3 years and nothing changed

[AndrewC]

nt

[Tophat]

Can you give some specifics? Overall the quality of Rumanian troops and equitment on the eastern front was less than stellar. Though i'll give you that they were better than Bulgarian troops!

[KG Erwin]

AndrewC, there's nothing to prevent you from using the in-game OOB Editor to present your own version of the Romanian OOB. As far as the morale/experience ratings are concerned, the game editor allows you to save a campaign/scenario and make these ratings whatever you want them to be.

My personal feeling is that the new national ratings as presented in 8.4 are more historical than before, but opinions differ. What's funny about this is that I argued successfully that the ratings for my favorites (the USMC) were actually too HIGH for the early war period (1941-1942).

If you want a sense of real frustration, try playing as the Russians in 1939-41. [8|]

[AndrewC]

nt

[soldier]

The Morale cut in 8.4 really hits these smaller nations, who probably had plenty of reasons to fight in real life. Troops with low morale (which smaller nations tend to rely on more) especially suffer in 8.4). Without good morale they degrade in status and retreat too easily from entrenchments into open ground without the need for attacking artillery. They are more likley to get pinged for tank panic and run from defences if tank closes and wont get to initiate an assault. Their leaders cannot rally them. It makes their troops nearly unplayable on the field. For me turning up troop quality levels boosts experience over morale to much and then minor nations troops get a bit too much iniative and aggression. I don't see why these smaller nations should be so bad (especially on defence), i'm sure they had proud fighters, just not up too date with blitzkrieg standards. Turning up rout/rally and troop toughness helps but the mix seems wrong. They seem to do more running than fighting which aint right.
I'm Australian and have a Finnish mother so naturally i'm happy with their representation in WAW [:)], but i could certainly understand how some others are not. I'd like to raise morale for nearly all countries except Germany and Finland but cant seem to do it. Looked at a hex editor but couldnt figure it out. Dunno how Panzer Leo did it ?
Can it be done ?

[Adamo]

how do you think I feel, I'm Italian!

[soldier]

Who is in charge of development?

Mike Wood, the lead programmer made the changes in 8.4 himself, I don't know if the rest of Matrix were involved or if he has an agenda against Romania (Bulgaria & Italy) but he certainly put their experience & morale levels to the sword. Its a massacre really. To be honest i think slightly lower experience levels works well but he did make some large cuts and then slashed morale as well to almost civillian levels (25 each for Rumania in 45, how did they get that bad while fighting ?). I recommend H2H where Rumania and others have a more realistic appraisal and their infantry actually fight.

[ranXerox]

I'm finnish and i'm very disappointed about those experience levels SPWAW currently has.

Let me explain something first. Finland fought 3 wars in WW2; "Winter War" against Russia in 11/1939-3/1940, "Continuation War" 6/1942-9/1944 against Russian also. And finally after peace with russians, "The Lappland War" against german forces still in Finland 9/1944-4/1945.

// LEADER EXPERIENCE
{70,70,70,65,65,60,60}, //FINNISH

So, Finland's army(leaders too) was small and more or less unexperienced in action and unprepared to fight against russians in 1939, so too high experience there. But experience got better when "Continuation war" was launched to attack russia. Many "Winter War" veterans were among those who had to go to the next two wars. So IMHO totally wrong levels here. Levels should be turned around starting from 60..

// LEADER MORALE
{70,70,70,65,65,60,55}, //FINNISH

Leader morale was very high throughout the wars, not going down to pitiful 55.. Finland did fight *with* germany, but did not go down with them, due the peace with russians saved Finlands arse being overrun&conquered. IMHO, level 70 at start is ok but it should still be something like 65 at the end.

// TROOPS EXPERIENCE
{70,70,70,65,65,60,60}, //FINNISH

70 in 1939 is too high, should be like 60 or something. Then it gets higher until 1943 and starts to go down again, because of loss of men was very high in "Continuation War" against russians in 1943-1944.

// TROOPS MORALE
{70,70,70,65,65,60,55}, //FINNISH

Morale was very high in "Winter War", should be more than 70 if possible. Morale did go down after that but never to levels presented here, 55. The last number represents year 1945 when Finland only fought against Germany and was very motivated to get them out in time. Because the peace deal with russians had time limit when germans had to be out of Finland.

Only problem with finnish troops was the quantity and lack of armaments. I hope these experience/morale levels do not try to present anything else than just what they are. So I think levels here are wrong and maybe with others small countries too.

[omegaall]

ORIGINAL: soldier

The Morale cut in 8.4 really hits these smaller nations, who probably had plenty of reasons to fight in real life. Troops with low morale (which smaller nations tend to rely on more) especially suffer in 8.4). Without good morale they degrade in status and retreat too easily from entrenchments into open ground without the need for attacking artillery. They are more likley to get pinged for tank panic and run from defences if tank closes and wont get to initiate an assault. Their leaders cannot rally them. It makes their troops nearly unplayable on the field. For me turning up troop quality levels boosts experience over morale to much and then minor nations troops get a bit too much iniative and aggression. I don't see why these smaller nations should be so bad (especially on defence), i'm sure they had proud fighters, just not up too date with blitzkrieg standards. Turning up rout/rally and troop toughness helps but the mix seems wrong. They seem to do more running than fighting which aint right.
I'm Australian and have a Finnish mother so naturally i'm happy with their representation in WAW [:)], but i could certainly understand how some others are not. I'd like to raise morale for nearly all countries except Germany and Finland but cant seem to do it. Looked at a hex editor but couldnt figure it out. Dunno how Panzer Leo did it ?
Can it be done ?

Well old mate all things are possible in the land of OZ. You should know that. [:D] Its on my job list with about 5 other things..

[Sturmpionier]

ORIGINAL: AndrewC

It's got to be someone with an agenda against Romania, otherwise I can't explain it.

ROTFL! I'm sorry, but I just got a mental picture of some programmer getting up in the morning, finishing his breakfast, & then sitting down at his computer to work on SPWaW.

"Now to further my agenda against Romania," the Matrix programmer said in a low, raspy voice, then threw his head back and laughed with an evil cackle not heard since the days of Atila.

Ha Ha Ha! I think I just broke a blood vessel.

[Adamo]

I'm not downplaying the complaints being made here but I think we should look at the 'big picture'. The people who design this game put lots of time into it and to 'call' them on something like the morale of a certain countries' units is 'nitpicking' in my opinion. If, when playing the game, you feel that the morale of your favorite countries' units is affecting your ability to enjoy the game then learn how to use the editor and change the morale values yourself; don't come here and claim that there's an 'agenda against Romania'. My family is from Italy, so I like to play many scenarios that involve Italian units. I realize that the Italian army was not considered the MVP of the second World War. The low morale of Italian units in the game actually increases the challenge for me. That's how I look at it.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents!

adam

[monty pete]

The Romaniam troops on the Eastern Front sucked that is why their morale levels etc are so low because in reality the Romanian army of world war two was quite terrible. Granted that when everything was fine and dandy in the first year (1941) the Romanians managed to do some good, even in early 42 they were ok (Crimea etc) but they really screwed up after that, part of the dabacle at Stalingrad was thanks to the ineptitude of the Romanian and Hungarian forces to the North and South of Stalingrad. So instead of saying that this game, which is damn realistic in terms of troop quality etc, is a crock of ****, perhaps you should reevaluate your country's conduct during the war, after all you did technically switch sides in late 44 did you not?

[Terminus]

Actually, the Romanians didn't perform well in 1941, either. They bungled the siege of Odessa and had to have German troops help them out.

BTW, the German opinion of the Romanian army was that while the individual Romanian soldier was a tough and resourceful fighter, they were let down by corrupt and uncaring officers. This was a sentiment that the Germans applied to most of their minor Axis allies, as well as the Italians.

[monty pete]

[/quote]

Finland did fight *with* germany, but did not go down with them, due the peace with russians saved Finlands arse being overrun&conquered.

HAHAHA[:D] You call the deal you signed with Russia something that saved you?! You just were afraid of being over run by the Russians which suggests to me that a lot of those men who are rightly called heroes(those who fought in the winter war) were betryed/ died out by the time of the Lapland war.

[AndrewC]

nt

[Alby]

Well If I could alter the mech.exe, I would adjust them in my next Mod release, I kinda like using the Romanians, but alas, I am helpless...[:(]

[Svennemir]

As usual, anglo-americans talking out of their rear ends about a subject they know very little about or don't care enough to research it properly.

Look, AndrewC, why don't you behave a little more politely? Or maybe that was your national characteristic? I don't want to start a flame war, but come on.

On the constructive side, you should provide page numbers with your quotes. I may have a Beevor book right here, but I wouldn't want to look through 450 pages to confirm the statements. While that applies to the other people here as well, you're the one who wants to change something.

Oh, and by the way, I think some minor nations should have their ratings increased as well.

[Goblin]

I agree. Most every nation should be bumped back up somewhat. We went from one extreme to the other. Most minor nations should have their morales bumped up a little higher than their leadership and experience ratings are. While they may have been porrly led and inexperienced, they stood and fought. In the game now, there is no way that they do.




Goblin

[mogami]

Hi Post your opinion. Design your own OOB but refrain from being obscene or rude. In the end you are complaining about a game you play for free. Design scenarios depicting historic actions and assign the values you think are accurate.

[m10bob]

A lot of a soldiers' fighting ability is reflected in his nations willingness to be in a war. The Rumanians were not all that fond of the German "cause",and allying Rumania with Germany seemed to be King Constantines' only hope of any kind of "independant rule" under the threat of a possible German occupation, and then too, the Russians had a reason to *intentionally* hit the Rumanians when they chose to cut off Stalingrad.
The Germans reportedly felt they *had* to put a battalion of German troops with each 2 battalions of "non-German troops", in order to maintain integrity of the line.
Unquestionably, the German army also had priority on getting better equipment, (their own), when Stugs/Panzers,Planes were "doled out"..
BTW, if you wanted to see changes made, why not participate more actively. It has served a lot of good folks better to do that, (and see the changes made), than to drift in every "3 years or so", to call people names.............
These people contribute.....................