WitE 2

[Stelteck]

Something like that would be a good idea but difficult to balance. There is already a lot of snowball mecanism in the game.

Maybe the decay of german morale could be a little mitigated by holding some geographical objectives, and same thing for the raise of soviet morale.

[RoflCopter4]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Forgive me if someone posted something similar.

"Morale gain and loss National Level"

War is a Political act with a political purpose. To achieve this goal a military strategist would have to devise the best way to defeat a foe. The two ways to defeat a foe is to attack their “means” (i.e. resources) or their “will” to fight (i.e. morale). The Germans has a resource means disparity with the Soviet Union although the Germans do possess a quality edge and will (high morale). Just as a physicist uses the equation E=mc2 as the most important equation for everything they do. A Military strategist uses the following equation; “Power of Resistance = (means) X (will) “ (read this as power of resistance equals means times will). If at any time the “means” or the “will” side of this equation goes to zero the side surrenders.

Thus, you can attack the “means” side of this equation by attacking the resources or the “will” side of this equation by attacking morale. Unfortunately, the game allows unlimited attacking of the “means” side of this equation. The “will” side of the equation you can’t do anything about (I’m not talking about unit morale but national morale). Not to mention will (morale) is hard coded into the game with too many static events pertaining to a factual calendar of events of what we know has transpired in our past of WW2. When in actuality events should change based on the “players” movements in the current game and not hard coded to go up or down on a specific date of our factual history of WW2.

I truly believe WiTE2 needs to initiate a way to regulate the “will” side of this equation that comes from the American War College. The game can have certain cities worth so many Morale points so if you take a city your morale will go up and the other side morale down (could be for a specified number of turns). Gain Morale/subtract morale based on large battles (over 100k for instance) and/or after so many lost or won battles. The hard coding of the morale going up for Russians and Down for Germans should be tied to actual events that are playing out in the game being played. Not by a factual calendar of events of what we know transpired and totally unrelated to the game being played.

National morale in the game does not represent "morale" as it is usually understood, but rather more like a doctrinal standard of training and quality for new recruits before they are sent to the front. Hence why experience is capped at morale. Germany's national morale degrades because they started recruiting literally everyone who could more or less hold a gun, whereas the Soviets increased their quality as the war went on.

Given this, I have no idea why newly reformed units start at such a low morale and experience. Seems inconsistent.

[morvael]

Actual frontline experience is what matters most, not training experience.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Something like that would be a good idea but difficult to balance. There is already a lot of snowball mecanism in the game.

Maybe the decay of german morale could be a little mitigated by holding some geographical objectives, and same thing for the raise of soviet morale.

I agree with this post

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: RoflCopter4

...

National morale in the game does not represent "morale" as it is usually understood, but rather more like a doctrinal standard of training and quality for new recruits before they are sent to the front. Hence why experience is capped at morale. Germany's national morale degrades because they started recruiting literally everyone who could more or less hold a gun, whereas the Soviets increased their quality as the war went on.

Given this, I have no idea why newly reformed units start at such a low morale and experience. Seems inconsistent.

I'd agree with your first statementm that NM in the game is not just morale but a mixture of factors. Not sure this is true:

whereas the Soviets increased their quality as the war went on

Plenty of records suggest that many Soviet formations resorted to 'local' recruitment to fill out their ranks - look at the way the southern Ukrainian Fronts strengthened between the end of the 43-44 battles and the August 44 invasion of Romania. Given they were recruiting from an area that had been fought over twice, under axis rule for over 2 years etc, they took anybody they could. The only advantage they had was the ability to spend some time on training and to integrate these new 'recruits' into relatively experienced units.

More generally, there is a view in WiTE, created by Pelton and often repeated, that morale is the key variable. I'd agree its important (and think its too important and too blunt but that is a different issue). If you play WiTW you'll start to see that more factors are equally important (supply has a much more important role as does fatigue than they do in WiTE) and WiTE2 is developing other key issues (see the earlier discussions in this thread about preparation points). In effect, NM is going to be less dominant in any case, so the current rather messy model may well work better as you'll need to think about far more than just racking up wins or avoiding defeats as the game develops. The depot system for supply and the need to rest for an offensive produce very different conceptions of what is critical and this changes as the game develops.

[RedLancer]

There has been quite a lot of debate on this in the WitE2 Dev Forum.

You may also have seen this thread: tm.asp?m=4170950

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: RoflCopter4

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Forgive me if someone posted something similar.

"Morale gain and loss National Level"

War is a Political act with a political purpose. To achieve this goal a military strategist would have to devise the best way to defeat a foe. The two ways to defeat a foe is to attack their “means” (i.e. resources) or their “will” to fight (i.e. morale). The Germans has a resource means disparity with the Soviet Union although the Germans do possess a quality edge and will (high morale). Just as a physicist uses the equation E=mc2 as the most important equation for everything they do. A Military strategist uses the following equation; “Power of Resistance = (means) X (will) “ (read this as power of resistance equals means times will). If at any time the “means” or the “will” side of this equation goes to zero the side surrenders.

Thus, you can attack the “means” side of this equation by attacking the resources or the “will” side of this equation by attacking morale. Unfortunately, the game allows unlimited attacking of the “means” side of this equation. The “will” side of the equation you can’t do anything about (I’m not talking about unit morale but national morale). Not to mention will (morale) is hard coded into the game with too many static events pertaining to a factual calendar of events of what we know has transpired in our past of WW2. When in actuality events should change based on the “players” movements in the current game and not hard coded to go up or down on a specific date of our factual history of WW2.

I truly believe WiTE2 needs to initiate a way to regulate the “will” side of this equation that comes from the American War College. The game can have certain cities worth so many Morale points so if you take a city your morale will go up and the other side morale down (could be for a specified number of turns). Gain Morale/subtract morale based on large battles (over 100k for instance) and/or after so many lost or won battles. The hard coding of the morale going up for Russians and Down for Germans should be tied to actual events that are playing out in the game being played. Not by a factual calendar of events of what we know transpired and totally unrelated to the game being played.

National morale in the game does not represent "morale" as it is usually understood, but rather more like a doctrinal standard of training and quality for new recruits before they are sent to the front. Hence why experience is capped at morale. Germany's national morale degrades because they started recruiting literally everyone who could more or less hold a gun, whereas the Soviets increased their quality as the war went on.

Given this, I have no idea why newly reformed units start at such a low morale and experience. Seems inconsistent.

The underlying question is the following, "How do you model the "will" side of the equation in this game of WiTE “Power of Resistance = (means) X (will)"? Besides an ad hoc VP condition there currently isnt a way to win by "will" nor are there pros or cons for such acts for either side.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: RoflCopter4

...

National morale in the game does not represent "morale" as it is usually understood, but rather more like a doctrinal standard of training and quality for new recruits before they are sent to the front. Hence why experience is capped at morale. Germany's national morale degrades because they started recruiting literally everyone who could more or less hold a gun, whereas the Soviets increased their quality as the war went on.

Given this, I have no idea why newly reformed units start at such a low morale and experience. Seems inconsistent.

I'd agree with your first statementm that NM in the game is not just morale but a mixture of factors. Not sure this is true:

whereas the Soviets increased their quality as the war went on

Plenty of records suggest that many Soviet formations resorted to 'local' recruitment to fill out their ranks - look at the way the southern Ukrainian Fronts strengthened between the end of the 43-44 battles and the August 44 invasion of Romania. Given they were recruiting from an area that had been fought over twice, under axis rule for over 2 years etc, they took anybody they could. The only advantage they had was the ability to spend some time on training and to integrate these new 'recruits' into relatively experienced units.

More generally, there is a view in WiTE, created by Pelton and often repeated, that morale is the key variable. I'd agree its important (and think its too important and too blunt but that is a different issue). If you play WiTW you'll start to see that more factors are equally important (supply has a much more important role as does fatigue than they do in WiTE) and WiTE2 is developing other key issues (see the earlier discussions in this thread about preparation points). In effect, NM is going to be less dominant in any case, so the current rather messy model may well work better as you'll need to think about far more than just racking up wins or avoiding defeats as the game develops. The depot system for supply and the need to rest for an offensive produce very different conceptions of what is critical and this changes as the game develops.

Same question as I posted above

The underlying question is the following, "How do you model the "will" side of the equation in this game of WiTE “Power of Resistance = (means) X (will)"? Besides an ad hoc VP condition there currently isnt a way to win by "will" nor are there pros or cons for such acts for either side.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

There has been quite a lot of debate on this in the WitE2 Dev Forum.

You may also have seen this thread: tm.asp?m=4170950

Thank you Red Lancer, I will go and check this out now.

[Stelteck]

I love the WITP AE system for pilots. You have a small number of trained pilots each month. But if you want more, you can but quality of pilots decrease a lot.

We could imagine a system when national moral go down only when new recruits are needed for replacement, at least for germany.

German player start the war with the current army, but very, very little replacements. If he need more, he have to pay it with permanent national moral points. As example (only example, the proper number have to be carefully examined) one point for 100K new recruits.
At any time the player could choose to pay to get new replacements. Or chose not to and get nearly nothing.

Maybe the cost for new replacements have to increase with time as increasing men are required to work in the factories with time to rise the prodution.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I love the WITP AE system for pilots. You have a small number of trained pilots each month. But if you want more, you can but quality of pilots decrease a lot.

WitW and WitE2 has a similar system

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

We could imagine a system when national moral go down only when new recruits are needed for replacement, at least for germany.

German player start the war with the current army, but very, very little replacements. If he need more, he have to pay it with permanent national moral points. As example (only example, the proper number have to be carefully examined) one point for 100K new recruits.
At any time the player could choose to pay to get new replacements. Or chose not to and get nearly nothing.

Maybe the cost for new replacements have to increase with time as increasing men are required to work in the factories with time to rise the prodution.

This is exactly what I have been advocating.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I love the WITP AE system for pilots. You have a small number of trained pilots each month. But if you want more, you can but quality of pilots decrease a lot.

We could imagine a system when national moral go down only when new recruits are needed for replacement, at least for germany.

German player start the war with the current army, but very, very little replacements. If he need more, he have to pay it with permanent national moral points. As example (only example, the proper number have to be carefully examined) one point for 100K new recruits.
At any time the player could choose to pay to get new replacements. Or chose not to and get nearly nothing.

Maybe the cost for new replacements have to increase with time as increasing men are required to work in the factories with time to rise the prodution.

It seems a good idea. But instead of 1 point for every 100k casualties, I think the werhmatch should also get some bodies per month (lets say 5000). If you dont lose more than 5000 no problem, if you suffer more than 5000, the casualties above 5000 start counting towards the morale loss.

Ps. All are made up numbers given so that I can explain the example.

Ps 2. The soviets should get different magnitudes for loss of morale per casualties or they would end at very low morale soon.

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I love the WITP AE system for pilots. You have a small number of trained pilots each month. But if you want more, you can but quality of pilots decrease a lot.

We could imagine a system when national moral go down only when new recruits are needed for replacement, at least for germany.

German player start the war with the current army, but very, very little replacements. If he need more, he have to pay it with permanent national moral points. As example (only example, the proper number have to be carefully examined) one point for 100K new recruits.
At any time the player could choose to pay to get new replacements. Or chose not to and get nearly nothing.

Maybe the cost for new replacements have to increase with time as increasing men are required to work in the factories with time to rise the prodution.

I think this sounds like a good game system that gives the player interesting options. From a historical perspective I think its the casualties that should lover morale, not the reinforcements. If anything reinforcing with new men should boost frontline morale. The quality of the troops is however something that should decrease when new men are called in as they lack experience and are of lower "quality" (young able men are drafted first etc).

[Q-Ball]

Interesting thoughts on National Morale and recruit quality. Isn't that just part of the equation, however?

I agree National Morale and Combat Efficiency are basically mean the same thing. German Morale should decline, not just because the Germans were lowering their recruiting standards as the war went on, but also because the leadership cadre were becoming diluted. German small unit leadership was still strong, but eroded as the war went on and guys got killed off. The other factor for the Wehrmacht is that they began inducting alot of recruits from conquered areas that had much less ardor for the Nazi cause.

On the Russian side, just ditching the political commissars no doubt increased unit efficiency (i.e. "Morale" in game terms). In addition, the Soviets ditched pre-war doctrines that were dumb, and developed new, effective ones.

US Army basically had the same quality recruits the whole war, what improved was leadership and doctrine as US army learned trial by fire, and appropriately US Army morale increased to a 1945 peak

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I love the WITP AE system for pilots. You have a small number of trained pilots each month. But if you want more, you can but quality of pilots decrease a lot.

WitW and WitE2 has a similar system

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

We could imagine a system when national moral go down only when new recruits are needed for replacement, at least for germany.

German player start the war with the current army, but very, very little replacements. If he need more, he have to pay it with permanent national moral points. As example (only example, the proper number have to be carefully examined) one point for 100K new recruits.
At any time the player could choose to pay to get new replacements. Or chose not to and get nearly nothing.

Maybe the cost for new replacements have to increase with time as increasing men are required to work in the factories with time to rise the prodution.

This is exactly what I have been advocating.

Such a system neeeds to take into account that the resilience of the German Army is explained by the existence of the Ersatzheer and the Feldersatz units. No other military in WW2 had a system like that (I think). Here there's a nice summary about the role that organisation played, with plenty of references for double checking:

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations ... 39-to-1945

This system totally broke down in the Autumn of 1944, as the post July 20th purge and the massive gaps created by the disasters suffered by the German army both in the West and East effectively killed the Ersatzheer, and the notion of Feldersatz Bn was abandoned, so field training fell under the responsibility of combat units. Training standards were very high up until then.

If you go for the "1 to 3" proportion mentioned in one of the quotations above, that would mean that a pool of relatively well trained 700,000 soldiers available for the OstHeer alone, throughout 1941 to 1944. Which does sound like a lot, until one considers that the estimates for German casualties in the Eastern front hover around the 6 million, counting KIA, MIA & POW and WIA.

[robinsa]

It would be interesting if the recruits drafted were distributed like, I don't know, maybe a normal distribution (?) and the more you draw the lower the quality of the mean will be. Then the player would be allowed to set units requested reinforcement quality to "Low, Normal or High" and the recruits would be divided out according to this. Perhaps there could be two options for "reinforcements priority" (numbers) and another for "quality" to allow the player to customize what units get effective recruits and which units simply get the leftovers. That way the player could better customize where he wants to focus his strength.

An allocation system like this could be constructed similar to the research system in rule the waves.

... Then again this might just be another cumbersome interface without much added value.

[Tejszd]

Has there been any discussion about an events/news pop up at the start of each turn to make things easier (especially for new players)?

Example usage;
- HQ/units activating and or appearing
- HQ/units that will be withdrawn in the coming week. Clicking on the unit name takes you to the unit.
- start of production of new model/plane/tank/etc. So players could set a unit to refit.

Edit: I guess there is the event log already, I just need to develop the habit of going to it each turn...

[wpurdom]

I've only read about a fifth of this long thread to date, so sorry if I'm repetitive.

I would echo those who hope that something will be done to prevent the large Lvov pocket.

More generally, playability could be increased if something would block the Axis player from calculating, recalculating, and refining the initial move to the nth degree. There could be some variability in strength of some individual Soviet units behind the lines. Alternately, there could be a very limited Russian pre-move. For instance, most Soviet unit would be categorically frozen but some of the front line reserves could be "eligible" to move. Each "eligible" unit could have a 2/3's chance of being frozen and otherwise receive a fraction of its MPs. Just enough variability that the Axis player faced some of the normal constraints in working out a move and couldn't follow an identical script each game.

WITW has made cut-off units stronger and more durable. That's all to the good. Chaos pointed out a different issue indirectly which I bring up with trepidation. On the Russian front, particularly in the first year, a substantial fraction of the cut-off personnel eventually returned to Soviet control (1/10, 1/5??). One wouldn't want to add this in in a way that threw off play balance, and it may be modelled indirectly in the way Soviet manpower develops, anyway. Whether a refinement here would be good would depend on how other elements of the combat develop - e.g., is the casualty rate in lost battles increased? One might balance off with increased losses to routed units, whether that was dependent on the mobility or remaining movement points of the victors or not.

The comments on ground support by air are interesting. There seems a great deal of support for the idea that air power is too effective at kills on armored targets. You can't go too far in nerfing air power, though. It seems clear that the presence or absence of air power was huge, including immobilizing mobile divisions. Air power was enough to guard Patton's flanks the tanks don't run or fight without ammo and gas, and the change of weather seems to have been huge in the Ardennes campaign. Perhaps one needs fewer kills and more disablements of AFVs by air power as well as more attrition of the internal supplies and MPs of the fighting unit, particularly on interdiction assaults on moving units. I suspect that a lot of the breakdowns of German tanks were caused directly or indirectly by air power.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Regarding Air Power: More later, but: There was not that much air Power on the eastern front. Even when concentrated for major battles, not comparable to Normandy.
Nobody doubts the many effects of air power, but the story of aircraft as flying anti tank guns.

[wpurdom]

I'm all in favor of avoiding snowballing. The game engine overestimates the value of experience in combat after initial exposure. (But gamers love this because success makes better units so they can improve their units by cleverness). A well-trained soldier picks up most of the advantage of experience in actual combat in the first couple of weeks or so of being under fire. There certainly is some support that many units also had a initial sub-par (short) period - look at the 79th and 90th divisions in Normandy. Not much evidence of pick-up thereafter for the individual or individual unit, and at the individual level combat fatigue is going to limit effectiveness after a while. And success is not a block to combat fatigue. (Clear-cut defeat, I'm sure, can add to combat fatigue).

Some examples to think about: in the Civil War fresh units were often more effective than experienced ones on attack, during the 1864 both armies in the East became combat ineffective for offensive operations. Does anybody think the Stonewall brigade was better man for man in July 1863 than they were in the Valley campaign?

Much of the advantage in experience goes to the units that aren't actually in combat. Think of the 104th Timberwolf division - it started out as a superior division on its first day of combat because it absorbed the lessons of those before it. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Marine Divisions didn't need experience to excel either.

More specific to the Germans, if they want to have a higher morale, they need to draft fewer people in 1944. They were scraping the bottom of the barrel. there is no real evidence that the Germans lost morale to anything other than combat fatigue, they diluted their officer corps, had inferior training as compared to before, and were scraping the bottom going with oldersters, youngsters, and foriegners - older folk just aren't as good on the front line - at Guadalcanal, for instance, some of the best Marines, certainly the most experienced, over 25-30 just couldn't handle the physical and mental strain. If there were to be any variable input into national morale it should not be "success" or casualties inflicted, but only overall theater casualties incurred.