Will there be any change to production?

[delatbabel]

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?

No, your suggestion is indefensible. It would not make historical sense. It would make the game unplayable (if the Soviets were to take a massive morale hit due to losing cities such as Leningrad and Moscow in early 1942, and having played a few 1.05 games now I believe that neither city is defensible against even a moderately skilled axis player in 1942) then they could never get back into the game.

[Mentor]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

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?

No, your suggestion is indefensible. It would not make historical sense. It would make the game unplayable (if the Soviets were to take a massive morale hit due to losing cities such as Leningrad and Moscow in early 1942, and having played a few 1.05 games now I believe that neither city is defensible against even a moderately skilled axis player in 1942) then they could never get back into the game.

+1

Trying to balance a system where a side gets stronger NM as it does better will be very tricky, it is inherently unstable and will lead to many runaway games. I think this would reduce the playability of the game and increase the likelihood that games would be abandoned prior to completion even more than it is right now.

Once you really understand what National Morale is supposed to represent it becomes easy to see why the capture of so-and-so city should not have any impact on it.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Mentor

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

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?

No, your suggestion is indefensible. It would not make historical sense. It would make the game unplayable (if the Soviets were to take a massive morale hit due to losing cities such as Leningrad and Moscow in early 1942, and having played a few 1.05 games now I believe that neither city is defensible against even a moderately skilled axis player in 1942) then they could never get back into the game.

+1

Trying to balance a system where a side gets stronger NM as it does better will be very tricky, it is inherently unstable and will lead to many runaway games. I think this would reduce the playability of the game and increase the likelihood that games would be abandoned prior to completion even more than it is right now.

Once you really understand what National Morale is supposed to represent it becomes easy to see why the capture of so-and-so city should not have any impact on it.

Well then what about some other dynamic factor, f.e. losses.

Fact is that the current system is very deterministic and serves no other purpose except to enforce the real life timeline on a game timeline which by definition will and should vary, often significantly so.

The tools already exist to give the Soviets their middle-late war NM boost, namely the Guards unit/Shock Army NM bonuses.

[RCHarmon]

The Soviets got a  big boost in moral after Stalingrad.  From the embarrassment against the Finns and the first year of the war behind them the victory at Stalingrad represented the beginning of the reconquest of Russia.  Tying moral to cities was a suggestion that does have historical implications.  To think that it is indefensible to think losing a city shouldn't affect moral historically is beyond me.  My point was the current system is not a good one.  During this game as the Axis offenses are dying down it seems to me that the game design is such that "well it is time to get these Soviets on their way to Berlin."   

[Flaviusx]

RCH, the Soviets didn't get better because they destroyed 6. Army (and much else besides.) They destroyed 6. Army because they got better. You have the sequence of events here exactly wrong.

Also: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[RCHarmon]

That is true Flaviusx they were better and became even more so after Stalingrad.  It still took Hitler to cause the destruction of the 6th army and part of the 4th Panzer Army. Hitler served them up on a plate.

[Flaviusx]

Well, to be sure, Hitler was the Red Army's best general. [:D]

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
RCH, the Soviets didn't get better because they destroyed 6. Army (and much else besides.) They destroyed 6. Army because they got better. You have the sequence of events here exactly wrong.

Suppose that is how NM is to be "read". NM is not a factor purely invented to turn the tide and influence the course of the war. It also seems to represent training of replacements and new recruits, much more so than it adds any morale factor. And improvements in proficiency for the Soviet (in contrast to pretty much immediately pressing replacements into the ranks in 41 due to the extreme disaster faced) and decay of German training over time are simply established facts, and they need to be accounted for. Either thru explicit training pools or so, or due a simpler feature such as NM.

RCH, I doubt anyone would argue that taking key cities despite heavy contesting (perhaps not under all circumstances, like voluntary evacuation without loss) would not affect the will to fight, aka moral. However, NM is not (just or at large) moral, as explained by devs earlier. Also, if there were a true morale, how much effect let's say on CV or so would you expect? And effect on desertion or other forms of discipline failure?