Russian morale issue

[hjaco]

Executing a Russia first gambit I came to wonder about how morale is calculated now, because i gobbled Russian cities worth 59 morale during the two first turns. This apparently had little effect on Russian morale which graciously fell to "strong" after turn two which had me puzzled.

I made some research using hotseat and came to the following conclusion (at least for Russia):

Each morale loss suffered by food shortage costs doubled i.e. 2 morale loss.

Each morale loss suffered by losing cities are now halved [&:]

What this boils down to is that losing 5 food is costing Russia 10 morale each turn while conquering any city up to the Riga hex row only cost Russia 32 morale.

I can understand that widespread famine especially on the home front can seriously undermine morale but losing something like half of European part of Russia shouldn't that have a heavier impact ?

Is this intended ?

[Joel Rauber]

This is tough to judge in my opinion.

E.g. Russia in WWII lost a lot more than that, and I think it fair to say that only for a brief moment when Moscow almost fell in December 1941, was there a danger of morale collapse.

Of course Russia in WWI is not Russia in WWII, but I think the example is illustrative.

[Shawkhan]

I think that people are able to tolerate the horror of warfare for a certain amount of time, usually for a few years. Then war weariness sets in. Morale hits in the first couple years of the war shouldn't have as big an effect as later losses in subsequent years.
In my current game Russia surrendered in 1916, which is quite early enough. I wouldn't want it possible to win in much less time than that.

[SMK-at-work]

You can't do anything against Russia unless you also demoralise the army - this was a problem in earlier versions - Russia would surrender just from losing the historical cities even if it lost no troops, which was patently wrong.

the city strengths are relative - ie a 5 point city is worth half a 10 point city, but I dont' think they've ever been exactly worth 1 morale point per city point.

[boogada]

I am hjaco's opponent in this match and I tried a weird setup, I made some brilliant mistakes and he completely encircled and eventually destroyed almost all of my troops. Then he conquered almost all of Russia. If he hadn't moved some troops to the Serbian and Frensh border he could have walked right up to St. Petersburg almost unopposed. Only the new troops were able to contain the German drive.

Yet still, Russia stayed "strong" for 2 turns before loosing moral fast. I wondered myself about this because the defeat couldn't have been any worse! But the loss of the food hexes will make Russia surrender before the end of 1915 I am sure.

[SMK-at-work]

"Strong" is not the top morale level - IIRC "excellent" or "unshakeable" or something like that is isn't it?
 
"Strong" is at 80% morale, then in decreasing order it's weak, uncertain, & wavering?
 
whatever the names,&nbsp;each level is at a 20% decrease - so 100-80% is the top one, then 80-60 is strong, then 60-40, then 40-20, then <20.
&nbsp;
so you an still be "strong" with 61% morale....which is well on the way to losing it!
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[boogada]

It was 65% to be exact, and dropping fast. But: It should have dropped faster. Seriously, I fu**** up that front&nbsp;really really bad.

[SMK-at-work]

Why should it have dropped faster?&nbsp; What is it you are measuring your screwup against??!!

[boogada]

There was literally NO SINGLE corps standing between the border and St. Petersburg. All troops near the border and in Poland were run over by the Germans and I managed to get my troops encircled in eastern Galicia. I couldn't reeinforce them, supply them or strat move em. They just starved to death eventually. Except for the Caucasus front, there was not a single fighting men left. (until the next wave of reeinforcements arrived after 3? turns).

ALL cities were quickly conquered my the Kaiser. Including Riga, Brest-Litovsk and Wasaw.

The defeat was TOTAL! A bunch of boy scouts could have conquered the entire country because there was no resistance anymore.

Any other country would have surrendered or at least have its moral drop significantly (to good or wavering). Russia stayed strong.

I concede that the other Entente nations did not suffer much (its almost mid 1915 and no single Serb has been killed yet) and even conquered some cities that helped to boost morals, but still...

Now the lack of food will take care of this.

[SMK-at-work]

Well no..that is actually less than what actually happened to the Russians - they lost all those cities and then some - the Germans occupied most of Estonia and the Ukraine before the Rusians would sign the treaty of Brest Litovsk - they got to the north tip of Lake Piepus...only 68 miles from St Petersburg - in March of 1918.

And on top of that the Russian army had taken millions of casualties...1.8 million dead, 5.5 milion wounded, plus 1.5 million civilian deaths.......in GOA that means losing every single one of the starting units PLUS all the programmed reinforcements PLUS some more......the Russian army had about 6 million active troops and reserves in 1914, and mobilised a total of 12 million - they're probably underdone in GOA because you can't raise crap troops without proper equipment as Russia did - eg only pay 1/2 the equipment costs, and build D or E class units......have you looked at the 1917 scenario?&nbsp; Half the Russian front is manned by "E" units!![X(]

there were many times when there were effectively no troops between the germans and St Petersburg, or Moscow...buthte pace of hte war meant that hte Germans couldn't do much about it.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: boogada

It was 65% to be exact, and dropping fast. But: It should have dropped faster. Seriously, I fu**** up that front really really bad.

Still - it was the first game where I saw substantial Russian forces south of Lodz which I weren't prepared to handle. Your mistake was to advance too far with those units instead of just using them in a delaying action which would have stopped me cold in the south. We would have quite a different game then [8D]

I have come to realize that given the in my opinion exaggerated importance of food compared to losing morale from cities, I think in the future I will copy your defence in the south to protect that vital Ukrainian food because losing all of Poland and Balticum really doesn't matter because CP will have to burn all their OP to get that far and with the massive winter reinforcements they should be contained there.

And so in that retrospect the current way Russian morale is handled means that the importance of saving the western and northwestern part of Russia with their population rich cities is negligible compared to a massive military defense of Ukraine essential without population.

This does not feel right to me [&:]

[James Ward]

Isn't that the old Russian strategy of trading space for time?
Has anyone tried setting the Russians army along the Riga, Minsk, Kiev line to start?

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Well no..that is actually less than what actually happened to the Russians....

Yes but not all at once and until 1914/1915 like our game did. Russia was at least a significant enemy until mid 1916 (Brusilov offensive). Not much longer though.

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: hjaco
Still - it was the first game where I saw substantial Russian forces south of Lodz which I weren't prepared to handle. Your mistake was to advance too far with those units instead of just using them in a delaying action which would have stopped me cold in the south. We would have quite a different game then [8D]

The setup was not the big mistake. Of course I gambled that you would attack France first, but that's the fog of war I cannot influence. But I can watch my flanks and rear and not forget to man the forts of Riga..... I play the same setup against lascar and managed to take Galicia and defend Brest-Litovsk and Riga. (to his honour: he did not spare Serbia)

[Shawkhan]

Considering the last three invasions of Russia:
1. Napoleon-Russians withdrew before L'Grande Armee, even forfeting Moscow, letting winter take its toll before launching a crushing counterattack.
2. WWI- Russians launch a shoestring invasion of E. Prussia, wind up losing two armies.(interestingly enough, virtually identical to Ulver's fiasco).
3. WWII- Russians withdraw to outskirts of Moscow once again. Letting winter take its toll before launching a crushing counterattack.
...What does this tell us? Russians should withdraw in front of invasion,&nbsp;then counterattack with winter reinforcements. This is not rocket science. &nbsp;

[boogada]

You are forgetting the deep trust into Galicia in 1914/1915. Russia did sent the bigger part of its army against Austria and not Prussia.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: boogada

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Well no..that is actually less than what actually happened to the Russians....

Yes but not all at once and until 1914/1915 like our game did. Russia was at least a significant enemy until mid 1916 (Brusilov offensive). Not much longer though.

The Brusilov offensive cost over a million casualties (effectively half the strength of the pre-war regulars), so it was a similar singlar massive loss. it saw teh end of the russian army as an effective force - it was after this offensive that the infamous weapon shortages meant not everyone at he front could get a rifle.

But Russia still held on for another 18 months after that...so I see nothing particularly wrong with your situation....you lost a lot and Russia is well on the way towards collapse because of it. Possibly not so far as they might be bbecause htey captured the Galician cities?

Looks fine to me at that....a good push by the CP will see it collapse entirely.

Hjaco I dion't think you can flippantly let the Baltic states be over-run so simply...the Germans can use their cavalry to take the empty areas, and it doesn't take so many HQ points to take the cities as to be a major problem. Germany gets to Riga before the major russian reinforcements arrive.

Without the need to fight Germany has plenty of strategic movement to move a few corps to Galicia, or even to take out Italy with a pre-emptive strike.

Shawkan........in 1812 the Russians never launched a massive counter-strike. They only won a few minor battles on the fringes......they did win a strategically defensive battle at Maloyaroslavets (ie the French won on the field, but their subsequent decisions were "wrong") and thus force the French back along the Smolensk road.....but the French casualties were almost entirely due to starvation and cold and not russian military action.

I'm not sure how the "shoestring" invasion of East Prussia in 1914 counts as invasion of Russia, but it wasn't shoestring....it outnumbered the German defenders by about 2:1, so if it was shoestring then the German defence must have been smoke and mirrors![:D]

In WW2 they did not "withdraw" back to Moscow - they were rudely shoved there much against their will!! [:D]

What hitler and Nappy had in common was an expectation of a short campaign - 1 season. Had either of them prepared for longer fighting they probably would have won.

[boogada]

But the Brusilov offensive also was kind of the end of Austrian offensive capabilities, they needed massive German support ever after. And it forced Austria to stop its offensive in Italy.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Hjaco I dion't think you can flippantly let the Baltic states be over-run so simply...the Germans can use their cavalry to take the empty areas, and it doesn't take so many HQ points to take the cities as to be a major problem. Germany gets to Riga before the major russian reinforcements arrive.

Without the need to fight Germany has plenty of strategic movement to move a few corps to Galicia, or even to take out Italy with a pre-emptive strike.

I didn't implydeploying no troops in Balticum and Poland just no more than to delay Germany i.e. cavalry screening force to eat up OP and say 2 army groups taking advantage of fortifications leaving a single corps behind in the fortresses to further hinder advances while the remainder withdraws and occasionally assault lone vulnerable corps.

And Russia can rail enough forces to the south as well. Denying free advancement by CP cavalry in both north and south while Poland itself has to be cleansed its gonna cost one hell of a pack of OP [;)]

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: boogada

But the Brusilov offensive also was kind of the end of Austrian offensive capabilities, they needed massive German support ever after. And it forced Austria to stop its offensive in Italy.

Well their offensive capabilities had ended before that but it meant that AH finally agreed to be put permanent under German military leadership for the duration of the war.