Is Romanian/Axis Minor national morale slightly too low?

[Jango32]

A typical Romanian infantry division in 1941 contained about 17 500 men. Its equipment included 402 LMGs, 148 MMGs, 950 horse teams, only 126 trucks and 27 light transports, 30 AT guns, 60 60mm mortars, 21 81mm mortars, 54 47-75mm artillery pieces and 16 100mm artillery pieces. The infantrymen of the division were reasonably well equipped, but the division was not very mobile and lacked heavy infantry weapons. Most critical was the lack of any decent medium to heavy artillery: each Romanian infantry division had only 16 100mm howitzers as the heaviest artillery weapon available, with the bulk of the remaining pieces being light weapons to the range of 75mm.

This lack of heavy artillery and their relative immobility severely curtailed their usefulness in 1941 and made any attack against entrenched or fortified Soviet divisions very costly (never mind successful).

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

IMO the Axis minors national morale should be raised. The Slovaks were praised by the Germans ...

The Slovak formations are good in game. A base NM of 55 (& remember NM is the manpower pool, how many fit 17-19 year olds are entering etc) and then the +5 for being motorised gives it a baseline of 60. Its a formation that tends to win a lot of battles - as most players team them into a German pzr corps, so its effective morale is often in the high 60s,

When if flips back to an infantry division, its still better than the Hungarians (& they are pretty useful)

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

ORIGINAL: loki100

But in general I get a decent usage out of them

Is that in single player like your recent AAR with Germany, or also in multiplayer?

ORIGINAL: loki100

losses escalate

If it is mostly in single player that they can be put to some sort of reasonable use, I wonder if the issue might be that in multiplayer, players target those units in particular for attacks because they know that they are weak, whereas the AI would not target Axis minor troops in particular. If so, then insofar as the losses do escalate, then this would lead to more Romanian routs in multiplayer games than single player?

Both modes, I really want my current Soviet HtH opponent to generate a few turns, we're into August 42, he's basically won - in that any offensive by me is over - and I'd like to take a HtH game past the initiative change.

My experience so far is that Soviet players don't get free hits on the Rumanians but then for most of 1941 its easy to keep them out of the way. The challenge comes from 1943 onwards, where (apart from StB) my experience is purely vs AI - but then also vs the AI at 120 morale with the combat consequences of that setting

[miljkovics]

I personally found Romanian units useful to some degree. Beside (obvious) use for Soviet Garrison, I use them in sieges (Odessa, Sevastopol and similar) with some German units too. They can also hold front well in winter, if supplied and in forts 2/3...even better as support (stack) to under strength German units.
What I do found strangely useless are Italian units. There are far worst then Romanians in my experience so far.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: miljkovics

I personally found Romanian units useful to some degree. Beside (obvious) use for Soviet Garrison, I use them in sieges (Odessa, Sevastopol and similar) with some German units too. They can also hold front well in winter, if supplied and in forts 2/3...even better as support (stack) to under strength German units.
What I do found strangely useless are Italian units. There are far worst then Romanians in my experience so far.

Well what's been said of Romanian officers, equipment, motivation, and morale also goes for the Italians.

Let’s firstly look at the start of the Italians in the desert campaign in 1940.

Italian Tenth Army to invade Egypt on 8th August 190.

The British counteroffensive, Operation Compass, began on 8 December 1940. O'Connor's relatively

small force of 31,000 men, 275 tanks and 120 artillery pieces in a period of 10 weeks takes over

130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded.


How motivated were those Italian troops? They had poor leaders and just as poor equipment.

Sound familiar? Did they give a damn about capturing some useless desert?

This article sums up the Italians in Russia pretty well.

The Italian Army in Russia: from Barbarossa to Stalingrad

[panzer51]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

ORIGINAL: miljkovics

I personally found Romanian units useful to some degree. Beside (obvious) use for Soviet Garrison, I use them in sieges (Odessa, Sevastopol and similar) with some German units too. They can also hold front well in winter, if supplied and in forts 2/3...even better as support (stack) to under strength German units.
What I do found strangely useless are Italian units. There are far worst then Romanians in my experience so far.

Well what's been said of Romanian officers, equipment, motivation, and morale also goes for the Italians.

Let’s firstly look at the start of the Italians in the desert campaign in 1940.

Italian Tenth Army to invade Egypt on 8th August 190.

The British counteroffensive, Operation Compass, began on 8 December 1940. O'Connor's relatively

small force of 31,000 men, 275 tanks and 120 artillery pieces in a period of 10 weeks takes over

130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded.


How motivated were those Italian troops? They had poor leaders and just as poor equipment.

Sound familiar? Did they give a damn about capturing some useless desert?

This article sums up the Italians in Russia pretty well.

The Italian Army in Russia: from Barbarossa to Stalingrad

Tenth Army wasn't a good representation of Italian Army

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: panzer51

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

ORIGINAL: miljkovics

I personally found Romanian units useful to some degree. Beside (obvious) use for Soviet Garrison, I use them in sieges (Odessa, Sevastopol and similar) with some German units too. They can also hold front well in winter, if supplied and in forts 2/3...even better as support (stack) to under strength German units.
What I do found strangely useless are Italian units. There are far worst then Romanians in my experience so far.

Well what's been said of Romanian officers, equipment, motivation, and morale also goes for the Italians.

Let’s firstly look at the start of the Italians in the desert campaign in 1940.

Italian Tenth Army to invade Egypt on 8th August 190.

The British counteroffensive, Operation Compass, began on 8 December 1940. O'Connor's relatively

small force of 31,000 men, 275 tanks and 120 artillery pieces in a period of 10 weeks takes over

130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded.


How motivated were those Italian troops? They had poor leaders and just as poor equipment.

Sound familiar? Did they give a damn about capturing some useless desert?

This article sums up the Italians in Russia pretty well.

The Italian Army in Russia: from Barbarossa to Stalingrad

Tenth Army wasn't a good representation of Italian Army

As you have singled out the 10th army as not being a good or I guess "typical" representation of the Italian army, the 8th

army that served in Russia MUST have been a good representatin of the Italian army.

[AlbertN]

It is still the sum of 'Leadership', 'Quantity of Equipment' (TOE), 'Quality of Equipment', and 'NCO / Troop General Quality'.

Sure, O'Connor accomplished astonishing and unexpected results - but then again, Italians were deployed and used in WW1, with pretty much the wide majority of Infantry and far to few trucks. Lacking anti tank weapons to deal with the Matilda tank.

The British mopped up the Italians by pratically gaining local superiority many times. (Which is part of 'Leadership')
I am not here to learn or teach history. There are episodes where personnel of this or that nation fought well or fought poorly. Or at times one cannot know how well something truly fought due to insane strenght ratios.
Besides by that very link you posted about the Italian army, it underlines how the Italian troops fought well and valiantly despite the lack of equipment, the general staff being too static, etc etc - and how Alpini sent with Caucasus in mind were instead deployed into the Steppes. (@DesertFox)

I am glad at least I am not the one who opened this thread and I am not a single voice there.

[Great_Ajax]

Like many of the Axis minor countries, Rumania was prepared for a defensive war and not trained for the offensive. Rumania adopted the French defensive doctrine and was severely lacking in radios which meant coordinating for responsive fires and flexible offensive operations was severely underdeveloped. Its officer corps suffered extremely high casualties in the first couple of months of th war due to their belief in always leading from the front. The siege of Odessa clearly identified the weakness of the Romanians in conducting deliberate attacks and bled out numerous divisions of good quality soldiers. The losses at Odessa were so bad that numerous divisions had to be withdrawn and rebuilt in Rumania. The rebuilt divisions that were used in 1942 were built on the backs of fresh recruits and did not have the same capability as their 1941 predecessors. The severe losses around Stalingrad, made the 43-44 Rumanian Army even worse.

IMO, the current NM is okay. You could easily justify it being on par with the Soviets up through mid 42. By Uranus, the Soviets had clearly surpassed the Rumanians in infantry combined arms coordination. On top of that, a great deal of Romanians were not very enthusiastic about fighting Germany's war deep in Russia. The Rumanian mountain troops, Cavalry and motorized troops are all classified as Axis-Elite in order to give them an extra NM bonus.

[Karri]

Morale isn't really "morale" but rather quality&effectiveness. I haven't read that much on Rumanians in WW2, but to my understanding, their tactics were very much still stuck in WWI levels.

[Denniss]

Low Axis minor NM was a problem in WitE1 too unless bumped a bit by Dominic. The +5 increase to 45 (in 1941) for the Romanians made them far less brittle without getting too powerful. HUN units in WitE have 50 though.
Italians have a massive problem with just 40 NM, this is cannonfodder level

[Erik Rutins]

I agree with the current ratings, but I just wanted to chime in to support some of the comments above that where they start is less important over time than how you use them. If you are careful with the minor Axis allies and don't ask too much of them and make sure they are in advantageous situations where they can experience victories, they will prove more useful in the long run.

If you are planning to use them defensively, I support a fortified triple stack and ideally something in Reserve to react for best results.

Regards,

- Erik

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I agree with the current ratings, but I just wanted to chime in to support some of the comments above that where they start is less important over time than how you use them. If you are careful with the minor Axis allies and don't ask too much of them and make sure they are in advantageous situations where they can experience victories, they will prove more useful in the long run.

If you are planning to use them defensively, I support a fortified triple stack and ideally something in Reserve to react for best results.

Regards,

- Erik

I'd add that they need to be across a river as well lol. Another issue with the low morale is they constantly bleed due to attrition if they are next to the enemy.

Their performance is also significantly boosted by placing them under a German corps commander, but this may not be as feasible with the new assault HQ changes.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Besides by that very link you posted about the Italian army, it underlines how the Italian troops fought well and valiantly despite the lack of equipment, the general staff being too static, etc etc - and how Alpini sent with Caucasus in mind were instead deployed into the Steppes. (@DesertFox)

I am glad at least I am not the one who opened this thread and I am not a single voice there.

The link I provided names two divisions that fought well in 41 and 42. These troops were the VERY best Italy had. Their equipment, logistics, and tactics were horrible. Their morale was apparently good.

In the battles named above such as Uman and the Crimea, the Romanians were never at the point but supporting Germans troops.



One could argue that the Italians also fought alongside the Germans when Tobruk was captured. They only provided troops for the encirclement and NOT the assault but hey they were there and thus deserving of a better morale etc rating going by the German fan club yardstick.

Let's take that to the extreme. In 1941 Operation barborossa opened and from June through to November, Germany and her allies completely dominated the Russians in battle. So we should give all Germany's allies better morale just for being in the same theater?

For me, there is no case for improving the Romanians stats. No one here has provided any facts or evidence to support that.

As for the Italians, the 2 or 3 earliest divisons were their best and did indeed do okay into 42. The rest though were the same troops that failed in France 1940 and Greece in 40-41.

Those Italian Divs I mentioned 2 have morale/exp or 50 and the 3rd 40. the last one is a mountain div and there is definitely a case to have his stats moved up to 50.

So given that most Russian starting units have a morale/exp factor of less than 50 these Italian divs are in fact superior (in terms of morale/exp, NOT equipment) to the Russians at the start of the war and for some time to come.

HLYA has shown how the Germans are quite well balanced as the game currently stands as has Tyronec.

Thus apart from the sole Italian Mountain div with morale /exp at 40 there is nothing presented here that needs a change.

On top of everything, I have said I am sure the Devs have given even greater study to the units stats.

People here make outrageous claims when their entire study of the war entails a quick read of one Wiki page.

I can claim pigs can fly. But unless I can provide facts and evidence that they can, it will remain that they cannot.

The onus is on YOU to present factual evidence for a change.

Personally I think Italians and Romanians should have a baseline of 50 National Morale or 55. Hungarians and Slovaks 60.

Based on what? Your opinion becasue you had youre arse handed to you in a couple of games.

[Great_Ajax]

I personally wouldn't have an issue with having 50 as the minimum for Romanians and Italians.

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Low Axis minor NM was a problem in WitE1 too unless bumped a bit by Dominic. The +5 increase to 45 (in 1941) for the Romanians made them far less brittle without getting too powerful. HUN units in WitE have 50 though.
Italians have a massive problem with just 40 NM, this is cannonfodder level

[HardLuckYetAgain]

O.O

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I personally wouldn't have an issue with having 50 as the minimum for Romanians and Italians.

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Low Axis minor NM was a problem in WitE1 too unless bumped a bit by Dominic. The +5 increase to 45 (in 1941) for the Romanians made them far less brittle without getting too powerful. HUN units in WitE have 50 though.
Italians have a massive problem with just 40 NM, this is cannonfodder level

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I agree with the current ratings, but I just wanted to chime in to support some of the comments above that where they start is less important over time than how you use them. If you are careful with the minor Axis allies and don't ask too much of them and make sure they are in advantageous situations where they can experience victories, they will prove more useful in the long run.

If you are planning to use them defensively, I support a fortified triple stack and ideally something in Reserve to react for best results.

Regards,

- Erik

I'd add that they need to be across a river as well lol. Another issue with the low morale is they constantly bleed due to attrition if they are next to the enemy.

Their performance is also significantly boosted by placing them under a German corps commander, but this may not be as feasible with the new assault HQ changes.

Yes, excellent point under German Corps. I did that in our game Jubjub. You should still easily be able to use 2 German Corps for the Rumanians even with the updated rules of Assault HQ's coming out.

Now having said that the AP cost of removing a Rumanian leader and placing a new one in their place is a bit excessive. 27 AP cost for this one.

[Joel Billings]

We looked at this extensively during development. In fact several times, and late in development raised some values and set some units to elite status to get what we wanted. During that work, someone provided a link to some great histories of Romanian units in various battles. I read many of these. The only conclusion one could draw is that the Germans believed only the Romanian mountain and cav divisions were considered of any worth (plus one or two regular infantry divisions, IIRC). All the rest were considered terrible, having proven in several cases which I read just how bad they were. The Germans tried to keep the main force off the front line, but Stalingrad forced them to put the Romanians in the line with horrible consequences. There is absolutely no reason to increased their value based on these accounts. As for Italy, sure there were a handful of units that fought well. By and large though, they performed miserably from Greece to North Africa to Sicily. No justification for a change. I think the Hungarian 50 in 1943 is sufficient. Unless someone can show some actual hard evidence for a change, I consider this topic resolved and closed.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We looked at this extensively during development. In fact several times, and late in development raised some values and set some units to elite status to get what we wanted. During that work, someone provided a link to some great histories of Romanian units in various battles. I read many of these. The only conclusion one could draw is that the Germans believed only the Romanian mountain and cav divisions were considered of any worth (plus one or two regular infantry divisions, IIRC). All the rest were considered terrible, having proven in several cases which I read just how bad they were. The Germans tried to keep the main force off the front line, but Stalingrad forced them to put the Romanians in the line with horrible consequences. There is absolutely no reason to increased their value based on these accounts. As for Italy, sure there were a handful of units that fought well. By and large though, they performed miserably from Greece to North Africa to Sicily. No justification for a change. I think the Hungarian 50 in 1943 is sufficient. Unless someone can show some actual hard evidence for a change, I consider this topic resolved and closed.

I am Pro German but I don't carry a bias trying to always to fair and this is fair imho. Thumbs up reply

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain



O.O

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I personally wouldn't have an issue with having 50 as the minimum for Romanians and Italians.

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Low Axis minor NM was a problem in WitE1 too unless bumped a bit by Dominic. The +5 increase to 45 (in 1941) for the Romanians made them far less brittle without getting too powerful. HUN units in WitE have 50 though.
Italians have a massive problem with just 40 NM, this is cannonfodder level

Your wish has already been granted.

Starting morale.

Romanain cav and Mountain morale 60.
Romanian Arm 65
Some Romanian divs 50
Others, frontier guards mostly types mostly. 45

Italian all 50 morale except 1 which is 40 (arrives turn 5 though I think it should be 50 unless the devs know something about it I don't, which is VERY possible).

National morale is 40 for the above two nations.

It's 50 for the Russians dropping to 45 in Sept 41.

Neither the average Italian or Romanian soldiers were all that keen on fighting in Russia.

Whilst Stalin and his communist party were certainly unpopular in parts of Russia the average Russian soldier was fed a lot

BS propaganda about fighting The Great Patriotic War and from the earliest days, many fought to the last man and bullet

(outside of mass army surrenders). Many a German soldier wrote early on of how he believed this was a far different war than

that of Poland and France.

Bottom line, Russians were fighting for their homeland on home soil, Axis allies were not and had far less interest in the

war as a whole.

[DesertedFox]

I am Pro German but I don't carry a bias trying to always to fair and this is fair imho. Thumbs up reply

I know you are HL.

ooops my original post was incorrect.