Matrix Games Forums

Pelton and Heliodorus,

You are accomplishing exactly nothing by combining your concerns and criticisms with excess negativity and personal insults. There's absolutely no reason why these same concerns can't be expressed in a completely constructive way without attacks on other posters and the developers. I've received multiple complaints on this thread over the holidays.

You both have a warning now. If you continue to make things personal, you'll get a ban.

Getting back on topic, my experience with and knowledge of the morale system, including what I've learned from several chats with Joel, corresponds with what the testers are trying to tell you.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Pelton and Heliodorus,

You are accomplishing exactly nothing by combining your concerns and criticisms with excess negativity and personal insults. There's absolutely no reason why these same concerns can't be expressed in a completely constructive way without attacks on other posters and the developers. I've received multiple complaints on this thread over the holidays.

You both have a warning now. If you continue to make things personal, you'll get a ban.

Getting back on topic, my experience with and knowledge of the morale system, including what I've learned from several chats with Joel, corresponds with what the testers are trying to tell you.

Regards,

- Erik

Come on, what do you want?.
A bloodless "We love our administrators" blabla?
To complain is the birth right of every customer and I do not see anything written here what is plain primitive and if people complain that is again their bloody well right. So nothing serious.

To me a better advice seems to be to give WITE a break of at least 1 week, if you become so attached to it, that it dominates your life and is becoming an addiction. A long walk in the cold winter morning may help to decide whether WITE is worth the whole balagan at all. May be you even missed that a nice, fair, young lady is living now at the next door.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Getting back on topic, my experience with and knowledge of the morale system, including what I've learned from several chats with Joel, corresponds with what the testers are trying to tell you.

So, asking for a direct answer, is the morale system working as programmed?

Ok guys, Helio probably shouldn't remark about Gauls and Pelton should decrease use of words like s**t, crap etc. But beside that single sentence I'm really enjoy reading Helio posts and I see them as direct contribution to making WitE better.

Unfortunately, I don't see that developers are always eager to explain concerns and questions that some players have about game concepts and that leads to much unnecessary discussions and repetition. For example, from beginning I was puzzled:

1. Why in the winter major rivers are providing zero defensive bonus?
2. Why blizzard is lasting for 3 months and has same effect in Crimea as in Leningrad?
3. Why civilians are able to flee from encircled cities?
4. Why single point of rail damage stops completely flow of supplies?
5. Why single point of rail damage prevents RR units from repairing rail?
6. What is a reasoning behind how displacement of routed units work?
7. Why Soviets don't have more fighting capabilities in '41 (higher CV)?
8. Why Soviets don't have less command and control capabilities over units in '41?

Etc...

But above all, most often raised question is about NM. First, why call it NM when that concept is clearly much broader then morale alone? Joel in some earlier post wrote that NM "represents the training levels and doctrine capabilities of the countries more than reflecting the willingness of the soldiers to fight". Why not call it proficiency then, as that term is more consistent with previous definition? Or even better, in next engine iteration (WitW, WitE 2) separate morale (as willingness to fight) from proficiency (training levels and doctrine capabilities).

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?

For me personally, easiest solution to NM complaints would be to link loss of cities to NM (at least in its "willingness to fight" segment). That would also give some incentive for Soviets to stay and fight instead of running in first months. Someone once mentioned how this is handled in AGEOD games and I think AGE engine has much more interesting and advanced system of NM compared to WitE engine.

Just my two cents.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Pelton and Heliodorus,

You are accomplishing exactly nothing by combining your concerns and criticisms with excess negativity and personal insults. There's absolutely no reason why these same concerns can't be expressed in a completely constructive way without attacks on other posters and the developers. I've received multiple complaints on this thread over the holidays.

You both have a warning now. If you continue to make things personal, you'll get a ban.

Getting back on topic, my experience with and knowledge of the morale system, including what I've learned from several chats with Joel, corresponds with what the testers are trying to tell you.

Regards,

- Erik

I been posting about NM for a long time now and how it is broken. I am not the only one who sees this and not the only one who has tested this.

I have a long list of quotes from others who agree.

I don't see it working as designed and the intended design is flawed as many players agree.

It would be nice if you would take the time and read the quotes.

I have pointed out several other issues months before they were looked into and was found to be right. 1v1=2v1 unbalancing the game, fort decay not working as designed and airfield spamming.

Generally I start out nice posting the issue and get the normal personally attacks from players who generaly go off topic very fast.
I am forsed to get louder and louder before the devs finally are forsed to look into an issue, many players email saying keep it up but will not post on the topic because of the personall attacks they see happening to myself and others which have nothing to do with the issue.

It would be nice to see the Mod's setting in on issues when personal attacks start on a thread that are 100% off topic.

As can bee seen on the thread: tm.asp?m=2994404&mpage=1&key=&#2994726

I am being proven right, but months after I tryed pointing out the issue in a nice way.

Thank the boys at 2 by 3 for fixing 1v1=2v1, airfield spamming and fort decay.

I am expecting a fix soon on the issue of NM and its design withen the next patch or two.

I would like to personally thank all the players who have taken the time to test this or track this issue for them selfs, thank you very much for your hard work.

Below for the 2 by 3 staff are quotes from many players who see and have tested the NM system themselfs.

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

Pelton

For the record: although I disagree with statements that the Soviets have a very meaningful advantage in national morale/morale calculations early on, I do think Soviet late war morale (or rather: the effects thereof) are too great and that the defensive capabilities of German units in 1944-1945 can be as bad as those of the Soviets in 1941.

That, however, has in my opinion more to do with simplified C&C, sometimes peculiar losses, the ahistorical ability to keep some form of fighting strength with ahistorically high losses for both sides, and the very significant advantage units get when their morale/experience increases as there is what could be called a problem with high morale/experience units in the sense that they're a lot better than their lower morale/experience counterparts.

There is obviously a (historical) advantage to be gained from having greater experience and morale but the game might be given too much of an advantage to both sides relative to the defensive capabilities of the other side at various points (Germans 1941-1942, Soviets 1944-1945).

There is also a problem that even though unit experience is influenced by replacements, morale isn't, so a unit that loses a quarter to one third of its men can still only lose 1 or 2 points of morale in the same battle, regardless of having at least 1 regiment, brigade or even most of a division, within the division or corps sent back to the drawing board.

Although there is no Soviet "I win" button, the lack of real limitations on Soviet C&C aside from having somewhat mediocre leaders (that can become almost as good as their German counterparts), replacement management and the way their army is formed can seriously inflate the effect of the recently increased Soviet national morale in 1944-1945+national morale bonuses compared to history. For example: if you take a look at the 1944 campaign, many Soviet formations are at half strength. A half strength 65-75 morale (Guards) Rifle corps can be stopped. Stopping a full strength 65-75 (Guards) Rifle corps with 3 sapper regiments, with lavish support from the VVS and/or on-map artillery is nearly impossible with ~60 morale German infantry formations. Sure, the Axis can keep morale at 60-70 (and mobile units above 80) through good unit management, but by that point it will generally cost a lot more effort to get everything you can get out of your forces than it costs the Soviets. It's sort of the reverse situation of 1941-1942.

The reason I don't see it as a game breaking problem is because the war is generally either won, lost or probably going to be a draw by 1944. A game like that of Tarhunnas also shows that the Germans can play the "slow an enemy with ants" game just as well as the Soviets, as even though the Wehrmacht is seriously understrength, it remains to be seen whether gids can actually win (although the game gives him a few more months to win/an additional summer campaign compared to history).

Someone once mentioned how this is handled in AGEOD games and I think AGE engine has much more interesting and advanced system of NM compared to WitE engine.

I played them all and in general its all same, same as here. One side needs a strong early offensive to win and the other does it using time and stronger and stronger growing forces. WITE is far deeper developed what moral is concerned. If you are on the winner road in any of Ageods game your moral goes up to 200, while the enemys can go down to 50 or less. If it goes down to much - games finished. I would not say the moral system of Ageod is superior to Wite , just the other way. Caring and service so is very good in both companies.

ORIGINAL: Schattensand

Someone once mentioned how this is handled in AGEOD games and I think AGE engine has much more interesting and advanced system of NM compared to WitE engine.

I played them all and in general its all same, same as here. One side needs a strong early offensive to win and the other does it using time and stronger and stronger growing forces. WITE is far deeper developed what moral is concerned. If you are on the winner road in any of Ageods game your moral goes up to 200, while the enemys can go down to 50 or less. If it goes down to much - games finished. I would not say the moral system of Ageod is superior to Wite , just the other way. Caring and service so is very good in both companies.

I strongly disagree that WitE national moral (NM) system is superior to AGEOD. Please note that I'm talking about NM, not about unit morale.

In AGEOD games NM is influenced by player performance. Everything you do have some impact on NM. You capture objective city - NM rises, you win major battle - NM goes up, you force regional agrarian reform - NM goes down, exceptional taxes - NM suffer...

On the other hand, in WitE, NM doesn't depend on in-game player performance but rather on hard coded time table. For example, in 1941 Axis player can manage to capture Leningrad, Moscow, whole Ukraine and wipe out over 300 Soviet divisions in process. But hey, guess what? That doesn't count! In 1942 NM for Germany goes down anyway and Soviet NM is increasing, regardless how good or bad they have played. How can this, hard coded system, can be superior to anything? It is most basic and rigid system for modeling such important concept as NM.

NM is unit morale. The nomenclature has led to the most infinite confusion.

To clear this up do the following: just substitute the phrase "unit proficiency" anytime you see NM.

NM does not represent national morale in the strategic, political, or industrial sense. In retrospect, it should never have been called national morale. Its sole effect in game terms is combat efficiency of actual units.

For example, in 1941 Axis player can manage to capture Leningrad, Moscow, whole Ukraine and wipe out over 300 Soviet divisions in process. But hey, guess what? That doesn't count!

If you do all that ( only 300, that is somewhat meager) your german army alone counts as much heads as the soviet one.
So the war will be over in early summer 42 and the more you push him back the less soldiers he can produce.
If you have a good summer 41, achieving all goals from Leningrad to Donbas and Krim and if you have a real concept for the winter 41 there is nothing a sowjet player can do in 42. You dont need a system where your average moral tripples that of the red side.
And there is no reason as well that your moral goes down in blizzard. An tactically active defense at carefully chosen and prepared places to your conditions leaves the soviet side absolutly helpless.
To me the game is fine how it is. Sorry, the German side is able to keep up initiative the whole 41, 42 and then the game should be won.
What I miss is simply careful game play and conserving game style and superior game strategy of the german side in the AARs.

"To me the game is fine how it is. Sorry, the German side is able to keep up initiative the whole 41, 42 and then the game should be won.
What I miss is simply careful game play and conserving game style and superior game strategy of the german side in the AARs."

A+

I concur with your assessment; it is amusing to read posts bloated with twisted logic; the "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."

Marquo

My personal hangup is the supply system, or lack of limitations in it to be specific. If the tempo of operations was restricted by supply considerations and the need to stockpile supplies before an offensive, it would be much harder to abuse various aspect sof the game engine and "grind" wouldn't be so much of a problem. There would also be less need for having the winter and mud rules as drastic and "artifical" as they are.

I agree with the 3 previous posters here (Schattensand, Marquo, Tarhunnas).  The morale system isn't broken by any means, and the game is more than winnable as the Germans (I've just had it handed to me 3 times out of 4 games playing Russia).

There are a few minor tweaks that should be looked at.  The supply system and supply buildups as Tarhunnas mentioned should be looked at, the Germans are way too fast off the mark in early 1942, and there's no real need to do the logistics and planning exercises as the Soviets to launch December 1941 or Stalingrad 1942 type offensives.  Fort building still seems too fast, despite recent tweaks, and that turns the mid-game into a WWI style slogfest.  There are some UI issues.  I am not a big fan of the VP or victory system.  Overall it's a good game, though, and with attention to detail over time it can become a lot better.