decreasing national morale setting.

Finally:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Helio: what formula?

This is what I remember the national morale level being changed TO in the 1.04 series patch. I cannot assert that it is valid, nor that the formula I am remembering is for National Morale or even from WitE. I'm looking for confirmation of it.

As I recall, the chance for a national morale change increase was:

Random(75) must be less than 75-(National Morale - Current Unit Morale).

Again, without saying that this is the formula, I don't want to impugn the formula. But if this formula were applied to national morale changes, it would be virtually impossible (indeed probabilistically impossible but leadership rolls can have an impact that is always going to be unquantifiable) for a unit over 75 morale to gain a point, and it becomes exponentially more difficult to gain a point of morale (in this completely unverified formula) the closer one is to one's national morale.

Further:
I don't recall if the formula for morale loss (when Held result is experienced) is the same formula (with 'less than' changed to 'greater than') but if it is, then one can see the inverse probability of morale loss the higher one is to NM levels and (independently) 75 unit morale.

Further:
The fact that a retreat will ALWAYS force a morale hit continues to create permanent downward effect, accelerating the issue of Regression to the Mean.

It's obvious that German National Morale uses the principal of Regression to the Mean to shave off German combat performance capability over time.

What I'm telling the community is that this drain on German combat performance is superfluous given the myriad other factors that are already accentuating Soviet combat performance (see above list directed to the Flavius quote), strategic capabilities, and Germany's overall inability to keep up with the production and manpower performance of the Soviet Union.

War in the East degrades German combat performance far more than it should if it were intending to place players on equal footing in a strategy game in which player actions determine outcomes.

Right now, German outcomes are primarily determined by where Germany is on a time-scale between Turn 1 and whatever turn January 1943 is on. The further to the right Germany is on that timeline, the more likely one is able to predict German combat power (i.e., OOB data) successfully.

I'm of the opinion that German combat power should be predicated on German mistakes/Soviet successes.

That is not the game you have. You currently have a game that obviates implications and consequences of German successes/Soviet failures, where artifice switches the initiative from Germany to Soviet Union, and where mechanic creates the conditions upon which the Soviet Union can successfully counter-attack toward the frontiers, rather than German failures/Soviet successes creating those conditions.

If you are unable to consider what I have said herein, if I have not made a cogent expression of my complaint with WitE, then I am at a point where I must conclude I am unable to communicate with you successfully.

If you are content playing the game as it now sits given this artifice that modifies Germany until the Soviet Union has the capability handed directly to it to attack Germany, then I should not be here trying to make the game better, because you are happy with what I consider unacceptable under any circumstance.

[mmarquo]

"I consider French to be the bastard of the Latin cognates, utterly vulgarized by weak-minded Gauls who could not understand nor re-imagine the thought processes of their betters, and so they just glossed over their incompetence in pronunciation with accent marks. To refer to me thusly assumes a familiarity that you have not earned, and you are not welcome to call me 'friend' in any language."

I will not respond in kind out of respect for others who gather at this forum with expectation other than to read such venomous posts. [:-]

The Gauls earned the right to speak however they chose on the battlefield. My use of the phrase, "cher ami" was but a respectful tip of the hat in deference to how your online self tenaciously argues it's point of view on this forum. [:)]

Sadly the forum seems at times more like a battlefield rather than a common meeting ground where those with a common interest meet to have a collegial, friendly exchange of points of view. [:@]

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I consider French to be the bastard of the Latin cognates, utterly vulgarized by weak-minded Gauls who could not understand nor re-imagine the thought processes of their betters, and so they just glossed over their incompetence in pronunciation with accent marks.

As native Spanish-speaker and adoptive Catalan-speaker I consider myself doubly insulted by this remark towards a fellow Romance language, which I have to assume that is also directed towards my own linguistic heritage (which includes our "incompetent" accent marks).

[Mentor]

I stopped reading the post at this point. Was anything useful contributed?

I think someone needs to read his own signature on "respect".

Is there an ignore feature on this forum? I can't seem to find one. There are several trolls here who contribute nothing of value and merely waste my time.

[Flaviusx]

English speakers are perhaps not in the best position to accuse other languages of bastardy. French is practically a purebred in comparison. English is a mutt of a language, grammatically illogical, idiosyncratic, wildly promiscuous in its borrowing, erratic in its spelling and only occasionally phonetic in pronounciation. It's a pain in the ass to learn.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Mentor

Is there an ignore feature on this forum?

Green button behind the email - pm - buddy buttons me thinks


Terje

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

...I am on the verge of being able to prove that 99% of you are fundamentally wrong about the probabilistic distribution of national morale increase/decrease between Germany and the Soviet Union, but no one will tell me a formula.

Until someone tells me the formula, I interpret the secrecy as evidence of something to hide....

Neither the testers nor Matrix know all the forumlas. You can misinterpret that however you like. Just don't forget your tin foil hat!

[Baelfiin]

Reading posts from helio is almost entertaining.

You can boil all his flowery babble into " Its broken, but the evil devs wont give me the information I need to prove it"
I am pretty sure this is the same helio who very recently was asking for advice in the blizzard because it was the first time he had ever played the game that far.
Helio did you not know that the devs can manipulate game values on the fly while you are playing? You might need more than a tin foil hat sir!!!

[Mentor]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Mentor

Is there an ignore feature on this forum?

Green button behind the email - pm - buddy buttons me thinks


Terje

Most outstanding!

You are a gentleman and a scholar, Sir.

[Naughteous Maximus]

I'm going to agree with Pelton on this. I had 24 German divisions including some elites destroyed in the '41 blizzard and except for the elites, none of them have even come close to NM of 70. It is the summer of '43 and my morale for my destroyed and rebuilt infantry divisions has not risen out of the 50's range. Has there morale risen, YES, but not to 60 or beyond. My destroyed panzer divisions reached mid-60's and no higher in morale and its been over a year and a half since they had been destroyed. I've tried everything to raise their morale, from rebuilding in Germany for several months to frontline combat and nothing works. I get the impression that once a unit is destroyed and reconstituted, it will never be as strong as the original. I find this troubling since the Germans did manage to rebuild some destroyed units into pristine fighting units late in the war.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus
I'm going to agree with Pelton on this.

On this?

ORIGINAL: Pelton
"So german nation moral is 50. As we know and has been stated German units do not gain moral by sitting higher then 50."

Or on this?

The German's National Morale in 1942 is 70, so units that are already over the NM should have a reduced chance of gaining morale through battles. As the unit is an infantry division, it gets no boosts beyond the NM level, and unless it's getting lucky morale rolls from its chain of command, you shouldn't see much, if any, of a morale increase

Because this second one is from Jamian



As I have understood the thread

a) Just by training, a German Division can raise its morale above 50, but that will be more and more difficult as it goes near the Nation Morale Level

b) By winning battles, a Division can raise its morale even further, but once it surpasses the National Morale Level, it becomes more and more difficult to gain additional morale points.

The difference between Axis and Soviet is that National Moral is higher for the Axis (hardly a disadvantage!)

I would not categorize this summary as "Pelton's position", but of course I could have missed something.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus

I'm going to agree with Pelton on this. I had 24 German divisions including some elites destroyed in the '41 blizzard and except for the elites, none of them have even come close to NM of 70. It is the summer of '43 and my morale for my destroyed and rebuilt infantry divisions has not risen out of the 50's range. Has there morale risen, YES, but not to 60 or beyond. My destroyed panzer divisions reached mid-60's and no higher in morale and its been over a year and a half since they had been destroyed. I've tried everything to raise their morale, from rebuilding in Germany for several months to frontline combat and nothing works. I get the impression that once a unit is destroyed and reconstituted, it will never be as strong as the original. I find this troubling since the Germans did manage to rebuild some destroyed units into pristine fighting units late in the war.

1. There is a soft cap on German national moral which starts at 50 and caps at 60. This moral gain is from resting/refitting/ insupply.
2. There is also a combat soft cap that starts at the NM level and a hard cap which is 5pts above the NM level.

You are now the 4th person to conferm this. Data is a good thing.

I beleive from what Flaviusx has said that 2 by 3 is at least looking into this issue because its tied into the late war runaways.

heliodorus04 really hit the nail on the head as far as the NM issue goes. I do not agree with his personal opions on different poeple's ect

Having said that, Helio is right about the game is not based on how good or bad the german or russian player is doing. It is based almost totally on where Germany is on a time-scale between Turn 1 and whatever turn January 1943 is on. The further to the right Germany is on that timeline, the more likely one is able to predict German combat power (i.e., OOB data) successfully. It's obvious that German National Morale uses the principal of Regression to the Mean to shave off German combat performance capability over time.

As Tarhunnas has found out no matter how much better then historical he has done, because the game is based on a time line and not the players preformances one can easly predict how and when the game will end as I did in Tarhunnases game many turns ago. Most if not all thought I was 100% wrong, but even with a hot patch from 2 by 3 I look to be proven right.

The NM issue is not different then 1v1=2v1, if one simply did the math you could easly figure out what would happen and when.

WitE is still based on a time line and not whats going on in game.

As many a Red fanboy says the eastern front was the war.

If the eastern front is the war and Tarhunnas was doing far far better then historical then WHY is german moral forsed down if they are kicking ass?

NM is one of several issues causing the game to end before historical May 45 even when the german player is doing far better then historical.

If you look at my game vs Kamil and Tarhunnas vs Gids the end result will be the same, but the fact of the matter is Tarhunnas did far better then me historical, but because wite is based on a time line and not what is going on in game he is punished for his skills.

krupp_88mm "i agree pelton hardcaps are just plain silly"
Flaviusx "It's not a "hard" cap, it is a soft one."
Flaviusx " The infantry division in this example could have gotten some morale gains if it were lucky (and that's the only way it could get them as it was over cap.)" 0 for 5 thats really unlucky, heheh
JAMiAM " As the unit is an infantry division, it gets no boosts beyond the NM level, and unless it's getting lucky morale rolls from its chain of command, you shouldn't see much, if any, of a morale increase."
JAMiAM " Actually, your screenshots show that the morale aspect of the game is working as designed."
Q-Ball "The Germans, on the other hand, if they are in the 60s in Morale after Blizzard, don't really gain it back. There is a die roll to make Morale gains, but you have to get very lucky to gain even a point through rest, once you are in the 60s."
Kamil " I have to say, that at the moment I see only one way national morale influences actual morale of units - keeps them from getting too high above fixed value. I agree with Pelton, that otherwise its impact is next to 0. "
Joel Billings " Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this)."
Q-Ball " You are also right I think on the down-side; units above National Morale always lose morale when they lose a combat. Units under it, do not necessarily. This also means that no matter how you baby the Wehrmacht infantry, it is bound to lose Morale over the long-haul. Slowly, but that's as it should be, as it's ground into dust.That is probably the real point of national morale"
Naughteous Maximus "I'm going to agree with Pelton on this."
Flaviusx "If pressed, I suspect the Soviet NM for the late war is too high. (I also think it is too low in 42.) "
Pelton "I will add I have to agree on the early war NM levels for russians."


As Q-ball imply's lowering national moral levels for the German makes sure it will get ground into the dust.

This is by design and not because of good or bad game play, but as Flaviusx has stated the late war issue is being looked at.

I am guessing as long as poeple keep coming forward with data then 2 by 3 will have a look at it.

The forums as with most games is a battle ground of ideas and issues.

Pelton

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

English speakers are perhaps not in the best position to accuse other languages of bastardy. French is practically a purebred in comparison. English is a mutt of a language, grammatically illogical, idiosyncratic, wildly promiscuous in its borrowing, erratic in its spelling and only occasionally phonetic in pronounciation. It's a pain in the ass to learn.

Indeed, European languages tend to get more screwy the further north one goes, with the exception of Basque, which is the only language that I know of that has more irregular verbs than English. English is, above all other languages, the result of dumb grub-eating medieval Englishmen who could not protect their shores from neither Roman, Viking, nor Saxon.

No language butchered Latin more than English, though most of its Latin inheritance from the time of Hadrian was pushed out by later Germanic influence and French influence. The worst of the English torture of Latin occurred after the Renaissance when the practitioners in the field of law and medicine imported Latin for their purposes in the 16th to 19th century without ever having bothered to understand Latin at its core (it's a very beautiful language, with amazing consistency, if not necessarily efficiency).

My discussion of the French notwithstanding, I find it consistent with this biased, Soviet-gameplay loving community that it is my tone, not my content, that people are ignoring me for.

None of you has the facts that you claim to have, and I have pointed this out. All of us are naked emperors without supporting data, but it is *I* who is vilified by you. Fine - the ONLY reason I continue to post in the forums is that there are a number of people who have spoken to me privately asking me not to give up the fight to improve German gameplay. I don't have much energy left for it. Whether or not you yet see that I am correct, you eventually will, as happened before with my tirades over fortification in 1.04. Whether or not I am still playing WitE when this denouement (oh, Helio knows how to use FRENCH!) is achieved is immaterial to me.

To quote again, I'm very fond of this line from The Thin Red Line:

It is not necessary for you to tell me that you think I'm right; we'll assume it.

None of you has the ability to speak with veracity about national morale, yet you will continually argue that whomever argues in favor of German liberation from these hard-coded cages that such individuals aren't as smart as you, don't play the game as well as you, or don't understand game design. I probably am the embodiment of the antithesis of these stereotypical views, and I am the greatest threat to Soviet players who have bought into the deception that winning as the Soviet implies the player is competent and cogent. The Soviet side is a facile task with victory achievable even when first-time players battle experienced German players.

I stand by what I said to Marquo: You are not my friend, and I resent you trying to act as though you respect me. As far as I can tell, I have precious little of that from anyone, not because I string together polemics, though this is what the more successful arguments attacking me are focusing on (human beings are more easily pursuaded based on emotional appeals rather than intellectual appeals).

It is because I am unrelenting in my argument that Soviet gameplay success has nothing to do with German defeat, but rather, contrived, hard-coded mechanics degrade German combat performance UNTIL the Soviet Union can beat Germany on the battlefield. And it is because I threaten the amalgamation of Soviet-preferred players that they are not as good as they think they are, that their wins against inexperienced German opponents were achieved because one side's game is really, really difficult while the other side's is ultra-simplistic. I remind you with factual analysis, if not hard mathematical data, that the game is worse than you imagine in terms of realism. I enjoy the moments when I can hoist you on your own petards of the inconsistencies in realism in this game, and I call you hypocrites when you fail to register the proper outrage at ahistoric mechanics like brigades having the same ZOC impact as corps, and Soviet superiority in admin efficiency. I attack insipid, fallow-minded arguments whenever I encounter them, and the vast majority of defenses of Soviet gameplay are insipid and/or fallow-minded, and prima facie, can be seen to be simplistic, one-dimensional attempts to get this critic to shut up.

Playing Germany is to be the animal in a caged hunt, with no ability to affect your outcome yourself.

Finally, there is the lasting point that the morale change formula is being withheld by the developers and publishers, and this speaks directly to what they do not want you to know.

If you presume that they wish to conceal this formula from players because it is proprietary and competition-sensitive, you are too easily lead. Indeed, no one has had any comment about my repeated requests, nor has anyone commented on the formula I think I recall from the pertinent patch: it is as though no one wants to address the material issue. Could it be that I'm right, and sharing data will prove this?

Continued personal attacks against me do nothing to resolve the discussion, but instead attack the motives and reputation of the speaker. This is classic ad hominem deflection designed to make people forget about the message by impugning the messenger until he has no authority left with which to pursuade.

If Flavius or Joel Billings or Helpless or ComradeP or Q-ball or a wide variety of people who I do think are more or less honest actors were to request that I stop posting on WitE message boards, I would leave today without complaint and in humble silence.

If I am the a$$hole you seem to think I am, persuade them to ask me, and you won't have to trouble with me again.

[KenchiSulla]

I love the smell of drama in the morning....

You guys need a hobby...

O... wait

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

English speakers are perhaps not in the best position to accuse other languages of bastardy. French is practically a purebred in comparison. English is a mutt of a language, grammatically illogical, idiosyncratic, wildly promiscuous in its borrowing, erratic in its spelling and only occasionally phonetic in pronounciation. It's a pain in the ass to learn.

As a native English speaker, I agree.

Just look at the word read for example. Pronounced two different ways depending on use. And one way is pronounced the same as the color red. Or the other as the word reed.

[Schattensand]

Pelton,
you deplete your mobile forces in 41,
you even more devastate your truck forces all along the play,
you don't give a f.... damm saveguarding your backyard,
your blizzard defence is not existing or outdated,

and yet you had success with this concept as long as the foe gave up and surrendered to your attack skills, sometimes too early.

What can you expect to a achive in 42+++, if the foe is only persistant, tenacious and not doing you this favour.

It is the difference in moral that counts and that is still existing in 42.
And it is totally in your own hands to deny the enemy high winter moral gains.

This is from a very german native guy, who is in many accounts not as german as you are.

[Peltonx]

Cannonfodder

I love the smell of drama in the morning....

You would know Mrs. Drama Queen

Try the Red dress there is a stain on the blue one [X(]


ORIGINAL: Schattensand

Pelton,
you deplete your mobile forces in 41

,
Which is historical and by the way if you check what the tanks are Mk 1 and Mk 2's they are usless anyways. So if you know your stuff, you should try to get some wheres below 1200. If you don't then you did not use your forses to the max. At no time during the war will killing reds be so easy.

you even more devastate your truck forces all along the play,

Which means nothing as far as I or anyone esle can tell other then a number. They very quickly recover and with static mode in 42 you will have more trucks then needed, again if you know your stuff.

you don't give a f.... damm saveguarding your backyard,

Which in 19 games only once has a rail net been cut when it matters, by early 1942 almost all the rail hexes are converted.
The key is you need to let them play where it doen't matter during 1941.

your blizzard defence is not existing or outdated,

Only 1 player has done anything to speak of during the blizzard and thats TDV. None of the other good Russian players did much damage during the blizzard. 1.05 limited the blizzard effects to a moral drain and thats about it, by the summer of 1942 all german units moral is back to the NM level.

and yet you had success with this concept as long as the foe gave up and surrendered to your attack skills, sometimes too early.

Very true in 50% of the cases as I have stated in the past more then once. Most times the game is tied to the moral time line and no matter the skills of the players the game is set on a corse that can be easly figured out as per Tarhunnas vs Gids and Pelton vs Kamil.

What can you expect to a achive in 42+++, if the foe is only persistant, tenacious and not doing you this favour.

Again as per the data on this thread by more then one person and many AAR's the game has little to do with skills and more to do with the NM time line.

It is the difference in moral that counts and that is still existing in 42.
And it is totally in your own hands to deny the enemy high winter moral gains.
This is from a very german native guy, who is in many accounts not as german as you are.

As per Q-balls statement in 42 there is very little difference between the 2 armys because of the soft and hard caps. 50 and 60, 70 and 75.
It is not in anyone hands it is hard coded into the game, check the rule book hehehe not to hard to figure that out.
yes you are naive, but you will learn the hard way as everyone does.

krupp_88mm "i agree pelton hardcaps are just plain silly"
Flaviusx "It's not a "hard" cap, it is a soft one."
Flaviusx " The infantry division in this example could have gotten some morale gains if it were lucky (and that's the only way it could get them as it was over cap.)" 0 for 5 thats really unlucky, heheh
JAMiAM " As the unit is an infantry division, it gets no boosts beyond the NM level, and unless it's getting lucky morale rolls from its chain of command, you shouldn't see much, if any, of a morale increase."
JAMiAM " Actually, your screenshots show that the morale aspect of the game is working as designed."
Q-Ball "The Germans, on the other hand, if they are in the 60s in Morale after Blizzard, don't really gain it back. There is a die roll to make Morale gains, but you have to get very lucky to gain even a point through rest, once you are in the 60s."
Kamil " I have to say, that at the moment I see only one way national morale influences actual morale of units - keeps them from getting too high above fixed value. I agree with Pelton, that otherwise its impact is next to 0. "
Joel Billings " Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this)."
Q-Ball " You are also right I think on the down-side; units above National Morale always lose morale when they lose a combat. Units under it, do not necessarily. This also means that no matter how you baby the Wehrmacht infantry, it is bound to lose Morale over the long-haul. Slowly, but that's as it should be, as it's ground into dust.That is probably the real point of national morale"
Naughteous Maximus "I'm going to agree with Pelton on this."
Flaviusx "If pressed, I suspect the Soviet NM for the late war is too high. (I also think it is too low in 42.) "
Pelton "I will add I have to agree on the early war NM levels for russians."


As Q-ball imply's lowering national moral levels for the German makes sure it will get ground into the dust.

Pelton

[Schattensand]

Nice this one with native and naive.
About depleting tank force your right, Panzer 2 and 3 dont mean a lot in the later play but TOE means a lot.
If your divisision is made of tigers and panthers only and the TOE is down to 20 it is still a weak force.
That you play in in a lot of ways very historically does not not mean that your flag will prevail in the end.
You have to play far better than historically to win here.
If your foe is not giving a lot of attention to partisans simply shows that he too did not get an important part of the game.
Nevertheless you are superman and to a great deal beratungsresistent. What to do, at least you are on the right side.