Whats the pt of national moral?

[NotOneStepBack]

In my current game with stone10, he retreated all the way to Germany for the 41-42 blizzard, denying me as the Soviet any additional morale gains besides the national morale level. The blizzard is almost over and my entire army is huge, but has extremely low morale given that they are still inexperienced and I have no guards. It remains to be seen whether or not this will hurt me in the long run, but I have the feeling that his army is large and still has higher than average morale for '42 once his offensive starts vs. my VERY large army but with extremely low morale. I have dug in and am waiting for the blizzard to end still, so we will see.

Morale seems to be the biggest balancing aspect of the game imo. I agree with Pelton that national morale really only matters for the Russian side. The manual does state however that morale will tend to level out to national morale whether a unit is above or below it, so are there cases where idle units above national morale are losing morale in normal conditions?

There needs to be an incentive to stand your ground in this game, on both sides of the isle, and I think morale is it. Otherwise what's the point of the German invading? What do they have to gain from it? If they can't deliver the knock out blow in '41, then it's seriously a numbers game they can't possibly win.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

In my current game with stone10, he retreated all the way to Germany for the 41-42 blizzard, denying me as the Soviet any additional morale gains besides the national morale level. The blizzard is almost over and my entire army is huge, but has extremely low morale given that they are still inexperienced and I have no guards. It remains to be seen whether or not this will hurt me in the long run, but I have the feeling that his army is large and still has higher than average morale for '42 once his offensive starts vs. my VERY large army but with extremely low morale. I have dug in and am waiting for the blizzard to end still, so we will see.

I am curious how that game turns out, but I am betting you will like, and stone10 will not like, the result. You probably marched all the way to the Dnepr at least. You don't have much in the way of guards, but otherwise your army should be massive. 1942 will be a stalemate, and by 1943 you'll be a year ahead.

[NotOneStepBack]

I marched to the Dnepr and dug in, yep. I can't even go any farther west as I don't have any NKPS divisions and I have to rely on RR brigades to rebuild raillines.

[stone10]

Yeah, I screwed up on the partisan. I really need to spread Axis Allies out and hunt parisans down in the spring.

[NotOneStepBack]

I actually considered the effect of partisans in this one, since I just didn't want German units railing back in right to the front. I thought about sending lone tank brigades out there to just cut rail lines, but their morale is so abysmal and the supply situation so crappy that I figured it wasn't worth it and the partisans would take up the slack for me with tons of night missions.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Marquo

Do you think that losing manpower sources is meaningful? And also RR capacity? Capturing cities means less of each; also --> keep an eye on the supply meter; have you played long enough into 43' and 44' to be sure that losing HI does not adversely affect supply?

Well, I lost Leningrad, Tula and Stalino. I regained lots of ground during Winter, and my RR capacity is now above 100k and I got 1,3M manpower (I think I am right). So even without theses gains I would be in great shape, and to be honest I am not sure that these cities makes such big difference to Your manpower. (maybe 200-300k)

I produce twice as much supply as I need.


And as ong as Moskow stays Soviet their RR capacity will be sufficient.

Kamil, is this a pure 1.05 game?

[ComradeP]

Q-ball I think your the only one who replyed not looking though Red glasses. Atleast there is someone esle on these boards who at least neutral.

How was my reply, or the reply of all others made "through Red glasses"?

Q-Ball and you have a theory, but it's a theory that doesn't always apply to the in-game reality. Yes, you can end the blizzard with a fairly small morale gap, but you might just as well end it with a ~20 points difference. It depends on how you play, the game doesn't force that on you.

I also find it highly questionable that the Soviets will somehow get all 6-8 CV Rifle divisions by mid 1942, which is what Kamil implies when he says that the Rifle formations are "a match for the Germans".

Carpeting should now be less effective from a casualty perspective, as the Germans can still knock out more more than you get each turn in 1942. Of course, the number of favourable loss ratios declines rapidly when corps arrive en masse, but by then it will be 1943 and not 1942.

As I see it, the latest updates have moved the first real problems with combat from 1942 to 1943, which means there's still a serious problem for the Axis, but at least it's less bad than it was.

Also: that land "means nothing"/means very little applies to both sides, as the Axis can indeed withdraw to their home countries without any kind of penalty being imposed on them aside from an increased likeliness that they will lose the war.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Pelton


Q-ball I think your the only one who replyed not looking though Red glasses. Atleast there is someone esle on these boards who at least neutral.

Pelton

This is the type of statement that doesn't help you bud. For the most part, there was a discussion going on above your post as people were sorting out the rules, yet you come back with the above statement. I asked a freaking question and I get lumped in with "Red glasses".

That you have raised awareness over several important issues and game mechanics is undisputed. How you have done it is another matter that has turned a lot of people off. You can say you don't care about that, but the fact is if people get to the point that they have you on ignore for stupid statements or that your latest points get dismissed because past stupid statements hurt your credibility.

[KamilS]

Cannonfodder

Kamil, is this a pure 1.05 game?

We started on 1.04 and switched to 1.05 in January (3 turn of '42 as far as I remember)

ComradeP


also find it highly questionable that the Soviets will somehow get all 6-8 CV Rifle divisions by mid 1942, which is what Kamil implies when he says that the Rifle formations are "a match for the Germans".

I wasn't precise enough. My divisions got 3-5 CV, but I was able to create inf corp that were around 7-10 CV. So I was able to create infantry stacks matching strength of German infantry (but not panzers). Moreover counting all of the units Soviet infantry has more CV than German.

[Joel Billings]

Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this).

[ComradeP]

I wasn't precise enough. My divisions got 3-5 CV, but I was able to create inf corp that were around 7-10 CV. So I was able to create infantry stacks matching strength of German infantry (but not panzers). Moreover counting all of the units Soviet infantry has more CV than German.

Corps vs. divisions isn't a 1:1 honest comparison, it's 2:1 or 3:1 in terms of manpower, so it's only logical that the Soviets can match the German divisional CV's with corps. I don't really see why that's a problem. It would be a problem if the Soviets could match German division CV's with their own divisional CV's, but that isn't likely to happen until 1943-1944.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this).

That is true, and that is a very good point. If you have divisions in the 60s, a few combats should get them back up to speed.

Because of this rule, I am OK with it, though it primarily benefits 1942 Germans (and probably will benefit the Soviets in the late-game, when Tank units have a National Morale of 65, and Guards units have higher).

What that also means is that the German player in 1942 should seek a few easy combats, and stack alot of units in those combats, for the sole purpose of regaining morale for the long-haul. In fact, it is an encouragement NOT to turtle up. Turtling up means you'll just have a seat for 1942 with your crappy units.

You are also right I think on the down-side; units above National Morale always lose morale when they lose a combat. Units under it, do not necessarily. This also means that no matter how you baby the Wehrmacht infantry, it is bound to lose Morale over the long-haul. Slowly, but that's as it should be, as it's ground into dust.

That is probably the real point of national morale

[KamilS]

Q-Ball


That is true, and that is a very good point. If you have divisions in the 60s, a few combats should get them back up to speed.

Because of this rule, I am OK with it, though it primarily benefits 1942 Germans (and probably will benefit the Soviets in the late-game, when Tank units have a National Morale of 65, and Guards units have higher).

What that also means is that the German player in 1942 should seek a few easy combats, and stack alot of units in those combats, for the sole purpose of regaining morale for the long-haul. In fact, it is an encouragement NOT to turtle up. Turtling up means you'll just have a seat for 1942 with your crappy units.

You are also right I think on the down-side; units above National Morale always lose morale when they lose a combat. Units under it, do not necessarily. This also means that no matter how you baby the Wehrmacht infantry, it is bound to lose Morale over the long-haul. Slowly, but that's as it should be, as it's ground into dust.

That is probably the real point of national morale

Do You know chances of increase/decrease of morale? (including factors affecting it)

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Q-ball I think your the only one who replyed not looking though Red glasses. Atleast there is someone esle on these boards who at least neutral.

How was my reply, or the reply of all others made "through Red glasses"?

Q-Ball and you have a theory, but it's a theory that doesn't always apply to the in-game reality. Yes, you can end the blizzard with a fairly small morale gap, but you might just as well end it with a ~20 points difference. It depends on how you play, the game doesn't force that on you.

I also find it highly questionable that the Soviets will somehow get all 6-8 CV Rifle divisions by mid 1942, which is what Kamil implies when he says that the Rifle formations are "a match for the Germans".

Carpeting should now be less effective from a casualty perspective, as the Germans can still knock out more more than you get each turn in 1942. Of course, the number of favourable loss ratios declines rapidly when corps arrive en masse, but by then it will be 1943 and not 1942.

As I see it, the latest updates have moved the first real problems with combat from 1942 to 1943, which means there's still a serious problem for the Axis, but at least it's less bad than it was.

Also: that land "means nothing"/means very little applies to both sides, as the Axis can indeed withdraw to their home countries without any kind of penalty being imposed on them aside from an increased likeliness that they will lose the war.

I think that about everyone agrees that this is the very problem with the game now. One side evecs and runs and as the German you should do the same thing.

I am guessing this is not what 2 by 3 was hoping for when they started working on this game.

There seems to be more then a few things that mean nothing, national moral and hvy to name 2.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this).

We do all know this, but the fact is the Germans are not going to be throwing away troops from 42 on to gain moral.
The front is a carpet of level 3 forts with 50 defending cv's.

Attacking is not an option.

So national moral is 50 for the Germans. Even if you attack during 42 vs the carpet your not going to be for long.

So at best the german will not be able to attack after October 42 ( vs an equal Russian) on a scale other then a few counter attacks here and there of which there will be few infantry division.

So the 75/70 ect national moral for the Germans is really meaningless.

M60's good point that 2 by 3 can effect the over all moral issue on the russian side I agree with, but the German national moral is broken.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: Pelton


Q-ball I think your the only one who replyed not looking though Red glasses. Atleast there is someone esle on these boards who at least neutral.

Pelton

This is the type of statement that doesn't help you bud. For the most part, there was a discussion going on above your post as people were sorting out the rules, yet you come back with the above statement. I asked a freaking question and I get lumped in with "Red glasses".

That you have raised awareness over several important issues and game mechanics is undisputed. How you have done it is another matter that has turned a lot of people off. You can say you don't care about that, but the fact is if people get to the point that they have you on ignore for stupid statements or that your latest points get dismissed because past stupid statements hurt your credibility.

Great point I can't refute that one.

Sorry, Klydon.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this).

That is true, and that is a very good point. If you have divisions in the 60s, a few combats should get them back up to speed.

Because of this rule, I am OK with it, though it primarily benefits 1942 Germans (and probably will benefit the Soviets in the late-game, when Tank units have a National Morale of 65, and Guards units have higher).

What that also means is that the German player in 1942 should seek a few easy combats, and stack alot of units in those combats, for the sole purpose of regaining morale for the long-haul. In fact, it is an encouragement NOT to turtle up. Turtling up means you'll just have a seat for 1942 with your crappy units.

You are also right I think on the down-side; units above National Morale always lose morale when they lose a combat. Units under it, do not necessarily. This also means that no matter how you baby the Wehrmacht infantry, it is bound to lose Morale over the long-haul. Slowly, but that's as it should be, as it's ground into dust.

That is probably the real point of national morale

I guess looking at it like that mybee that is the point of national moral, but given the flavor of the month evac and run strategy, the russian army in most games come June 42 will be very strong all sides being equal.

Its very hard for most poeple to get 30 arm pts and 3 million+ KIA.If you don't get these numbers, your looking at a very bad blizzard and digging in during 42 on.

Moral is one of the key issues that can effect the out come. For the German theres not much one can do once you start digging in to move it up. As the Russian you can do nothing an it goes up.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Moral is one of the key issues that can effect the out come. For the German theres not much one can do once you start digging in to move it up. As the Russian you can do nothing an it goes up.

As Q-Ball points out, it is an incentive not to turtle up. I've commented elsewhere that the Axis starts losing the campaign as soon as it decides to forgo any further major offensives, even using alternate rules for scoring VP's. The Axis get the initiative on Turn 1, and don't lose it until Blizzard, when game mechanics are set in motion to snatch it and give it to the Soviet player. After that, it's completely in the players' hands to determine who's got the initiative.

You made me think hard about the statement I quoted above Pelton

"Initiative" is usually defined in maddingly vague terms. Let me - at the risk of sounding a bit pedantic - recall how this elusive concept is defined (and studied) in the game of Go:

A move that leaves the player an overwhelming follow-up move, and thus forces the opponent to respond, is said to have "sente" (先手), or "initiative"; the opponent has "gote" (後手). In most games, the player who keeps sente most of the time will win.

Gote means "succeeding move" (lit: "after hand"), the opposite of sente, meaning "preceding move" (lit: "before hand"). Sente is a term to describe which player has the initiative in the game, and which moves result in taking and holding the initiative. More precisely, as one player attacks, and the other defends in gote, it can be said that they respectively do and do not have the initiative. The situation of having sente is favorable, permitting control of the flow of the game.

Go is a perfectly balanced game, and WitE certainly isn't, it starts imbalanced, with the Axis having abilities out of reach to the Soviet player, and then it slowly gets stacked so that the Soviet position and abilities improve over time. However, the basic concepts of sente and gote, indeed do apply to WitE as they do in any strategy game. You have - quite convincingly - argued that WitE is a numbers game: if some strategy is anti-economic, just don't pursue that strategy. However, I want to argue that it isn't just about numbers.

Note the part I quoted in bold face: the one who has the initiative, is the one who controls the flow of the game. In WitE terms, this basically means controlling the flow of casualties for both sides. If you turtle up, you can affect the flow of the game by retreating - that is, by losing - or by counterattacking the strongest enemy concentration, his spearheads - "Unsound!" yells the Armchair General, "That's the way things are", counters dryly the commander in the field. If one doesn't turtle up, then it is possible to affect the flow of the game by initiating offensive operations in a place and time of your choice, by switching axis of attack and throwing out of balance your opponent, and, of course, calling off offensives when there is little more to gain from them.

Which of the two strategies looks more palatable?

I think the Axis has the tools to control - directly or indirectly - the flow of the campaign well into 1943. The problem we have is that there isn't clear agreement on what these tools precisely consist of (or if they even exist) and how to best use them ("a fool with a tool, is still a fool").

The bottom line is: that the Soviet position is improved over time even by doing nothing (that's true). But the only way the Soviet player gets that is that the Axis does "nothing" as in "nothing of an offensive nature".

[ComradeP]

I think that about everyone agrees that this is the very problem with the game now. One side evecs and runs and as the German you should do the same thing.

I am guessing this is not what 2 by 3 was hoping for when they started working on this game.

There seems to be more then a few things that mean nothing, national moral and hvy to name 2.

You are of the opinion that those things "mean nothing." Your opinion is just that: an opinion. It is not a hard fact.

Also: with a game featuring somewhat historical tactics and no HQ build-ups, the Axis can still be struggling to meet some of their historical goals, as the advance in the north might normally end with capturing Leningrad, but the advance in the south is often still tricky compared to the historical advance, as often Rostov is not captured. The Soviets lost an awful lot of land in 1941, so I'm not entirely sure why so many people focus on territorial losses, considering that the average Axis territorial gains are not necessarily all that much more impressive than the historical gains.

We're also playing the game from a strategic perspective, and we don't need to worry about doing what Hitler/Stalin tells us to. Trading land for preserving your army is a perfectly historical strategy, although the degree in which it can currently take place is a bit excessive.

Your statement that German national morale is 50 is also false and it leads to incorrect arguments. There is nothing "broken" about German national morale. It works as designed.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I think that about everyone agrees that this is the very problem with the game now. One side evecs and runs and as the German you should do the same thing.

I am guessing this is not what 2 by 3 was hoping for when they started working on this game.

There seems to be more then a few things that mean nothing, national moral and hvy to name 2.

You are of the opinion that those things "mean nothing." Your opinion is just that: an opinion. It is not a hard fact.

Also: with a game featuring somewhat historical tactics and no HQ build-ups, the Axis can still be struggling to meet some of their historical goals, as the advance in the north might normally end with capturing Leningrad, but the advance in the south is often still tricky compared to the historical advance, as often Rostov is not captured. The Soviets lost an awful lot of land in 1941, so I'm not entirely sure why so many people focus on territorial losses, considering that the average Axis territorial gains are not necessarily all that much more impressive than the historical gains.

We're also playing the game from a strategic perspective, and we don't need to worry about doing what Hitler/Stalin tells us to. Trading land for preserving your army is a perfectly historical strategy, although the degree in which it can currently take place is a bit excessive.

Your statement that German national morale is 50 is also false and it leads to incorrect arguments. There is nothing "broken" about German national morale. It works as designed.

How it is designed might be wrong,

1. old HQ build-ups way over powered. Poor design fixed and made a good design.
2. Air field spamming, just wrong in all respects. Poor design fixed and made a good design.
3. Flying pig rule 1v1=2v1 Poor design fixed and made a good design.

They were designed to work withen the game, but the design was a failure.

Hvy and nation moral are working as designed, but its a poor design.

Hvy is probably working as designed, but it has zero impact on the game and is simply window dressing.

National moral for the German is 50, because thats how the design is working in game and the 75/70/65 is window dressing.

National moral as per Bletchley_Geek aruement is working as designed and very good as far as attacking and winning/losing.

What we as players are tring to do is help find the poorly designed rule sets and hopefully they get fixed.

The next patch needs to fix the poorly designed

1. VP system, this could realy sovle allot of issues. There is no reason to fight, this is an old issue thats been around before I started posting.
2. Nerf the rail system some. Its way to easy to evac and run.
3. Make national moral something more then window dressing for Germans. Its not to far off, but units in the back in Germany should be recoving moral better then at a rate of 1.4%
4. Make hvy something other then window dressing.

If you can't get to 30-50 armament points destoryed your not going to have a chance at a draw as German.

Pelton