3 years and nothing changed

[Sturmpionier]

Yup, that's exactly what I expected. Thanks.

[Nikademus]

I've mentioned it before, i'll say it again. It would be great if a future version of the game could allow players to select seperate morale and exp values and/or if the country training values could be seperated in terms of exp/morale. Seems that a good number of the complaints revolve not so much around low exp but the low morale that by default comes with them resulting in easy routings. It is possible after all to have inexperienced or poorly trained troops that are none the less, highly motivated.

on the same token its possible to have veteran units with shaky or beaten down morale. As it stands now you can only acheive these situations through custom designed scenarios.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Mentioned it before and will say it again. Have something in mind. Working on it.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I've mentioned it before, i'll say it again. It would be great if a future version of the game could allow players to select seperate morale and exp values and/or if the country training values could be seperated in terms of exp/morale. Seems that a good number of the complaints revolve not so much around low exp but the low morale that by default comes with them resulting in easy routings. It is possible after all to have inexperienced or poorly trained troops that are none the less, highly motivated.

on the same token its possible to have veteran units with shaky or beaten down morale. As it stands now you can only acheive these situations through custom designed scenarios.

[Nikademus]

[&o]

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Mentioned it before and will say it again. Have something in mind. Working on it.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I've mentioned it before, i'll say it again. It would be great if a future version of the game could allow players to select seperate morale and exp values and/or if the country training values could be seperated in terms of exp/morale. Seems that a good number of the complaints revolve not so much around low exp but the low morale that by default comes with them resulting in easy routings. It is possible after all to have inexperienced or poorly trained troops that are none the less, highly motivated.

on the same token its possible to have veteran units with shaky or beaten down morale. As it stands now you can only acheive these situations through custom designed scenarios.

M.W. for President!!

[&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Korpraali V]

Thank you, sir!
[&o]

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Alby
M.W. for President!!

[&o][&o][&o][&o]

Hell no! He has to do something useful with his life, i.e. continue to program for Matrix!

[Puukkoo]

Back in the old school man!

SP1 had three difficulty levels if I remember correctly. That idea didn't develop any further. It's a drag.

The morale value should anyway depend on the strategic situation in which the scenario is played.

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Alby
M.W. for President!!

[&o][&o][&o][&o]

Hell no! He has to do something useful with his life, i.e. continue to program for Matrix!

[:D]

[Tropsbor]

Am I the only one whose impression is that we're trying to bite our tail? The first one says, "Increase the ratings." The other one replies, "No, leave them as they are." Notice the lack of arguments and supporting evidence? This has been going over 7 pages. So, how do you evaluate the morale, experience and leadership of minor troops? Well, the answer certainly doesn't lie on this board. Judging by the quality of the posts, I've come to the conclusion that neither you or I know the slightest bit of info on this matter. The only serious discussions seem to be centered around the US, Germany, Russia and Japan. Has anybody here actually read a book dealing with the minors or read articles written by specialists in this field? If not, people here permit themselves too much liberty when they write oneliners with no arguments and sources whatsoever, and expect readers to take it as fact. So we're left with only one option: ask the friggin' nationals! I doubt that we are well placed to talk about the history of countries that are sitting at the edge of the western world when we barely know ours. [:D]

Here's a start:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/

http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/

Register
Log
Ask

Locked until further notice.

That's what I'd say if I was a moderator.

[David Heath]

Oh not just seven pages ....... try ten years.

David

[Tropsbor]

Well, I've had the time to look through some threads and I found an interesting point raised by one of the posters

I saw today a TV documentary (Discovery Channel) about the war in Crimea. When analyzing the strength of the German forces that attacked Crimea, the speaker said that the Romanian forces that were part of this force were fightin without any entusiasm because, after the Moldavian provences were conquered, the Romanians lost their interest in fighting on the East front. He also said that the fighting value of the Romanian division was insignificant, as the men were not motivated enough and they were poorly trained. The Romanians were described as one of the weeknesses of the Axes force.
This contradicts most of what I know about this subject. Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2. But I'm starting to have some doubts about the accuracy of the things I've read so far, maybe Romanians also tend to overestimate their contribution. Can you point me a book that covers this domain with an impartial point of view?

Discovery Channel is not a reliable source of detailed information about WWII. I really doubt that the people who made the documentary actually researched the subject beyond von Manstein's Lost Victories, which is not a really accurate source. Probably they did not even bother to read Third Axis, Fourth Ally
The best book on the subject is by far Romanii in Crimeea by Adrian Pandea and Eftimie Ardeleanu, Ed. Militara, 1995. It is 3 quarters original documents. I do not feel that the authors exaggerated the Romanian contribution, as you think, but have kept a really professional and impartial attitude.

The fact that for 50 years the Western historians had access mainly to German archives and memoirs had created a very German view on the Eastern Front, leaving no room for the military accomplishments of the other players. Read the articles on Crimea 1941-42 on this site. I assure you I tried to be as impartial as I could and show the things how they happened.

[Tropsbor]

http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/vie ... ve&start=0

[VikingNo2]

Good read, what I have been trying to advocate is the the leadership values be low like thay are in the receint change abut the the moral and exp level should be moved up.

I cannot support my request or point very well, I just know that values across the board on a nation in the 30s, make them very very hard to play.

[Sturmpionier]

ORIGINAL: Tropsbor

If not, people here permit themselves too much liberty when they write oneliners with no arguments and sources whatsoever, and expect readers to take it as fact.

That is so not true. Believe me.

[Goblin]

I'm awesome. Honest. [:)]


Goblin

[KG Erwin]

If Michael's idea comes to fruition, then the argument over ratings will become moot. ALMOST everything in SPWaW can be edited by the user via the "preferences" acreen and OOB Editor, so the next logical step is...

[soldier]

Good read, what I have been trying to advocate is the the leadership values be low like thay are in the receint change abut the the moral and exp level should be moved up.

I cannot support my request or point very well, I just know that values across the board on a nation in the 30s, make them very very hard to play.

I too base my comments on gameplay issues. Medium to low calibre tanks that can't load up more than one shot once their engaged suggests a gameplay problem, similarly common military sense the world over would suggest that you soften up entrenched positions with artillery prior to attacking but its not required against minors currently. I like a war game to represent this

[mogami]

Hi, If you allow the other player to use arty to soften you up then your ratings will not matter. The low ratings go to countries that were always softened up before being assaulted.
Make the Poles 60 and give the Germans 1000 points worth of Stukas. Make the Romanians 70 and give the Soviets 10k worth of arty and sturmoviks.

The real problem is not minors being too low it's Germans in 1944-45 being too high because german players don't like to let Allied players use aircraft or artybut like to sit in their Tigers surrounded by SS. This makes the whole system go whacky.

I'd even suggest that the morale of units be impacted directly by the amount of air and arty support they have.

Experiance ratings are not national issue. In campaign games your core force will always become elite. In PBEM or online pick forces that are balanced or assign more points/better positon to side with lower experiance. scenario designers have always been ale to assign ratings.

[Swamprat]

The real problem is not minors being too low it's Germans in 1944-45 being too high because german players don't like to let Allied players use aircraft or artybut like to sit in their Tigers surrounded by SS.

Actually this is a very good point.