Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3
ORIGINAL: Encircled
There isn't anything close to this as a computer game that fights the Eastern Front. Just enjoy playing it.
ORIGINAL: Gandalf
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: RCH
Production is not my biggest concern. The number one concern is moral. Moral increases or decreases should be dependent on lost or gained cities and not predetermined. This is clear bias. Not accusations no insults just a plain fact. That system is indefensible. How important is moral in this game?
As has been explained a few times by those who know, national morale is actually a proficiency rating. It has nothing what so ever to do with territory or cities won or lost.
OK, for the sake of argument, let's agree that National morale is a proficiency rating... What affects German proficiency over time? Obviously, it's the steady wear and tear of the war effort over the period depicted assuming the West Front conditions proceed historically with an abstracted allied war effort which includes strategic bombing. Now, we return to this game and the East Front itself. What effects Soviet proficiency or better stated, the limitation of it's improvement within the game system? Absolutely nothing. No matter what the German player accomplishes he cannot really affect the Soviet proficiency AND he cannot alter his own production to compensate for his own decreasing proficiency whereas the Soviet player can alter his production priorities as he sees fit knowing his proficiency is going to increase year over year even if he loses a heck of a lot more cities/territory than happened historically.
ORIGINAL: el hefe
In my opinion, national morale for the German represents both the decreasing quality of replacements due to the need of short cutting training to get the maximum number of replacements into units and the the gradually losing of the cream of your soldiers through sustained fighting. The Germans are at the peak of combat efficiency when Barbarossa begins and the only place to go is down. The Soviets are almost at the floor in terms of combat efficiency and they can only improve.
ORIGINAL: darbymcd
I would also add that the hysterical and ill-defined complaints are not without broader impacts. I know 3 people in just my little wargame circle that have not bought this game because they got the impression from the forum that it was broken. I pointed out that it is basically just the same 2-3 people with a small chorus of supporters who just repeat the whine of the day, but the number of threads that get spammed about percieved problems in the game have put them off.
For sure there are some good points made by these folks occasionally, but for the most part the complaints are just that Germany can't win in the way they think they should. There is a lack of historical operational knowledge and most damning a lack of testing. Really at this point there should be more playing and less complaining. It is the same process that WitP went through, but there the community worked to weed out cancerous forum members as well as game-play bugs. There are people with expectations about this game that will not be met, for instance Heliodorus. It is at heart an historical game, which means the Germans are screwed. It takes a Soviet player as incompetant as Stalin to give you the game you would want.
So lets focus on mechanics that need some work, such as aspects of the air war, high ROF weapons, etc and do it with some meaningful testing and respectful comments in a collegial atmosphere. Heliodorus, you think the game is a way for the game designers to become fabulously wealthy at your expense, that is your right. Please feel free to leave the forum and be bitter. Pelton, you think the game designers are a bunch of rednecks who don't appreciate the awesome magesty that was the Wehrmact, ok, you should move on to greener pastures. Otherwise, why dont you make more constructive input.
ORIGINAL: darbymcd
This is just my opinion on National Morale and why it makes sense for the Germans to consistantly be a bit ahead. For me, it really represents the tactical level proficiency of a formation. If you look at the level it is applied at, the manuever element, it seems to me that it really reflects the general effectiveness of the NCO and junior/unit level officers and the military culture to maximize that effectiveness. Most players focus on the difference in generalship between the armies, but in my opinion it was at the small unit leader level where the German army most consistantly had its advantage. Not only better leaders, but a doctrine that allowed those leaders to operationalize their initiative and insight into battlefield results. The red army had, by war's end, an effective NCO cadre and capable junior officers, but even then was rigid in its small unit doctrine which did not allow them the same latitude for tactical problem solving that the German army had. Because I see NM as representing this, I think it makes sense that the Germans have a higher default level. But like I said, it is something of a mishmash concept
ORIGINAL: alfonso
Why do the Germans have a high proficiency (NationalMorale=75) in June 1941? In theory, because they were battle-hardened veterans. Back in 1938 the German Army performed rather poorly during Otto, the military walk into Austria, and in November 1939, after the Polish campaign, von Brauchitsch wrote a memorandum to Hitler explaining the shortcomings in the performance of the German Army.We can deduce that their improvement was indeed due mostly to their battle experience, and not training alone. After Poland there were campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Low Countries, France , Yugoslavia. None of those campaigns were really long, or incredibly difficult, but supposedly the Germans acquired in the process the summit of military perfection.
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
In fact look at the advance in the AGS during Barbarossa. Here NO panzers to really create a big mess [;)]
German infantry vs Red Army... we all know the advance here was much MORE difficult... and again, Panzers were called (from the AGC) to do -again- the job: Kiev pocket...
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
In fact look at the advance in the AGS during Barbarossa. Here NO panzers to really create a big mess [;)]
German infantry vs Red Army... we all know the advance here was much MORE difficult... and again, Panzers were called (from the AGC) to do -again- the job: Kiev pocket...
Don't forget thst they also faced the strongest Russian concentrations.
