Is Romanian/Axis Minor national morale slightly too low?

[Zovs]

You know it might just be possible that the combat routines are working correctly and what everyone has been used too since release is wrong. Prior to this patch the combat routines were done at much short range and produced much less losses. Perhaps by the adjustment of the longer ranges for engagements the results are more closer to actual combat losses.

There still may be some tinkering to do, but I think there is a bit too much 'alarm' at the losses so far in this patch.

That is just my personal observations.

Basing some of this off my tactical experiences with both ASL and Steel Panthers. Even in 1941 the Germans while not having the better guns (37mm and not a lot of 50mm early on) were still able to inflict massive losses on the Soviets. From what I have seen and experienced so far, this is a step in the right direction and the German Panzers are more potent in 1941-42.

[carlkay58]

I would just like to point out that we are talking about a single Rumanian infantry division with no support being attacked by three Soviet Rifle divisions with support. Yes the Soviets won and they should have. If you do the reverse and have three supported Rumanian infantry divisions attack a single Soviet Rifle division wihout support I would expect (from my experience) the same result in the other direction.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

You know it might just be possible that the combat routines are working correctly and what everyone has been used too since release is wrong. Prior to this patch the combat routines were done at much short range and produced much less losses. Perhaps by the adjustment of the longer ranges for engagements the results are more closer to actual combat losses.

There still may be some tinkering to do, but I think there is a bit too much 'alarm' at the losses so far in this patch.

That is just my personal observations.

Basing some of this off my tactical experiences with both ASL and Steel Panthers. Even in 1941 the Germans while not having the better guns (37mm and not a lot of 50mm early on) were still able to inflict massive losses on the Soviets. From what I have seen and experienced so far, this is a step in the right direction and the German Panzers are more potent in 1941-42.

I agree the combat routine might have been working wrong previously, I just think the fixes have tipped the balance too much in favor of long range encounters. See my screenshots, the loss results on manpower and AFVs are completely off balance, Soviets have 5% manpower losses and almost 100% AFV losses in this battle, and these are quite common results.

I know there's no reason to panic and declare the combat completely broken or anything like that, I'm just tinkling my tiny personal alarm bell here

[RedJohn]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I would just like to point out that we are talking about a single Rumanian infantry division with no support being attacked by three Soviet Rifle divisions with support. Yes the Soviets won and they should have. If you do the reverse and have three supported Rumanian infantry divisions attack a single Soviet Rifle division wihout support I would expect (from my experience) the same result in the other direction.

I wouldn't, unless said Romanians had full CPP. They are uniquely terrible.

Especially across the dnepr or any other major river.

[AlbertN]

I agree - even isolated infantry Russians can rout away Romanian regiments left to secure pockets!
But I already voiced previously my opinion on the NM, the Devs said they consider the topic concluded.

Since it is a matter of opinion, and not a matter of objective parameters - one can argue til the end of the days.

Objective parameters are 'How far this gun shoots, what's its caliber, what's the muzzle, etcetera'.
Subjective parameters is 'How good is the personnel working said gun'.

[MechFO]

The Rumanians simply disintegrating in 41 doesn't look right, especially against a non armour force. In 42 they seem to suffer a lot from the gun shortages due to the low production rates.

[Stamb]

German allies are just too weak. I am playing vs AI and it was enough to attack Rumanians only once to route them. Even for a soviet AI.
Here is a screenshot from wite 1 and that guy is using russian translation but look on a results (USSR on the right, Axis on the left) It looks so much more realistic. And in wite 2 they would just route so hard that you will be not able to refit them for the next 5 turns.

[Cavalry Corp]

I have played tons of other stuff and just playing campaign of this.

I would say Rumania is a little bit too low - agreed

seems to me Rumanians failed due to lack of good equipment esp AT and Corp+ level leadership. Why do they not get some of the captured equipment?

maybe it should be better say 55 until say Winter 42 ( when the war looks like it will be ongoing 50) and drop again winter 44 ( looming defeat 45) ?
Italian Alpine units are probably too weak as well.

[panzer51]

IMHO Romanian morale should be be something like this

65 at start
60 after capture of Odessa
45 past Stalingrad
55 once Soviet troops are in Moldavia/Romania

If you guys (devs) don't want to change that, give players ability in editor to change it to whatever they feel like it should be.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: panzer51

...

If you guys (devs) don't want to change that, give players ability in editor to change it to whatever they feel like it should be.

handily the NM tables are in the editor and can indeed be set to whatever values you wish to use

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: panzer51

IMHO Romanian morale should be be something like this

65 at start
60 after capture of Odessa
45 past Stalingrad
55 once Soviet troops are in Moldavia/Romania

If you guys (devs) don't want to change that, give players ability in editor to change it to whatever they feel like it should be.

You can change NM via editor.

[panzer51]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: panzer51

...

If you guys (devs) don't want to change that, give players ability in editor to change it to whatever they feel like it should be.

handily the NM tables are in the editor and can indeed be set to whatever values you wish to use

Are they editable? I couldn't figure out how to do that

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: panzer51

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: panzer51

...

If you guys (devs) don't want to change that, give players ability in editor to change it to whatever they feel like it should be.

handily the NM tables are in the editor and can indeed be set to whatever values you wish to use

Are they editable? I couldn't figure out how to do that

Its pretty easy, just few clicks

[panzer51]

Oh, the dots are clickable?

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: panzer51

Oh, the dots are clickable?

yes

[cameron88]

But they don't save, so no it does not work.

[AlbertN]

Mostly modded game do not go PvP mode - unless as per some games there is the 'unofficial' balance mod that is made by players for pvp games. (Not sure if many Matrix games have that admittedly but I believe for Strategic Command there are some mods that enhance the PvP experience).

[GibsonPete]

First create a backup of your gendata file. Second create a scenario. Third do actual edit in the generic data. Then save generic data. Do not use with a human unless both sides agree to it.

[Rosencrantus]

Axis allied units are really useful and I think their NM is fine right now, Axis players really have to think of these units as supporting troops, there to augment the German army. Independent operations should almost never happen unless you just started Barbarossa. For example, adding an allied division on top of a German infantry regiment at the less intensive sectors of the front or even completely by itself in forts and good terrain is a great way of holding large parts of the front effectively.

They are much much better at holding when attacked by only infantry. Unless in good defensive terrain, if substantial Soviet armour is committed to a battle, you have to have a decent reserve pop-up ready to help or have at least some German troops on the hex.

[GibsonPete]

Rosencrantus +1