Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Michael T
BG if you update your game, load the CG, on T1 set all the rear area Stavka ID to refit. Click thru to turn 4. Check em out. Most will be close to 50 morale and CV 3, some CV 4, nearly all at least CV 2.5.

Just like that? That's very bad [:(]

BG - I understand your point on the defensive CV however my point is that the higher morale Soviet units so early in the game really disrupt the operational tempo of the axis. The hasty attacks that are used by the axis to setup breakthroughs are rare even as early as turn 3. Two 50 morale Soviet units in light woods are going to be very difficult for the axis to defeat in a hasty attack.

Historically the Battle of Smolensk starts on game turn 3 and the Axis were stopped in place for 5 turns starting on game turn 5. AGN had no real problems until it got closer to Leningrad and then had some real problems. Although the new map area and supply rules in WitE 2.0 will change that in favor of the Soviets more than the morale change. And AGS was only freed up around game turn 12 to 14 with the Kiev pocket and aid from AGC. When mud hit the line went from Leningrad to Smolensk to the Dnepr Bend. All of the other gains (and they were massive in AGC and AGS) came after the mud. Our current games usually see the Axis sitting pretty much still after the mud with only limited snow offensives. (Yes there are some notable exceptions.)

Bobo is right in concentrating us back to the "If morale is < 50 and > 10 hexes from enemy" rule. This should change regardless of what the NM level is.

Smokindave34 - I guess I am a pretty bad Axis player because I set up my breakthroughs with Deliberate Attacks across a front of about three or four hexes. I then have further infantry advance and hit the secondary line (if possible) with some more DAs and THEN I send through the panzers. But then most of my Axis experience has come post 1.05 against humans and I have needed to do that in order to breakthrough.

If your idea of balance is to make the soviets units weaker than the axis alies go ahead , but it would not be a game i would longer want to play .

The hungarian units end up with morale around 60 and CV=4 by the summer of 1942 without any fighting whatsoever.
19th and 20th romanian infanterie as well.

Imho (AS A GREEN HORN) it is better to push german morale higher than to dumb the soviets down to the point that are more britle the axis minors.

BTW since you started with sonny boy mind if I call you granpa ? [:D]

Per Pelton: "First of the SHC is never going to get the upper hand in 1941 unless your playing computer or less exp player"

An experienced Axis player can "feel" when the Soviets are getting the upper hand in 1941, and you know it. And they often do. Even if the map looks like a fantastic mess, an experienced Axis player knows that the weltuntergang starts in 41....

Marquo [X(]

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

If your idea of balance is to make the soviets units weaker than the axis alies go ahead , but it would not be a game i would longer want to play .

The hungarian units end up with morale around 60 and CV=4 by the summer of 1942 without any fighting whatsoever.
19th and 20th romanian infanterie as well.

Imho (AS A GREEN HORN) it is better to push german morale higher than to dumb the soviets down to the point that are more britle the axis minors.

BTW since you started with sonny boy mind if I call you granpa ? [:D]

This actually supports the case of a change to tying the morale raises to national morale instead of 50. Rumanian NM is 35 and Hungarian 40.

The code seems to have unfortunate knots as discussed, but would adjusting the appropriate game factor for morale be useful?

Do it vs. AI all the time.

ORIGINAL: mktours

you are poor manner, as what you did in your game against MT. stay away from me, my comment wasn't going towards you, and you are no welcomed by me.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: mktours

good point

Read above post newbie, lol

Careful, or he'll pull out a source that contradicts his claims......

I'm not as experienced as much of the players here. I have played 5 GC H versus H. 4 as GC, 1 as SHC.

I "feel" that month after month, update after update, the game has been rebalanced in favor of the soviet side in 1941. With equal level player it's now impossible to take Moscow or even approach from the city in 1941. But a good GHC will easily win against a low experienced SHC.

Following the advices of Pelton, I'm convinced that morale is the key of this game. So we should be very careful while modifying it. Adjusting the SHC NM from 7 points (from 50 to 43 seems too much).

We should also keep in mind that the new morale rule gives a big bonus to the GHC in 1942.

And above all, I love this game!

Can the problem be validated in the Road to Smolensk scenario?

Can Soviet 1941 Morale easily be made a scenario parameter?

I am concerned about changes in favor of the Axis in 41 because of: 1) Lvov opening and 2) HQBU. This is balanced by my complete loathing for the first winter rules and all of the post '41 nerfs the Axis suffer.

I am getting much better using HQBU and would offer to validate the problem with MT, but I am in the middle of job and location change.

ORIGINAL: carlkay58


Smokindave34 - I guess I am a pretty bad Axis player because I set up my breakthroughs with Deliberate Attacks across a front of about three or four hexes. I then have further infantry advance and hit the secondary line (if possible) with some more DAs and THEN I send through the panzers. But then most of my Axis experience has come post 1.05 against humans and I have needed to do that in order to breakthrough.

Carklay58 - I'm not saying anyone is a good or bad axis player although I may be proving in my game versus Sapper that I'm not a very good one! Of course all axis players use infantry and deliberate attacks to setup breakthroughs - what I was trying to say was that on turns 3 and 4 I'm used to being able to push most Soviet divisions back with hasty attacks but now need to use deliberate attacks at that early stage of the game and this really slows down the tempo of the axis advance.

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

If your idea of balance is to make the soviets units weaker than the axis alies go ahead , but it would not be a game i would longer want to play .

The hungarian units end up with morale around 60 and CV=4 by the summer of 1942 without any fighting whatsoever.
19th and 20th romanian infanterie as well.

Imho (AS A GREEN HORN) it is better to push german morale higher than to dumb the soviets down to the point that are more britle the axis minors.

BTW since you started with sonny boy mind if I call you granpa ? [:D]

I be 50 in July, but not a grampa yet.

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Can the problem be validated in the Road to Smolensk scenario?

Can Soviet 1941 Morale easily be made a scenario parameter?

I am concerned about changes in favor of the Axis in 41 because of: 1) Lvov opening and 2) HQBU. This is balanced by my complete loathing for the first winter rules and all of the post '41 nerfs the Axis suffer.

I am getting much better using HQBU and would offer to validate the problem with MT, but I am in the middle of job and location change.

As one can see in the results of Bomazz and Sappers loses under the new rules its very very hard to win or draw as Germany now.

Even MT can't take Moscow now vs a good SHC player. The logistics now really does have a leash.

Game is very balanced over all. -5 to the hard coded morale would hurt both sides not just one.

GHC players will still be unable to take Moscow because of the logistics leash

Even MT can't take Moscow now vs a good SHC player.

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. My question is can the German achieve historical results against a good Soviet player?

I do agree that reserve activation in '41 is over the top. This is because I believe the Soviet leader ratings should be nerfed in the summer/autumn of '41 because of the purges. This would reflect the immaturity of the senior staff corps.

ORIGINAL: Don77

G'day

I'd agree with Michael T - I am playing another CG and have found that the Sov units are now sufficiently strong that the Ge offensive requires more concentration at the main effort, and more economy of force elsewhere. In our game, it is T13 I have ground to a halt 4 hexes short of Leningrad, I am stalled in front of Smolensk, and and struggling to get to Voronezh or Rostov. The corollary is that Sov units routinely now make successful counter attacks. I have been threatened many times with counter-pockets and in fact I may be faced with a war winning/losing action shortly.

All up, the operational level feels right, ie the Ge are slowing down at this operational depth, but I fear the tactics give too much power to the Sovs to make key tactical victories?

Appreciate anyone else's thoughts?

Don.

An example of this issue is my recent game as Ge - hex 85,27, light woods, Sep 41 - attachments are the two battle reports. I conducted TWO deliberate attacks, two Pzr Korps, totalling SIX panzer/motorised divisions, plus corps support units. Against 3 soviet rifle divs, unfortified. Both attacks failed. The modified Sov Strength per division - in many cases it is higher than the Ge Pzr Divs. the Sov's are achieving successful divisional level attacks and are actually able to conduct operational counter attacks. And in our game, the Sovs in Sep 41 have some 12 plus Guards divisions. This is a symptom of the boost to Soviet morale, which means Sep 1941 Sov Rifle Divs are as powerful as Ge ones.

Don

And the second attack



Again, the operational level seems sorta OK, but the tactics (relative combat results) seems to let the game down? Appreciate anyone else's thoughts?

Don

Don77, not sure your example is a good one to take into consideration for this discussion. I see at least level 1 forts, and your units have been quite fatigued for the first assault, and severely fatigued on the 2nd. I'd guess the Soviets had been sitting there, fresh and rested? Then you assault primarily with Panzers through a heavily wooded terrain, against infantry. Not so good. The 41 Panzer ToE lack infantry, and in this terrain the latter is the key. The Motorized Infantry Division is better suited, but I'd have tried to pick more infantry here.

Worse of all, you really got a very poor command modifier here, while the Soviets managed to get everything under a single commanding HQ. What did you do with XXXXI Panzerkorps? That modifier is likely the key here. Other than that I see three infantry divisions past the initial chaos of July and August, which in good defensive terrain and with slight preparations, manage to stop two poorly coordinated attacks, which due to lack of infantry and fatigue, get stuck. It is late September, and if you ask me, this is probably about how it could look if Panzergruppe IV grinds to a halt in the poor terrain and reorganizing resistance in front of Leningrad. Unless this is a common phenomenon all across the map, that happens with the vast majority of Soviet infantry and in clear terrain, I think this one battle is quite ok.

ORIGINAL: STEF78
We should also keep in mind that the new morale rule gives a big bonus to the GHC in 1942.

It does, I updated during a mid 42 game and noticed how much more I can now expect from the Axis minors. The morale issue is beneficial mainly for Axis past 42, so the largest time of a GC it balances the game in favor of the German side I'd expect.

Yet in 41 I can see how it can reduce op-tempo and how it can make the game a greater challenge for the German player. In my next game I assume I can no longer almost blindly rely on Hasty Attacks and stick my Panzer-heads out too far without serious counter-stroke, so I hope against AI at least, but advance slower and more carefully with greater caution (and so without needing to disbalance the morale difficulty setting as much anymore). The focus shifts from hex-counting and fuel logistics optimization more towards fighting with this patch.

If you are used to the latter way of gaining vast areas and making huge pockets easily for a quick win in 41 or 42, I can see how you dislike this reducing in speed and increased demand for caution. If you are all for the long run, I think you'll fare better with the fixed rule.

Though I was initially inclined to agree with the request to link the morale gaining instead of a fixed 50 threshold to NM, following this discussion for a while, as well as the MichaelT vs Kamil and SmokingDave's AAR, I ain't quite sure anymore. If there were plans to increase Soviet reinforcements to historical levels, it sure would be necessary.
But there ain't, and there are very few games and experience with the new rule so far. SmokingDave's game looks actually (turn 10) quite ok for Axis, though I do not understand why he stopped brute forcing his way to Leningrad. Michael, in contrast, appears to be still rocking with concentrated infantry power through level 2 and 3 forts (in turns around 14-16) and is bullying his way through the best fortifications and units Kamil has concentrated as if the 50 moral fix never occurred.

So at least from those two games, I'd say one has benefited in its suspense of disbelief with this fix, the other is still showing what amazing progress the logistics engine allows if squeezed by a player focusing and optimizing every detail like Michael. Of course both is only my personal opinion where the "average"/"normal" should be, just as others may think Axis should be able to go faster and easier, or even with heavier, closer to historical 41 losses. So I am more with posts 39 (Loki100) or 43 (Carlkay).

Both sides may need to adapt their game to the new fix. I'd hope that this now induces the Soviet to fight more forward in 41 despite hindsight, and violating basic military logic (poor defensive terrain etc). And I'd hope this will lead to less transfers of forces from the south to LG and Moscow as the units there should be able to hold up a little better on their own, i.e. consequently to more or, at all, some fighting south.

As primarily Axis player 2/3 of the time, my gripe remains with other things, so many, confusing and interacting things that hopefully will change by WitE2, like resilience of pocketed units, routing vs combat losses, reserve activation, reaction moves, mixing AP for C&C changes and unit building, the lose logistic chain...

However, the one thing that surprises me most that Axis players still do not focus on the most evident rule with the perhaps biggest negative impact that can and does give hugely unhistorical results: The blizzard rules. Apparently either they are happy because with sufficiently successful Barbarossa the Soviets are too trashed to encircle many German divisions as back in BigAnoraks time, or the retreating strategy for Axis during December and January to surrender comparably worthless and poorly defensible terrain are now fully accepted unlike the Soviet summer move for the same reasons. With the new morale 50 fix, the Axis will have a slower op-tempo as long asked for, and Soviet losses may, or probably will be at least some lower. Now why not largely defuse these harsh blizzard penalties?

Good points Janh,

Good analysis and logic. I can only say that perhaps my example was poor, but I would still contend that Sov strength (driven by morale?) is too high for 41. At this rate, the Sov's won't need Red Army 2.0 (to quote Flav et al) to beat the Ge back and well in advance of 1945.

Don