ORIGINAL: Kamil
I have to say, that at the moment I see only one way national morale influences actual morale of units - keeps them from getting too high above fixed value. I agree with Pelton, that otherwise its impact is next to 0.
Other things that massively helps Soviet is fact, that it is still very easy to build forts with level 3 and no necessity to defend anything once ARM is withdrawn. If I add very high rail capacity outcome is massively favouring Soviets.
So formula for '42 is - Spam forts, lay carpets thanks to high rail capacity and wait for Oct '42 when there is Inf corps upgrade.
I would love to see some nerfing of defence capacity in general and making capturing certain objectives meaningful.
I am quite aware of the fact, that lowering defence without affecting summer of '41 and soviet winter offensive could be tricky.
German Moral gains broken or is this BS by "design"?
Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
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).
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
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
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
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".
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
So German units cant gain moral by sitting as can Russian units above 50 or very unlikely 1.4%
There is a hard cap on German moral starting in 1942.
German moral is 50 by design and has a hard cap by design.
You can win battle after battle after 1942 and German moral is capped at nation moral levels and you can sit turn after turn and german units will only gain moral 1.4% of the time above 50.
National moral levels for the German player is a hard cap after 1941, not something they can sit around and do as per the russian side.
Pelton
There is a hard cap on German moral starting in 1942.
German moral is 50 by design and has a hard cap by design.
You can win battle after battle after 1942 and German moral is capped at nation moral levels and you can sit turn after turn and german units will only gain moral 1.4% of the time above 50.
National moral levels for the German player is a hard cap after 1941, not something they can sit around and do as per the russian side.
Pelton
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
-
heliodorus04
- Posts: 1653
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
- Location: Nashville TN
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
I'm going to generously bestow to this community a Robert Heinlein quote for Christmas:
I want to emphasize something here:
None of you can claim any authority beyond anecdotal evidence without the formula
I have asked, and asked, and asked, for the morale check formula, which as far as I recall (and I have yet to be countered as far as I have read in the last several months over this issue of National Morale being punitive on Germany and liberating on Soviet), was referenced when the morale change patches in 1.04 went into the game. Now, as far as I can find out, that formula is now hidden and will not be disclosed by playtester (if they know it) or Matrix representative.
I beg the question: Why is the formula secret?
(I ask an ancillary question: was it ever public at the time it was changed for patching, or am I mistaken about that?)
Without the formula, none of us has authority to make legitimate claims.
With the formula, we can discuss facts.
Everyone else is speaking anecdotally unless they know the formula.
The fact that no one will discuss the formula signifies to me that what I believe about Regression to the Mean effects is accurate, and putting out the formula for morale change will give me the data I need to statistically prove my claims that this effect is another (of many) that simply punish German success irrespective of Soviet competence in play.
Until someone addresses this issue (secret formulae), I don't feel inclined to give Matrix games the benefit of the doubt that they are willing to even consider statistical evidence that can prove the game is borked quite seriously against Germany in ways that make it unfun to play Germany well.
Meanwhile, everyone is congratulating themselves for calling Pelton petulant.
Please, let's deal with the one fact we all need to have a serious discussion:
The formula
Either provide it, or tell me it will not ever be provided.
Robert Heinlein, in Time Enough for LoveWhat are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
I want to emphasize something here:
None of you can claim any authority beyond anecdotal evidence without the formula
I have asked, and asked, and asked, for the morale check formula, which as far as I recall (and I have yet to be countered as far as I have read in the last several months over this issue of National Morale being punitive on Germany and liberating on Soviet), was referenced when the morale change patches in 1.04 went into the game. Now, as far as I can find out, that formula is now hidden and will not be disclosed by playtester (if they know it) or Matrix representative.
I beg the question: Why is the formula secret?
(I ask an ancillary question: was it ever public at the time it was changed for patching, or am I mistaken about that?)
Without the formula, none of us has authority to make legitimate claims.
With the formula, we can discuss facts.
Everyone else is speaking anecdotally unless they know the formula.
The fact that no one will discuss the formula signifies to me that what I believe about Regression to the Mean effects is accurate, and putting out the formula for morale change will give me the data I need to statistically prove my claims that this effect is another (of many) that simply punish German success irrespective of Soviet competence in play.
Until someone addresses this issue (secret formulae), I don't feel inclined to give Matrix games the benefit of the doubt that they are willing to even consider statistical evidence that can prove the game is borked quite seriously against Germany in ways that make it unfun to play Germany well.
Meanwhile, everyone is congratulating themselves for calling Pelton petulant.
Please, let's deal with the one fact we all need to have a serious discussion:
The formula
Either provide it, or tell me it will not ever be provided.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
For starters: you do realize wmcalpine has provided proof that you're wrong? You're saying that morale is hard capped (definition of hard cap: upper limit/can't increase over it) at 70 in 1942. wmcalpine has just provided proof that is not the case, and you applaud his efforts even though he just clearly indicated to everyone that you are wrong.
Now, having been shown how wrong you are, you're going to say that you meant it rhetorically or something like that, instead of acknowledge that you're wrong.
I'm saying you would probably normally be banned for tossing insults/trolling in almost every single post.
You also don't have a thread full of facts, you have a large number of your own posts filled with hot air and other people trying to point out facts to you.
1) You have never provided any data that German national morale is 50 (as in: literally 50, which is what you keep repeating).
2) You have never provided any data that supports your theory that German morale in 1942-1945 can never, under any circumstances, increase above the national morale (which is what you're saying when you say German national morale is hard capped).
Joel, others and myself have however time after time provided evidence that what you're saying is wrong.
I was about to go to the 1942-1945 campaign's editor, change all the German unit morale to 70 and attack to show you that morale does go up. Someone else did it, and you applaud his efforts, which doesn't make any kind of sense as it completely removes the foundation of your argument.
As to the statements you quoted: checks whether a unit loses morale are influenced by how close they are to their national morale level, so a unit far over its national morale is more likely to lose morale.
Morale gain of low morale units is distorted because they have so many checks that can work in their favour. In your examples, the Germans can gain morale through resting (unlikely) or through being below the national morale (not likely either). They will, however, generally instantly regain morale through combat. That situation is not unique for the Germans/Axis, it's identical for the Soviets. The reason you're primarily seeing it when the Germans try to increase their morale and not when the Soviets try to do so, is because the Soviets are often below 50 morale and can thus benefit from refitting (units above 50 morale essentially don't benefit from refitting when it comes to morale, aside from it probably being more likely that they'll gain morale through the check from resting in a good supply state).
You're also forgetting that morale gains were limited primarily to prevent the Soviets from having ~30 CV Rifle corps as early as 1943, as well as smoothen out Axis morale over time, but the Soviets feel the effects far more than the Axis.
For comparison, maybe you should try to look at how other people try to present a case and compare that to how you do it.
1) Others say that morale "gravitates towards the mean", a perfectly logical event from a mathematical perspective. That means that over time the Germans will be closer to their national morale than their units are at the start and that the same will apply to the Soviets (that is: for the units that are not refitting).
2) You say German national morale is 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You probably don't see the difference, considering how often you repeat your statements, but one of those ways of describing the way national morale works in relation to morale is a good example of backing up an argument with facts or logical reasoning. Here's a hint: it's not your statement.
Now, having been shown how wrong you are, you're going to say that you meant it rhetorically or something like that, instead of acknowledge that you're wrong.
I have a thread full of facts and you have nothing to say other then I should be baned for providing data that backs up what I am saying.
I'm saying you would probably normally be banned for tossing insults/trolling in almost every single post.
You also don't have a thread full of facts, you have a large number of your own posts filled with hot air and other people trying to point out facts to you.
Again I am providing data and you?
1) You have never provided any data that German national morale is 50 (as in: literally 50, which is what you keep repeating).
2) You have never provided any data that supports your theory that German morale in 1942-1945 can never, under any circumstances, increase above the national morale (which is what you're saying when you say German national morale is hard capped).
Joel, others and myself have however time after time provided evidence that what you're saying is wrong.
I was about to go to the 1942-1945 campaign's editor, change all the German unit morale to 70 and attack to show you that morale does go up. Someone else did it, and you applaud his efforts, which doesn't make any kind of sense as it completely removes the foundation of your argument.
As to the statements you quoted: checks whether a unit loses morale are influenced by how close they are to their national morale level, so a unit far over its national morale is more likely to lose morale.
Morale gain of low morale units is distorted because they have so many checks that can work in their favour. In your examples, the Germans can gain morale through resting (unlikely) or through being below the national morale (not likely either). They will, however, generally instantly regain morale through combat. That situation is not unique for the Germans/Axis, it's identical for the Soviets. The reason you're primarily seeing it when the Germans try to increase their morale and not when the Soviets try to do so, is because the Soviets are often below 50 morale and can thus benefit from refitting (units above 50 morale essentially don't benefit from refitting when it comes to morale, aside from it probably being more likely that they'll gain morale through the check from resting in a good supply state).
You're also forgetting that morale gains were limited primarily to prevent the Soviets from having ~30 CV Rifle corps as early as 1943, as well as smoothen out Axis morale over time, but the Soviets feel the effects far more than the Axis.
For comparison, maybe you should try to look at how other people try to present a case and compare that to how you do it.
1) Others say that morale "gravitates towards the mean", a perfectly logical event from a mathematical perspective. That means that over time the Germans will be closer to their national morale than their units are at the start and that the same will apply to the Soviets (that is: for the units that are not refitting).
2) You say German national morale is 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You probably don't see the difference, considering how often you repeat your statements, but one of those ways of describing the way national morale works in relation to morale is a good example of backing up an argument with facts or logical reasoning. Here's a hint: it's not your statement.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
Helio: what formula? Pelton's referencing many aspects of the way morale/combat works. There's no single magic formula for all of those things.
I'm not congratulating myself for anything, I'm just very annoyed that Pelton keeps repeating statements that were proven to be false and presents them as facts over and over and over.
Believe me, I'd much rather be doing something else than try and make sure Pelton's version of the truth/lies are not accepted as the truth just because he spreads it like propaganda.
Meanwhile, everyone is congratulating themselves for calling Pelton petulant.
I'm not congratulating myself for anything, I'm just very annoyed that Pelton keeps repeating statements that were proven to be false and presents them as facts over and over and over.
Believe me, I'd much rather be doing something else than try and make sure Pelton's version of the truth/lies are not accepted as the truth just because he spreads it like propaganda.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
Helio, this is one Pelton hobby horse you're well advised to not join in on. There is no there there. He's making a fuss over absolutely nothing. The game is working exactly as it should.
Paranoia will destroy ya.
Paranoia will destroy ya.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
"Believe me, I'd much rather be doing something else than try and make sure Pelton's version of the truth/lies are not accepted as the truth just because he spreads it like propaganda."
And this is the main reason to even give him the time of day: people who do not know any better such as those who may be reading the forum to help decide whether to buy WITE and become new opponents may be so put off by this nonsense that they walk.
Marquo [;)]
And this is the main reason to even give him the time of day: people who do not know any better such as those who may be reading the forum to help decide whether to buy WITE and become new opponents may be so put off by this nonsense that they walk.
Marquo [;)]
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
Heliodorus04, cher ami, quotes will not change the fact that distortions and twisted logic can't change the fact that morale is not broken. And sometimes, vendors do not reveal all that is "beneath the hood." Speaking of Truth, here is a relevant quote from Madame Blavasky's theosophical discussion, "What is Truth."
"In sober fact, we are a poor set of mortals at best, ever in dread before the face of even a relative truth, lest it should devour ourselves and our petty little preconceptions along with us. As for an absolute truth, most of us are as incapable of seeing it as of reaching the moon on a bicycle. Firstly, because absolute truth is as immovable as the mountain of Mahomet, which refused to disturb itself for the prophet, so that he had to go to it himself. And we have to follow his example if we would approach it even at a distance. Secondly, because the kingdom of absolute truth is not of this world, while we are too much of it. And thirdly, because notwithstanding that in the poet's fancy man is
. . . . . . . the abstract
Of all perfection, which the workmanship
Of heaven hath modelled. . . . . . .
in reality he is a sorry bundle of anomalies and paradoxes, an empty wind bag inflated with his own importance, with contradictory and easily influenced opinions. He is at once an arrogant and a weak creature, which, though in constant dread of some authority, terrestrial or celestial, will yet--
. . . . . . . like an angry ape,
Play such fantastic tricks before high Heaven
As make the angels weep."
Happy Holidays,
Marquo
Disclaimer: the quote is not directed towards anyone and should not be interpreted as such.
"In sober fact, we are a poor set of mortals at best, ever in dread before the face of even a relative truth, lest it should devour ourselves and our petty little preconceptions along with us. As for an absolute truth, most of us are as incapable of seeing it as of reaching the moon on a bicycle. Firstly, because absolute truth is as immovable as the mountain of Mahomet, which refused to disturb itself for the prophet, so that he had to go to it himself. And we have to follow his example if we would approach it even at a distance. Secondly, because the kingdom of absolute truth is not of this world, while we are too much of it. And thirdly, because notwithstanding that in the poet's fancy man is
. . . . . . . the abstract
Of all perfection, which the workmanship
Of heaven hath modelled. . . . . . .
in reality he is a sorry bundle of anomalies and paradoxes, an empty wind bag inflated with his own importance, with contradictory and easily influenced opinions. He is at once an arrogant and a weak creature, which, though in constant dread of some authority, terrestrial or celestial, will yet--
. . . . . . . like an angry ape,
Play such fantastic tricks before high Heaven
As make the angels weep."
Happy Holidays,
Marquo
Disclaimer: the quote is not directed towards anyone and should not be interpreted as such.
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
Hey all,
Just did a test on a destroyed German infantry division's morale 1942 after rebuild.
Division was destroyed 7/4/42
Division reconstituted on the western map edge 7/11/42 at morale=49 (note that this starting morale is variable. Another test unit (20 pz div) started with a morale of 41, reached a morale of 50 at reconstitution + 4 turns, and ended with a morale of 53 at reconstitution + 12 turns before I packed it in for the night)
Morale increased to 50 on 7/18/42 (reconstitution + 1 turn)
Morale increased to 51 on 8/01/42 (reconstitution + 4 turns)
Morale increased to 52 on 8/08/42 (reconstitution + 5 turns)
Morale increased to 53 on 8/15/42 (reconstitution + 6 turns)
Morale increased to 54 on 8/22/42 (reconstitution + 7 turns)
Morale increased to 55 on 9/05/42 (reconstitution + 9 turns)
Morale increased to 56 on 9/26/42 (reconstitution + 12 turns)
Morale increased to 57 on 10/03/42 (reconstitution + 13 turns)
Morale increased to 58 on 10/31/42 (reconstitution + 17 turns)
Morale increased to 59 on 11/28/42 (reconstitution + 21 turns)
Apologies but I was too tired to continue
Ended test at 11/28/42
I think that the Die(75) > morale then morale = morale+1 if the unit is in a good supply situation rule is working. Notice the fast increase 50 to 55 and then the slow down 57-59. As always, this was from a small sample size (only two units), so another test will very likely yield different results
I will try out the Soviet side later if I have some time. I should be able to generate a much better picture, since I can build several units at once far behind the front line (> 10 hexes) then check their morale over time easily.
Merry Christmas to All
Bill
Just did a test on a destroyed German infantry division's morale 1942 after rebuild.
Division was destroyed 7/4/42
Division reconstituted on the western map edge 7/11/42 at morale=49 (note that this starting morale is variable. Another test unit (20 pz div) started with a morale of 41, reached a morale of 50 at reconstitution + 4 turns, and ended with a morale of 53 at reconstitution + 12 turns before I packed it in for the night)
Morale increased to 50 on 7/18/42 (reconstitution + 1 turn)
Morale increased to 51 on 8/01/42 (reconstitution + 4 turns)
Morale increased to 52 on 8/08/42 (reconstitution + 5 turns)
Morale increased to 53 on 8/15/42 (reconstitution + 6 turns)
Morale increased to 54 on 8/22/42 (reconstitution + 7 turns)
Morale increased to 55 on 9/05/42 (reconstitution + 9 turns)
Morale increased to 56 on 9/26/42 (reconstitution + 12 turns)
Morale increased to 57 on 10/03/42 (reconstitution + 13 turns)
Morale increased to 58 on 10/31/42 (reconstitution + 17 turns)
Morale increased to 59 on 11/28/42 (reconstitution + 21 turns)
Apologies but I was too tired to continue
Ended test at 11/28/42
I think that the Die(75) > morale then morale = morale+1 if the unit is in a good supply situation rule is working. Notice the fast increase 50 to 55 and then the slow down 57-59. As always, this was from a small sample size (only two units), so another test will very likely yield different results
I will try out the Soviet side later if I have some time. I should be able to generate a much better picture, since I can build several units at once far behind the front line (> 10 hexes) then check their morale over time easily.
Merry Christmas to All
Bill
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
ORIGINAL: Marquo
"Believe me, I'd much rather be doing something else than try and make sure Pelton's version of the truth/lies are not accepted as the truth just because he spreads it like propaganda."
And this is the main reason to even give him the time of day: people who do not know any better such as those who may be reading the forum to help decide whether to buy WITE and become new opponents may be so put off by this nonsense that they walk.
Marquo [;)]
To quote you from the other thread : "...but vain, wistful attempts by a minority of disgruntled Axis players to deflect attention from poor playing and inability to as of yet find tactics/stratregies to win."
IMO you nailed it.
Building a new PC.
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
2) You have never provided any data that supports your theory that German morale in 1942-1945 can never, under any circumstances, increase above the national morale (which is what you're saying when you say German national morale is hard capped).
The best person to ask about the cap is Flaviusx. He has called it a soft cap on these forums.
As can be seen in the tests the soft cap (Flaviusx) starts at 70 and the hard cap(Pelton) is at 75.
Which is what has been shown to be true by myself and wmcalpine during 1942.
The sort cap starts at 70 and the hard cap is 75 in 1942.
The soft cap for national moral is 50 and the hard cap 60.
I am not like some on these boards who are close minded.I am more then willing to look at data.
I beleive Flaviusx is right based on data that a softcap starts at 70 and that there is a hard cap at 75.
I also beleive based on data that a softcap starts at 50 and there is a hard cap at 60 for sitting gaining back moral.
So based on data there is a hard cap that would appear to be 5 pts over the national moral level and a hard cap on gianing back moral sitting at 60.
krupp_88mm "i agree pelton hardcaps are just plain silly"
Flaviusx "It's not a "hard" cap, it is a soft one."
Flaviusx " The infantry division in this example could have gotten some morale gains if it were lucky (and that's the only way it could get them as it was over cap.)" 0 for 5 thats really unlucky, heheh
JAMiAM " As the unit is an infantry division, it gets no boosts beyond the NM level, and unless it's getting lucky morale rolls from its chain of command, you shouldn't see much, if any, of a morale increase."
JAMiAM " Actually, your screenshots show that the morale aspect of the game is working as designed."
Q-Ball "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."
Kamil " I have to say, that at the moment I see only one way national morale influences actual morale of units - keeps them from getting too high above fixed value. I agree with Pelton, that otherwise its impact is next to 0. "
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)."
Q-Ball " 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"
As Q-ball imply's lowering national moral levels for the German makes sure it will get ground into the dust.
This is by design and not because of good or bad game play.
No one one these boards can honestly think that as good as Tarhunnas was doing vs grids that his moral levels should have been forsed to drop by design when he was doing far far better then historical.
If you read the AAR Flaviusx says in his mind Tarhunnas has won the game, but the built in Russian I win button has canceled out Tarhunnas skillful game play and rewarded the other persons poor game play. 100% by design.
Flaviusx is 100% right, I totally agree that national moral and the over all moral system is working as designed.
The design punishes the German player no matter how good they are doing.
The design rewards the russian player no matter how poorly they are doing.
Its is a built in I win button for the russian side, by design.
Its working by design the same way 1v1=2v1 was working by design.
tm.asp?m=2792361
Pelton
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
Pelton,
I did get one of the infantry divisions up to a morale of 76. Since I only ended at 10 successful combats, I do not know if anything higher than 76 can be reached. If the rulebook is accurate, that would imply morale of 90 and maybe higher should be reachable by elite formations in 1942 (elite formations get a bonus of 15 if I recall correctly). I also do not know if a better leader would help. I suspect it would, but I did not think of that when running the test. I should pay more attention to details. I will try some more testing with that same division (387th) tomorrow if I can put a leader with better ratings in there (if I can figure out how to do that and one is available).
I have owned the game for a year and still feel like a beginning novice.
Bill
I did get one of the infantry divisions up to a morale of 76. Since I only ended at 10 successful combats, I do not know if anything higher than 76 can be reached. If the rulebook is accurate, that would imply morale of 90 and maybe higher should be reachable by elite formations in 1942 (elite formations get a bonus of 15 if I recall correctly). I also do not know if a better leader would help. I suspect it would, but I did not think of that when running the test. I should pay more attention to details. I will try some more testing with that same division (387th) tomorrow if I can put a leader with better ratings in there (if I can figure out how to do that and one is available).
I have owned the game for a year and still feel like a beginning novice.
Bill
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
ORIGINAL: wmcalpine
Pelton,
I did get one of the infantry divisions up to a morale of 76. Since I only ended at 10 successful combats, I do not know if anything higher than 76 can be reached. If the rulebook is correct, that would imply morale of 90 and maybe higher should be reachable by elite formations in 1942. I also do not know if a better leader would help. I suspect it would, but I did not think of that when running the test. I should pay more attention to details. I will try some more testing with that same division (387th) if I can put a leader with better ratings in there (if I can figure out how to do that and one is available).
I have owned the game for a year and still feel like a beginning novice.
Bill
Same here, tring to get answers from poeple is like pulling teeth.
Yes elite units will but general infantry units will not.
Thanks for your help again. Guess I can restart this topic in the general area seeing there are enough statements and data.
Pelton
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: Marquo
"Believe me, I'd much rather be doing something else than try and make sure Pelton's version of the truth/lies are not accepted as the truth just because he spreads it like propaganda."
And this is the main reason to even give him the time of day: people who do not know any better such as those who may be reading the forum to help decide whether to buy WITE and become new opponents may be so put off by this nonsense that they walk.
Marquo [;)]
To quote you from the other thread : "...but vain, wistful attempts by a minority of disgruntled Axis players to deflect attention from poor playing and inability to as of yet find tactics/stratregies to win."
IMO you nailed it.
You and Marquo as always sink to the normal MO of personal attacks.
Do you two even play this game or just troll the boards?
Pelton
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: German Moral gains broken in 1942 or is this by design??
"...Marquo as always sink to the normal MO of personal attacks."
Pelton,
Please do not personalize my comments; whether you are a "disgruntled Axis player trying to deflect attention from poor playing and inability to as of yet find tactics/stratregies to win," is not for me to judge, rather for you to judge for yourself.
Marquo [:)]
Pelton,
Please do not personalize my comments; whether you are a "disgruntled Axis player trying to deflect attention from poor playing and inability to as of yet find tactics/stratregies to win," is not for me to judge, rather for you to judge for yourself.
Marquo [:)]