Matrix Games Forums

I know this subject is starting to grow hair, but I feel compelled to write about it nonetheless.

The experience/morale/skill values in 8.4 for the minor nations are set way too low.
It's been said often (and rebutted often) but I'll say it again for the benefit of those new to the subject (yes, you; by the way, how was your trip to outer mongolia?)

It's certainly too low for PBEM. This too is not new, but I've just started a game in 8.4 as Italians with the settings as intended (XP 35, Morale 30). Four moves in and already things are not looking good. My opponent is parading his tanks and armoured cars in front of my masses of AT guns and HMG's. There's certainly a lot of ammunition expenditure from my force, but they're hitting nothing. My guys are also being spotted easily. Creeping snipers are being spotted ten hexes away by armoured cars that have moved quite some distance. A fifth of my force is already suppressed or retreating.
Still, it's early days yet, and I'll perservere in my experiment to see if the 8.4 settings can be used.

Now, the counter-argument for 8.4's (and maybe 8.5's according the scant info available) values being so low for the minor nations is that it's set for those who prefer solo play against the AI, a body of players who account for the vast majority. Apparently.

But I wonder, really. Does anybody really use those levels?
Certainly not the scenario designers. I've just looked (for the first time I'll admit) at the Italian series of scenarios. All the troops used in the first scenario (Italian vs French) are pegged at 70 average. Yet the hard coded country settings for these countries are 35 and 45 respectively. In the second scenario the settings are higher still.

I've heard some stuff about the 8.4 version settings being more reflective of 'historical reality'. Yet scenario designers are, in recreating most scenarios, very interested in historical reality. They don't, however, appear to be interested in settings that go below 60, much.

Here's a lovely quote from Bill Wilder taken from the notes on the Italian series.

This is also true for gaming industry, in most of the cases, since very few are the games covering Italian Army, and those published often suffer by an excessive underrating of Italian performances. While such a behavior could have some fundaments at a strategic level where Italy, no doubt, suffered by a generalized umpreparedness for the war as well as poor leadership, all this is less acceptable when the games scale down to tactical level.**

The Italian soldier and his field commanders per se, in fact, fought as well as their allies and their enemies. Isolated episodes of unwillingness to fight or cowardice were not above the rates of the other participants to the war. On the contrary, there are several examples where the Italians fought against all odds and well beyond their call of duty.**

Frankly, I think too much is made of the differences that should be present between nations. At a battlefield level (which is what this game represents) soldiers of different nations aren't all that different, and certainly not to the level represented in 8.4

Well we'll have to see what 8.5 brings. I shall be using it. But if the nation settings are as strange as 8.4's, then I shall be turning the Country Settings OFF.

Now I'll go and see if I can stop my guys from hotfooting it back to Mama. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Swamprat

The experience/morale/skill values in 8.4 for the minor nations are set way too low.

Totally agreed.

My opinion is that major differences were not between individual soldiers but between the leading methods, weapon technics, tactics... and between the amount of men and equipments in battle. Ofcourse there was differences in morale, experience and skills, but these kind of differences were also true inside each army. And were the averages really that different? ...I doubt it.

As a solo player, I have to admit that I don't enjoy it either. I had a Marine company commander with a starting morale of 53. You can practically write off the first couple of battles on the long campaign because your troops are just worthless. That, or buy lots of artillery and hide behind a wall of shrapnel.

heya,

just a tad off topic...


im currently playing with italians in h2h and i find that half of my troops are taking suppression, to rout and retraet without being fired upon or being hit by artillery

also, none of there comrades or anything near them is dying, though there is a battle and artillery 6-10 hexes in front of them. i also experienced this in 8.3, though i have no italian exp with 8.4

any ideas? is this a product of lowered morale/exp/ldr ratings?


-jedi

I think that's the National Characteristics setting, whereby Italians can spontaneously retreat, Brits and Germans suppress less, Japanese don't retreat or surrender, etc. Further details are in the manual.

In this game I'm playing now, although playing with the country values on, I've turned the Country Characteristics (I can't remember what it's actually called) OFF, as that would have been too much.

I believe these settings have been present since at least version 5, I think.

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

As a solo player, I have to admit that I don't enjoy it either. I had a Marine company commander with a starting morale of 53. You can practically write off the first couple of battles on the long campaign because your troops are just worthless. That, or buy lots of artillery and hide behind a wall of shrapnel.

As for the US Marines, they often survived simply BECAUSE of that wall of shrapnel. In 1942, most of those Marines joined up AFTER Pearl Harbor, so they were barely out of boot camp before being shipped to the Pacific. That's just the way it was. The truth is, those Marines were ill-suited for the type of offensive warfare they were trained for. Given that, the first defensive battles (the Tenaru, Bloody Ridge) gave those guys combat experience they sorely needed.

Some may regard it as cheating, but I make sure that my first long-campaign USMC battle is a defend or delay mission. Furthermore, with each successive year, an across-the-board reorganization takes place, with new weapons, new recruits and a drop in experience levels.

Contrast this with the state of the Russian military in 1941, post-purge, with recruits being almost press-ganged into the Red Army. Low morale, low experience, and poor leadership.

Yes, I have tried the Russians in a long campaign, and they simply suck. Why? Because, historically, until late 1943-early '44, they DID suck.

I play with the beta of 8.5, and the nation ratings are NOT changed. This argument IS getting old, but an alternative is being worked on.

The bottom line -- did the game just became more difficult to play with 8.4? Yes, and it was intentionally done.

It's a generalization, and yes, gamers/scenario designers CAN alter these values. With the level of customization that presently exists, I fail to understand this wailing/gnashing of teeth. [8|]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
With the level of customization that presently exists, I fail to understand this wailing/gnashing of teeth. [8|]

Thanks for respecting our opinions, KG.



Goblin

ORIGINAL: Goblin

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
With the level of customization that presently exists, I fail to understand this wailing/gnashing of teeth. [8|]

Thanks for respecting our opinions, KG.



Goblin

Goblin, I DO respect your opinions, but I just don't understand them. Michael IS working on an alternative, and this should satisfy those who would like a level playing field. I really hope he can get it worked out. This option will render these discussions moot. Everyone will get what he or she wants IF it works out.

BTW, the new option being worked on is making all nation ratings editable from in-game. I asked for this to be added to the preferences screen. Mike IS working on it.

If the same argument is brought up time after time maybe that should tell you something, other than its getting old that is. We are not talking about it being hard we are talking about it not even being worth playing. Why on earth was it change and lowered in the first place. 8.3 is hard with these countries but if you use tactics and are very careful you can pull it off now you can't[:(]

I would suggest bumping up the Rout/Rally parameter. Theoretically it should make a difference.

Being completely suppressed (i.e. retreating/routed - out of control) is a binary state. If you bump up Rout/Rally both sides will gain but it should result in a proportionally larger increase in the number of useful units for the lesser side. E.g. the major nation may go from 70% to 80% useful but the minor nation may go from 30% to 60%.

Otherwise just work out how to hack the mech.exe with a hex editor and change the values as in SPH2H ...

Yes it is getting old.....and i still like the values. [:)]

ORIGINAL: VikingNo2

If the same argument is brought up time after time maybe that should tell you something, other than its getting old that is. We are not talking about it being hard we are talking about it not even being worth playing. Why on earth was it change and lowered in the first place. 8.3 is hard with these countries but if you use tactics and are very careful you can pull it off now you can't[:(]

NOW I get it. Viking, the PBEM terror, can't handle the truth.. welcome to the real world ---it ain't pretty.

The low ratings sometimes represent the strategic situation the long campaign battle happens in. Romanians suffer from harsh winter conditions near Stalingrad and Italians are attempting to escape from British pincers at Beda Fomm. If you want history to repeat itself you must use those ratings.

For head to head encounters this is a problem, I agree. But consider how much this arena fight resembles an actual combat. If both forces are about equal size, a good general attacks only with some good plan. Good general favors only a fight where the enemy is already beaten.

Listen I have been in the real world, if you don't want people to play the minor nations then take them out. Most people don't sit down to a game and say " let me start this game where I have no possibility of even a draw and I will just watch all my units retreat all game, and even more enjoyable they only get one shot if they are not retreating". Real world. I asked why was it lowered the answer I get is " welcome to the real world". I have no proble with the lowered leadership. I think its a good thing and it also appears to be right on IMO. I am talking about the moral and experience those are the one's that where lowered to a point where the nation is usless in game terms. By the way KG when I play the minors my hope is to pull out a draw, not a victory.

Don't give me crap about the real world either, I have been shot at in three different countries in the last 21 plus years I know a little about the real world.

I agree with Viking that the leadership values being lowered for the minors is a good way to simulate historical issues. It was typically that along with supply and modern/effective weapons issues that effected these nationalities the most...not a question of their courage.

As I have stated elsewhere I do hope the next update either changes the national characteristics or has a feature to allow the player/designer to alter them so that playability is restored somewhat. I would also like to thank Mike Woods for the fact that he has come back to try and fix things and does seem to be open minded in taking some of the the communities input to heart.

As for Glenn...why don't you give the personal potshots a break already?[8|] You seem totally incapable of seperating and acknowledging criticism of an aspect of the game from an all attack on SPWAW/MG/and yourself at times. Perhaps you should step back from your keyboard and take a five minute break before you carry through with that urge to type something smug in reply to someone elses non-provoking inquiry/comment.

Guys

from Mike Wood on this subject.


"Hello...

Mentioned it before and will say it again. Have something in mind. Working on it.

Thanks...

Michael Wood "

He has heard your concerns and is working on something.
Lets give him a chance and see what he comes up with.
[:)]

Sorry lost my temper, your right Alby[&o]