Morale Tests

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Glvaca, the idea of post blizzard 80+ morale Soviet units clocking in CVs approximating or even exceeding their historical 1944 strengths is palpably absurd. I don't care how good the blizzard offensive was. This kind of result shouldn't be possible at all, and if it is possible, it's a flaw in game mechanics.

You're looking at this from a purely game standpoint; I'm saying it is flatly ahistorical. In its original iteration, morale allowed these kinds of runaways, and it was tamed to prevent that. (I'm not sure if it was tamed enough.)

There we go, the ahistorical card again. That card usually comes out when all else fails and can be used to explain anything on both sides of the coin. Is this a historical simulation? Or is this a _game_ based on historical force capabilities and starting positions in which both sides have a hand in changing the historical outcome? The latter obvioulsy within historical plausible context.

So, would a guards division have been capable of reaching 80 morale in 1941/42 if the Soviets wouldn't have done what they did? That is the question that needs answering, not whether it actually happened. You just say it didn't happen so it shouldn't be possible in the game. Yet, at the same stroke, you defend the runaway strategy and the use of ants to soak movementpoints, the checkerboard and a score of other ahistorical things that you find good play. And you continue by calling the German runaway during winter gamey and ahistorical. To finish with the March comeback as ahistorical in the extreme.

Your arguement is thin. The *reality* is that once this games starts it departs history as it should. It should focus on keeping things within historical plausibility, not on scripting the game to conform to histrorical reality. And the latter very arbitrary too. Which criteria are used to keep things locked to history and which are to be given a free hand? Which are for the player to decide and which does the game mechanics force upon you? The one thing the Germans have going for them is quality, scripting the decline of quality is simply wrong in a game like this and shouldn't be necessary. It should be the natural evolution of the game, and the main challenge for the German should be to keep that qualitative edge through good play, not by all but preventing him to keep that qualatitive edge. Which, by the way, is quite historical too! However, the current situation is that the Germans are prevented from keeping that edge, while the Soviets CAN imporve their morale state substentially above and beyond what would be historical correct, provided they play well.

Not to speak of many other hardcore games that DO rate Guards divisions almost on par with the German infantry. So I would say, a couple of Guards with 80 (and I doubt you'll be able to do this against a skilled German player) would be no problem for me, at all. IF you can do, great for you!

Besides, I see no reason to make it virutally impossible for the German to get his infantry/Panzers to 86+ in 42 and beyond, because it is deemed ahistorical for Guards units.

Lastly, after months and months of testing the first installment of the game DID allow for units to rise substantially in morale above 86+. I repeat, months of months of testing. How was it missed if it is such a game breaker? How was the effect of high morale missed if it is so ahistorical now? Was it a mistake? Was it overlooked? Please, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

[Flaviusx]

If you don't get how silly this is, I can't explain it to you. Advancing unit proficiency by 3 years solely due to an in game mechanic is self evidently over the top. No matter how successful the blizzard counteroffensive may have been -- and it came within an ace of destroying AGC -- the Soviets had a lot to learn at the end of it. 80 morale in game terms represents the zenith of Soviet proficiency, a level of expertise they couldn't possibly have reached in early 1942.

Yes, I'm going with this history card here.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

For the sake of a balanced discussion, I searched and collated all of the rule changes concering moral in the updates:

Of the many rule and formula changes, 11 are neutral and affect both sides, 8 changes favors Axis (blue); 3 favor the Soviet player (red). Draw your own conclusions about whether or not the morale rules have been adjusted to with a pro-Soviet slant or not; for me the answer is very clear.

Hi Marquo,

That's a nice attempt to quantify the changes to the morale system over the course of the game's evolution. However, I would dispute a few things that you listed, and how you assigned them.

ORIGINAL: Marquo

V1.04.10
7) Rule Changes to Refit rules (Section 18.3) – Units set to refit (and those automatically considered in refit) will no longer receive the following benefits from refit if they are adjacent to an enemy controlled hex during their logistics phase:
(a) (Section 9.1.1) Morale bonus if under 50 morale

V1.05.18
d. Changed rule so that the morale gain from refit when under 50 morale is only gained when the unit in refit is at least 10 hexes from a supplied enemy unit (similar to the current gain if less than morale 50 and 10 or more hexes from enemy unit).

While on the surface, these might look like "neutral" changes, they do, as the game plays, favor the Soviet player. The reason being two-fold. First, other than a small, and relatively inconsequential portion of the Axis OOB (namely, the Rumanians and Italians), the Axis nations NM levels are at, or well above, 50 for all time periods of the game. Thus, the advantage goes to the Soviet player, since for about a year and a half, his NM is below 50. Secondly, due to the counter density of the game, the Axis player is rarely left with any significant number of "deep reserve" counters that can be placed out of the lines, or far enough behind to satisfy the requirements listed in both of these cases. Again, advantage to the Soviet player.

ORIGINAL: Marquo

V1.05.23
8) Morale adjustments across all scenarios to keep them in line with the adjusted morale rule changes
9) 1942 Campaign morale changes. Soviet regular units dropped about 5 morale points to an average of 50 while Guards units were dropped about 10-20 points to an average of 50.
German units unchanged.
10) 1943 Morale changes. Decreased German average morale to 70 (was 75). Decreased Average Soviet morale to 50 (was 55). Decreased Average Guards Soviet morale to 55 (was 60). Soviet and German motorized units (and motorized Guards) stayed about the same.
11) 1944 Morale Changes. German average morale increased to 67 (was 60). Increased German motorized morale to 77 (was 60). Soviet morale reduced to 60 (was 65). Soviet motorized morale reduced to 70 (was 75). Soviet Guards morale reduced to 65 (was 70).

It seems to me that you counted these individual scenario adjustments as separate instances. Since 90% of the games played are 1941 GC games, they are not totally inconsequental, but pretty close... In any event, trying to bring scenario data into line with the expectations of the GC, and its overarching changes shouldn't really be counted as separate events but as a conglomeration. These corrections to the scenarios do seem to favor the Axis in general.

ORIGINAL: Marquo

V1.05.28
New Rule – Poorly supplied units can lose morale. If at the end of the logistics phase a unit has less than 20% of needed supplies, it has a chance of losing 1 morale point. If the value is less than 10% there is a chance of losing 2 morale points.

This is, in my opinion, another case of a seemingly neutral rule, actually favoring the Soviets. With very few exceptions, the Soviets hardly ever are able to outrun their supply net. Indeed, almost all game, their front lines are sitting right on top of their railheads. Further, they are not burdened with Partisan attacks, nor the drainage due to the Axis Rail Supply Modifier in Rule 20.4.3.2. The advantage of this rule, is to the Soviet, and its developer's intent was to take the edge off of the Axis units that were wildly outrunning their supply net in 1941.

To recap, I think your list is a useful addition to the debate, but should be looked at with a more critical eye, as the overall advantage is not as clearly Pro-Axis as you imply.

[ComradeP]

Lastly, after months and months of testing the first installment of the game DID allow for units to rise substantially in morale above 86+. I repeat, months of months of testing. How was it missed if it is such a game breaker? How was the effect of high morale missed if it is so ahistorical now? Was it a mistake? Was it overlooked? Please, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

I've been wondering about why some things were still in the game when Flavio and I started testing as well, but the easiest answer is probably that parts of the game were tested one by one and that there were a lot of new versions.

For example: I believe Rifle Corps were still free (I believe their cost was changed to 10 AP's shortly afterwards) when we started testing and that there was either no Guards cap or a high one.

The release version was already quite different from the version we had started with.

The ease with which the Soviets could get high morale was eventually thought to ruin the late war years, in combination with the shortcomings of the combat engine that were either removed between release and now or are still there.

[vaned74]

To be honest - and I like playing both sides Sov & Axis - this one cuts both ways:

b. Soviet National Morale has been changed to 50 in June 1941. One point is subtracted each month after this in 1941 (so it is 44 in Dec 41). In 1942 it is set to 40, with one point being added each month starting in September 1942 (so 44 in Dec 42). This continues in 1943 and 1944 until the Soviet National Morale reaches its maximum of 60 in April 1944.

-lower Soviet morale in 1942 - but it is probably irrelevant for NM under 50 as the jump from 40 to 50 morale can be achieved in about 3-4 weeks on refit away from the front. What is relevant is that soviet NM in 1944 is 10 pts higher than it was pre rule change (50 according to the table in the manual).

[ComradeP]

Or even 20 points, including recently added mobile unit bonuses.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Lastly, after months and months of testing the first installment of the game DID allow for units to rise substantially in morale above 86+. I repeat, months of months of testing. How was it missed if it is such a game breaker? How was the effect of high morale missed if it is so ahistorical now? Was it a mistake? Was it overlooked? Please, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

I've been wondering about why some things were still in the game when Flavio and I started testing as well, but the easiest answer is probably that parts of the game were tested one by one and that there were a lot of new versions.

For example: I believe Rifle Corps were still free (I believe their cost was changed to 10 AP's shortly afterwards) when we started testing and that there was either no Guards cap or a high one.

The release version was already quite different from the version we had started with.

The ease with which the Soviets could get high morale was eventually thought to ruin the late war years, in combination with the shortcomings of the combat engine that were either removed between release and now or are still there.

Well, shit happens [:D]
We all make mistakes, and I certainly make more than I care to admit.
Just a pitty [;)]
Thanks for the honest no BS reply!

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you don't get how silly this is, I can't explain it to you. Advancing unit proficiency by 3 years solely due to an in game mechanic is self evidently over the top. No matter how successful the blizzard counteroffensive may have been -- and it came within an ace of destroying AGC -- the Soviets had a lot to learn at the end of it. 80 morale in game terms represents the zenith of Soviet proficiency, a level of expertise they couldn't possibly have reached in early 1942.

Yes, I'm going with this history card here.

And that is a shame as it immediately puts a big dent in your credibility for me personally. I place a whole bunch of arguements before you, and you focus on one thing in particular to throw the whole lot down the drain.

That's not playing the historical card, that's playing a non-dicussion card while focussing on one thing that wasn't even the main point.

A pitty, I hope you do realize that people should be exused if they interpret this as bias towards the Soviet side?
No offense intended.

[Flaviusx]

I'm rejecting 80 morale Soviet units in 1942 and this is Soviet bias?

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm rejecting 80 morale Soviet units in 1942 and this is Soviet bias?

[:D]

[Peltonx]

I think what is truelyy amazing is the constant circular reasoning that goes on to defend the current disfuntional designed NM time line.

If something is non-historical and it helps the Russian side then the what if defence is used.
If something helps the German side then the good old based on history we must make the German conform to history.

The Russian side can have their cake and eat it, while the German has no cake to eat.

Sometimes in the same post a person is saying its this way because its based on history and its this way because the game is about what ifs. Its really a laugh some of the answers to questions that are being posted.

Anyways the list keeps growing and growing and the defence of the game being based on a time line grows weaker and more silly as the answers get more and more circular.

The game should be based on in-game results and not a time line.


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"
Naughteous Maximus "I'm going to agree with Pelton on this."
Flaviusx "If pressed, I suspect the Soviet NM for the late war is too high. (I also think it is too low in 42.) "
Pelton "I will add I have to agree on the early war NM levels for russians."
randallw "So, asking for a direct answer, is the morale system working as programmed?"
Emir Agic "Second, as Pelton said, why NM is based (only) on time line and is not much more dependent on situation (what player has achieved)? Why NM shouldn't be linked more to winning and losing battles rather then automatic rise/decline depending of in-game year?"
randallw "I believe the rules are that once a unit reaches 50 morale then refit mode won't help it any more."
vaned74 "This may be true. I think the other thing they are showing is that base NM really means very little.this may explain the late war rapid declines of the Axis as morale above 50 once lost is seldom regained and morale above 50 is best gained on the offensive. "
glvaca "Now a simple question, with all the testing and testing that has gone into this game and all gratitude to all those who have spend their free time on this, how can such a thing be missed?"
pzgndr "But it's something entirely different to inject some sort of nebulous "national morale" mood swings into a wargame. It's silly. "
jzardos"Sorry, but IMO I very much disagree with directly relating German and Soviet 'morale' to a timeline like this:
"So the longer the fight drags out the worse it is for the Germans and the better for the Soviets."
What I have found almost 'idiotic' (sorry but entitled to opinion as I bought game and now critique) is the blind trend in the game to attempt to force the Axis side to lose even if they seem to be doing better and gaining a non-historical path."

As Q-ball imply's lowering national moral levels for the German makes sure it will get ground into the dust. This was posted after 1.05 release and not before.

Pelton

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Your sample size was too small, Pelton.

I've not read the entire thread yet, and I haven't read the related threads at all, but if you're going to talk sample size, let me point out that one gets to a normally distributed sample size in a random sample when one has a sample size of 30 or larger. Larger sample sizes are better, but there is a parabolic curve of diminishing returns.

I see no experiments in this thread by the OP that can remotely be called random (and he states it is a 'best case' situation with 9 leadership at all levels, so it is particularly heavily skewed in favor of gains by both sides).

I see no experiments that contain 30 sample size of Germany and the Soviet Union. This experiment is biased. It cannot pass a significance test statistically.

It therefore contains no useable data.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As you don't seem to read what I post, I'm not sure why I'm actually trying to debate anything with you as you're immune to believing in any other "truth" than your own.

Example: you say there's a hard cap at a certain morale level. wmcalpine proves you're wrong (after others have already stated that you are wrong).

Again, wmcalpine's data do not prove anything. The sample size is too low to be significant. His data are not random.

It's statistical theory - I'm not really going to give you all a pass on violating its precepts. Wmcalpine created an experiment that he admits is biased in favor of optimal conditions that deviate from normative game experience by more than one standard deviation in leadership alone.

Biased data in, garbage out. Next thread.

[vaned74]

Well as the OP, I think I'll comment briefly on this. Actually, there are a number of statistically valid (even assuming 30 is the minimal sample set required, which can be debated depending on the number of variables involved) data sets in here. I ran multiple tests and have a pad of numbers that may include somewhere around 500-600 data points jotted down.

Basically, in one case, if you look and say we tested 3 units, with NM well below 50, and starting morale of 10 and looked at the data points turn over turn there are actually probably in just one little test I ran about 50 readings for morale increase per turn under optimal leadership, supply, and location conditions. The average increase was somewhere between 2 and 3 per turn, with a max of 3 and a min of 1 pt increase. Changing the NM to a value well above 50 doesn't change this (ran with 5 units, NM of 70 effective).

Above 50 morale, NM below and NM above I have the same data. The rate of increase in morale gained per turn is very small.

As far as usefulness, for a player, very useful. I have already taken it for granted that sending units with morale less than 50 back away from the front for refit in hopes of gaining morale is honestly a waste of time, regardless of what their NM is.

As far as the leader conditions being absolutely pristine, also valuable in that it sets the upper bound as to what can be achieved. Don't hope for better in other words. If you think the maximum that can be achieved is not worth the time invested, not worth allocating your unit dispositions accordingly in the game as a player.

From a statistical standpoint, I would have preferred to set leader values to "10", ie perfect meaning they pass every test, to isolate the actual non-leader increase mechanics, but, that is not possible.

The thing I find interesting is that these tests maybe took 1-2 hours to set up and run. I see so many people spending time throwing observations out and posting on the subject but not really trying to capture any data in any controlled situation.

And, yes, I do have a background in statistics, both theory and applied...

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: vaned74

As far as usefulness, for a player, very useful. I have already taken it for granted that sending units with morale less than 50 back away from the front for refit in hopes of gaining morale is honestly a waste of time, regardless of what their NM is.

You are correct that this information is useful at a gameplay level.

You are incorrect when you state that being on refit, behind lines, when unit morale is 50 is useless. Indeed, for the Soviet, who has a plethora of physical units with which to defend, one can draw on one's understanding of statistics to see that the Soviet has advantage here both by the percentage of combat units that can be safely taken off the front, and further, by the fact that for most intents and purposes, Soviets defend with equal effectiveness irrespective of the contents of a combat unit in a hex; a brigade saps German movement and costs just as much to attack as does a division, likewise with shell-divisions that may have just come on line last turn. The Law of Averages gives the Soviet who decides to throw-away brigades and shells where necessary a distinct advantage to his average unit morale over time that a German player cannot hope to match, ever.

Considering the leverage-over-time garnered by the hindsight advantage enabled by knowing how to min/max both the production system and the advantage of administration that Soviets have (i.e., 1-point cost to change HQs for all non-corps units), and the ability to keep far more Soviet bodies and units alive in 1941 than were kept historically (for bodies, at least), this is double-punishment of the German side by fiat. It is an effect that mechanically prevents German bypass, while simultaneously mechanically creating a Soviet bypass of the effect (at a minimum in a Law of Averages kind of aggregate way).

As far as the leader conditions being absolutely pristine, also valuable in that it sets the upper bound as to what can be achieved. Don't hope for better in other words. If you think the maximum that can be achieved is not worth the time invested, not worth allocating your unit dispositions accordingly in the game as a player.

From a statistical standpoint, I would have preferred to set leader values to "10", ie perfect meaning they pass every test, to isolate the actual non-leader increase mechanics, but, that is not possible.

Here, I disagree with you, and I think I'm right. Allow me to present my case:

Wouldn't the better decision be to set leadership at 1 or 0 (i.e., to have zero impact at all on this mechanic)?
I cannot think of why you would want to add the leadership variable into this, because as far as I know, both leadership "die roll" and the resultant leadership die roll impact (successful or failed) is inside a black box.

Leadership effects render any subsequent output model invalid, because we cannot see whether they are successful or failed, by what degree, and what the consequence of the particular point in the distribution that leadership roll has.

I'm not sure whether 0, 1, or 5 would extract the necessary randomness out of the leadership part of the morale change die roll, but it strikes me as necessary to remove it for a proper scientific test of the morale change function. In any event, knowing how to remove that influence would be helpful to know, if anyone were providing meaningful formulas to us that drive the discussion. To date, it is my current understanding that those are being withheld from the public.

[vaned74]

I'm not disagreeing on either point - if playing the Germans it is probably not worthwhile to pull units off line in hopes of gaining morale significantly above 50. Russia may be better able to afford doing that in part because there is a stacking limit on what can be placed in the front line and the late war Red Army may have many additional units to rotate out and still maintain a full front line presence.

On the leadership values, honestly it is the best that can be done - ie either give the maximum or minimum chance of passing a leadership test at all levels. I would have much preferred to set at either 0% chance of success of 100% chance of success for testing but that is not possible to my understanding.

[Flaviusx]

My rule of thumb as the Sovs as to refit units up to 50 and then get them blooded in actual combat, feeding them some easy wins. Ultimately, this is the fastest way to build up their morale once they've reached tolerably good morale levels. It's when they fall into the 30s that their combat performance becomes truly abysmal -- and they also tend to lapse into unreadiness quickly even in completely static fronts due to attrition losses.

The Red Army doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough to get into the fray.

As an Axis player I'd be even more inclined to follow this rule of thumb, because for at least a couple of years they're in a good position to feed easy wins to units. Only when they are permanently forced into the strategic defense does this become a problem since training alone won't get them to their NM in a timely fashion and the ability to gain cheap morale gains from wins mostly goes away. It's one of many ways the game favors the offensive. As things presently stand, the game definitely encourages you to attack.

With all that in mind, on reflection I'm kind of agreeing now that the ability to refit to NM ought to be eased somewhat. It is very slow past a certain point, and that hurts the defender.