Soviet Morale issue on Eastern Front

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

While all these tests and huge discussions were going on, I heard from a couple of people via pm off forum, that this stratagem of knocking off one smallish country at a time, e.g. New Guinea, then Solomons, etc, etc or some combination, consecutively, and not at the same time..was the trick.

Yes, this seems the way to go. This buff is so powerful, that Germans troops have higher morale than soviets despite Soviet Winter event. Same for China - if it's somehow alive still, then it will get a final stab with prolonged morale buff for JP.

These effects seem quite powerful, this case from SC:WW1 seems to underline it.

Yes..it is. I do understand the rational of this mechanic, (The Luxembourg surrender helps the Germans possibly take Ypres..the third and usually last capital of Belgium)...but, I think the Soviet example pinned with Japanese methodical take downs in the SW Pacific shouldn't have such a high impact on the USSR's NM. Also, if anything, if the Japanese and USSR agree to a Non-Aggression Pact (NAP) around the same time period, you would think that would have a positive morale outcome for the Soviets.

When I did those two tests (Montenegro Gambit Test 1 and 2) featured on the SC-WW1 War Room forum, I down loaded multiple map images turn by turn. So did Bavre, my test partner. I looked at the NM reports repeatedly as did Bavre, but unfortunately, did not screen shoot and upload those.

I can say with high confidence though, that looking at those, coupled with checking the contending units..mirrors what seems to be the case with the Soviet morale hit in the winter of 41/42 right after the Japanese start consuming small Allied or neutral countries around the Pacific littoral. e.g. The Central Powers get back to back buffs from taking down Luxembourg, and then next turn Montenegro.

The Germans (whom many of thier corps are already experienced) and Austro-Hungarias have corps that jump temporarily to 124% morale and extremely high readiness as opposed to Russian corps that drop to 50%-60% morale..etc. Even if I sacked the crappy generals Russia had, it made little benefit. Having this go on for 4 turns or so was enough to permanently cripple Russia in that game (before the last two patches changing Russian dispositions and incoming unit placement helped greatly..but no change to the surrender buffs..which is fine for SC-WW1).

It seems like this can be the case here with the Soviets also concerning the global surrender buff mechanic. How hard it would be to localize the surrender buff I personally have no idea. I do like the mechanic...but imho, it needs to be moderated, especially in regards to the Soviets. I think it needs to be geographically and geopolitically moderated...so that, while the surrender of a neighbor or close ally should have an impact...having something like the loss to the Allies of New Guinea might greatly have an adverse impact the UK(Australia et al), it shouldn't be so pronounced on the Soviet Union.

All this might be complicated to improve...but maybe it would not. Food for thought though. This is already a most excellent game for sure, and while on the surface, it may look like beer and pretzels..it is actually quite deep if approached the way some of us hardcore grognards do. [8D]

[EarlyDoors]

I guess you guys are talking about this


7.29.3. Morale Bonuses and Penalties
There are two additional morale effects in the game. When a country surrenders there is a unit morale bonus for all units of the conquering country as well as for all similarly aligned fully active Majors, and a corresponding morale decrease for all fully active opponent Majors. These morale gains or losses are 20-30% for land and air units and 5-15% for naval units.
Similarly, when a country is liberated there is a morale bonus for all units of the liberating country and other aligned and fully active Majors of 10-20% for land and air units, and 5-15% for naval units.
Morale bonuses are restricted to units whose morale is below 125%, and Morale Penalties are restricted to units whose morale is above 50%.
These effects are intended to replicate those hard to quantify morale boosts and penalties that victories and defeats during a war can have on either side. Their effect is solely on unit’s combat effectiveness, and generally unit morale will only be affected for a few turns.

Are these effects reflected in National Morale? Or is it just a one-turn adjustment input to Unit Morale?

[ForzaA]

Mechanically it may not be so easy, but from a player perspective;
For minor countries:
Apply the bonus only to nations at war with the surrendering country (or even only the Major that conquers it)
and the penalty only to nations at war with the conquering country (or perhaps even ONLY the "parent nation" major)

(Major country surrenders are few and far enough between that I don't think that's a real issue)

I'm also curious about and Morale Penalties are restricted to units whose morale is above 50%
Does that mean a unit with 51% morale could drop down to 21% (maximum land unit hit at 30%), while a 49% morale would be unaffected?
Perhaps instead cap the drop so that no unit will drop below 50% from it? (any unit between 50 and 70% would drop down to exactly 50%, anything between 70 and 80 COULD drop to 50%, but no worse than that)

[Marcinos1985]

Perhaps instead cap the drop so that no unit will drop below 50% from it?

From example from opening post, I believe it won't fall below 50%, and on the other hand I didn't see GER units with morale above 125%.

Are these effects reflected in National Morale? Or is it just a one-turn adjustment input to Unit Morale?

It seems the second sentence is true.

All this leads to situation, when GER troops during Winter, deep in Soviet Russia, have morale higher than after fall of France. Quite contrary to real life. [:)]

[Cpuncher]

Thanks Marcinos for bringing this up. In the past I've never fully realized the impact of the surrenders.

Now looking back at my game against Taifun, I've always wondered why his Russian units were so squishy. Usually in 41 Russians are decently tough. In fact I actually messaged him about it. Turned out I conquered Egypt on Aug 1, 41, then Palestine the next turn, and Transjordan 2 turns later... So diverting a significant force to NA and ME may actually help out the war in Russia (if you time it)!

I remember once someone asked why his Russians were doing fine in 41 but suddenly began to collapse come 42, and no one gave an answer. Well, that's when Japan began to conquer countries in the Pacific.

I think this mechanism is definitely an overkill. We already have plenty of NM objectives, and there are already way too many mechanisms that rewards the strong and punish the weak, which makes balancing the game ever more challenging. I would vote to have this mechanism removed, or at minimum, limit to countries that are significant and only affect the direct conqueror, with the amount of impact greatly reduced.