
Refute that [8D]
Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21
ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
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" (?æŽè), or "initiative"; the opponent has "gote" (ŒãŽè). 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".
ORIGINAL: Pelton
Your telling me one month in germany is not going to up moral?
Refute that [8D]
You 100% can't refute the fact.
ComradePT
There is no evidence supporting your case that the Germans are somehow gaining fewer morale than the Soviets through resting.
Note that you're specifically talking about "resting" (so the possible increase to 75) so I'm only talking about that too, not any other kind of morale gain.
You're, as usual, mixing up arguments into one single argument even though the arguments can't be mixed. You're saying that few good attacks can be made in 1942, so German national morale is 50. The first has absolutely nothing to do with the second, or vice versa.
Q-Ball
Maybe what Pelton is trying to say is this:
On Paper, the average Morale Gap (difference in National Morale) bw Soviets and Germans is around 30 in the early game, give or take (75/70 vs. a sliding scale of 50-40).
Over time, the actual morale gap between Germans and Soviets, and for that matter between Germans and their own low-morale Allies, is much less than that.
This is because almost any unit can get into the mid-50s in Morale/Experience, simply by resting, regardless of National Morale. This means that Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and Soviet units can rountinely EXCEED their own national morale by 15 points or so, simply by resting. Because the Soviets have alot of units, they should easily be able to "park" a number of units, rotate, and raise the average morale into the 50s.
The Germans, on the other hand, if they are in the 60s in Morale after Blizzard, don't really gain it back. There is a die roll to make Morale gains, but you have to get very lucky to gain even a point through rest, once you are in the 60s. The Germans will never exceed their National Morale on rest alone, so in 1942 70 is the ceiling no matter when, except through combat.
So, though the "Paper" gap in September of 1942 is 30 points, the actual gap between Wehrmacht infantry, and Soviet/Axis Ally infantry, is more like 10 points.
I think this is what he is trying to say.
National Morale would be more meaningful if there was a "push" and "pull" toward the National Morale figure. Meaning, low-morale units were much less capable of gaining morale simply by sitting, and units with high national morale would predicably get there if they are out of combat, maybe for sure gaining a point a turn until the National Morale is reached.
Such a change would clearly favor the Germans in 1942, so that would have to be intended
ORIGINAL: stone10
darn, you can type Japanese on Matrix forum? Why I can't type in Chinese.
By the way, although I haven't play Go for a long time, I do not think the concept of Go apply to WITE. In Go, you really have to go for the best move, the most economic one. Otherwise, the initiative can shift easily because your move is relatively unimportant compare to your opponent's. On the contrary, the Axis have the initiative in the 41 summer no matter what. There're valueable objects everywhere. The only thing the Soviets can do is to respond to Axis attack or run in 41.
This is because almost any unit can get into the mid-50s in Morale/Experience, simply by resting, regardless of National Morale. This means that Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and Soviet units can rountinely EXCEED their own national morale by 15 points or so, simply by resting. Because the Soviets have alot of units, they should easily be able to "park" a number of units, rotate, and raise the average morale into the 50s.
The Germans, on the other hand, if they are in the 60s in Morale after Blizzard, don't really gain it back. There is a die roll to make Morale gains, but you have to get very lucky to gain even a point through rest, once you are in the 60s. The Germans will never exceed their National Morale on rest alone, so in 1942 70 is the ceiling no matter when, except through combat.
So, though the "Paper" gap in September of 1942 is 30 points, the actual gap between Wehrmacht infantry, and Soviet/Axis Ally infantry, is more like 10 points.
Hmmm, and how can a unit get over its National Morale without winning battles? I can't find that on the rules or the patch notes.
ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I'm extremely sceptical about what some people say/imply, namely that the Soviets would suddenly get much more morale than that from resting. I have seen no proof supporting that theory, and there certainly isn't some hard coded bonus for the Soviets. Transcausus Front units don't suddenly have morale in the 60's by the time they activate.
But they are getting past 50 morale. It's just not as fast as people expect them to. It's a fairly slow process and the speed at which they gain morale is inversely proportional to the current unit morale.ORIGINAL: randallw
If resting German units, far from the front, are not getting past 50 morale it suggests a programming error.