Is Romanian/Axis Minor national morale slightly too low?

[Beethoven1]

I know that they were bad and didn't fight well for the most part historically, but were they really this bad?

And yes, I can certainly understand that Romanian troops didn't hold the flanks at Stalingrad, and tbh that is understandable given that they were attacked with a large mass of Soviet tanks and they didn't have AT weapons etc.

However, in game (in particular in the StB scenario in my case, although I have seen the same sort of thing in the 1941 scenario), it seems like Romanian troops will rout just ridiculously easily. I can just attack them with infantry (not tanks against which they don't have AT weapons against), and more often than not they seem to rout. Did Romanian and other Axis minor troops really rout when Soviet infantry even just sneezed on them?

Maybe I am wrong on this - no doubt some other people know more details about the history than I, and if so and if the Axis minors can really only be accurately represented as being this bad, then I'd be happy to be corrected.

Anyway, so perhaps for balance purposes, it might be good for the national morale of Axis minors to be raised by at least a small amount across the board? Even if just 5 higher or possibly 10? But 5? I don't think they necessarily need or should have higher morale in 1941, but maybe just very slightly higher morale for Axis minors from 1942 onwards might be an improvement?

Just a thought, and again, I could be wrong and maybe this would be totally unrealistic and ruled out on those grounds.

[loki100]

few observations (not a view either way), yes they rout readily, combination of a relatively low unit morale/exp (so losses escalate) and then matched to low TOE (disruptions etc) makes them vulnerable.

The good bit with the Rumanians is you have manpower to spare - since most players won't have re-enacted their horrific losses at Odessa. So they repair in a turn or so. I tend to think they need to be stacked 3 high for some security but they can do a job - and do return fairly quickly.

The Hungarians when they move to their 1943 TOEs are pretty useful, again also they recover readily. But in general I get a decent usage out of them

The mountain formations with their +5 are pretty decent in both armies, so that might be a clue to how they'd behave more widely if their NM was given a hand up.

What I find I have is say 2 Rumanian corps in the line and one picking up the routs for refit and return. By the time that has done its job there is another corps worth in need of refit. Also I find adding in the machine gun SUs into their formations seems to toughen them up.

All of which is incoherent way of saying - 'really not sure'

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Rumanians can't hold a thing even 1 on 1 with a Soviet Rifle Division in GC41 start. I now either put them with a German Division, stack 3 of them together in defense, or in great defense terrain, or ship them off to Soviet Garrison Duty. With Soviet Garrison Duty being the best thing for them for me. I am pretty sure this was talked about before and is WAD but not 100% sure. I just accept it and go on myself now regulating them to strawmen that catch fire easily thus I keep them out of the fire

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: loki100

few observations (not a view either way), yes they rout readily, combination of a relatively low unit morale/exp (so losses escalate) and then matched to low TOE (disruptions etc) makes them vulnerable.

The good bit with the Rumanians is you have manpower to spare - since most players won't have re-enacted their horrific losses at Odessa. So they repair in a turn or so. I tend to think they need to be stacked 3 high for some security but they can do a job - and do return fairly quickly.

The Hungarians when they move to their 1943 TOEs are pretty useful, again also they recover readily. But in general I get a decent usage out of them

The mountain formations with their +5 are pretty decent in both armies, so that might be a clue to how they'd behave more widely if their NM was given a hand up.

What I find I have is say 2 Rumanian corps in the line and one picking up the routs for refit and return. By the time that has done its job there is another corps worth in need of refit. Also I find adding in the machine gun SUs into their formations seems to toughen them up.

All of which is incoherent way of saying - 'really not sure'

Yes, the Rumanian MTN Brigades are awesome. CAV to a lesser degree. The Divisions just disintegrate besides the Guards one.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

But in general I get a decent usage out of them

Is that in single player like your recent AAR with Germany, or also in multiplayer?

ORIGINAL: loki100

losses escalate

If it is mostly in single player that they can be put to some sort of reasonable use, I wonder if the issue might be that in multiplayer, players target those units in particular for attacks because they know that they are weak, whereas the AI would not target Axis minor troops in particular. If so, then insofar as the losses do escalate, then this would lead to more Romanian routs in multiplayer games than single player?

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: loki100

Yes, the Rumanian MTN Brigades are awesome. CAV to a lesser degree. The Divisions just disintegrate besides the Guards one.

Agree.

About the only thing the regular Rumanian divisions are good for is that they do exert ZOC and can capture vacant hexes.

However, I do feel the OP posed a good question. "Were the Romanians really this bad?"

The following is the classic example of them collapsing while protecting the flanks at Stalingrad. (but were they forced to retreat? - or simply routed at every opportunity?)

https://www.historynet.com/romanian-nig ... ingrad.htm

The previous narrative makes it sound like they held their ground against Soviet infantry, but were not equipped to withstand Soviet armor.

If the Romanians truly dissolved at the first sign of combat, then why were they entrusted to defend the flanks to begin with?

I am inclined to believe the OP may be on to something....

[jzardos]

I think the simple answer is yes. They are historical with their equipment which limits their effectiveness in combat, so giving the a ridiculously low morale is just not historical and penalizes them more than necessary.

[AlbertN]

I am positive Axis minors in general need some beefing up.

Presently they've pratically a 'quadruple dip'.

Low Morale + Scarce TOE (Equipment shortages) + Poor Equipment (Not just few, but also bad!) + Poor Leaders

Personally I think Italians and Romanians should have a baseline of 50 National Morale or 55. Hungarians and Slovaks 60.

TOE is what it is.
Equipment quality - values ultimately are discretional of the designers exactly as morale.
Leadership - values as well discretional, but without question the non Finland Axis minors in general had WW1 school type of leaders in general.

I'd start with an upping of national morale.
So +1 to the thread opener!

[DesertedFox]

A couple of points to consider.

1. The Romanians were not invested in the war against Russia as was Germany. This reflects in the mentality of the average Romanian soldier with "What am I doing here"?

2. Their equipment sucked making them Nervous Nellies especially should any Soviet armour being in the vicinity.

3. They took a beating at Odessa and thus were employed on secondary duties after that because they obviously couldn't handle front line duties.

4. And as for

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

If the Romanians truly dissolved at the first sign of combat, then why were they entrusted to defend the flanks to begin with?

What troops would you propose that Hitler should have put on the flanks considering that there were no Germans to spare? Of course, hindsight could suggest that he pull German troops out of Stalingrad and then thrust those Romanians in the hell hole of Stalingrad. They were so short of actual fighting troops (not support troops) that Romanians were actually used (sparingly) in the push into Stalingrad.

5. There is a very good reason you don't hear about Romanian troops after the capture of Odessa until Stalingrad and I believe that is relfected accurately in game.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

A couple of points to consider.

1. The Romanians were not invested in the war against Russia as was Germany. This reflects in the mentality of the average Romanian soldier with "What am I doing here"?

2. Their equipment sucked making them Nervous Nellies especially should any Soviet armour being in the vicinity.

3. They took a beating at Odessa and thus were employed on secondary duties after that because they obviously couldn't handle front line duties.

4. And as for

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

If the Romanians truly dissolved at the first sign of combat, then why were they entrusted to defend the flanks to begin with?

What troops would you propose that Hitler should have put on the flanks considering that there were no Germans to spare? Of course, hindsight could suggest that he pull German troops out of Stalingrad and then thrust those Romanians in the hell hole of Stalingrad. They were so short of actual fighting troops (not support troops) that Romanians were actually used (sparingly) in the push into Stalingrad.

5. There is a very good reason you don't hear about Romanian troops after the capture of Odessa until Stalingrad and I believe that is relfected accurately in game.

Have to "concur" with DesertedFox here.

[GibsonPete]

IMO the Axis minors national morale should be raised. The Slovaks were praised by the Germans and the Rumanians did at Odessa and the Crimea. They had equipment issues and the Rumanian reorganization of 42 included a 3 man tank killer team in every platoon. (They were previously the platoon runners.) The Hungarians performed well when they took things seriously. The Italians, well, they are the Italians. Overall no player will place the Axis minors in the position the Germans did and expect different results.

[DeletedUser44]

The Romanians were never regarded as 'crack' or elite troops by any measure. But keep in mind that they were the perfect scapegoat for any German failure in Army Group South. So, some of the overly negative press may have been as a result.

Their TOE is a significant hardship. That alone may be enough to reflect their lack-luster performances.

But, unlike their Italian contemporaries, Germany did not turn down their assistance or involvement on the eastern front.

Additionally, Manstein was able to effectively use them in his conquest of the Crimea. They also successfully participated in the Battle of Uman, as well as the Second Battle of Kharkov, to name two more, without dissolving like wet tissue paper.

[DesertedFox]

Here is a map of the southwest front line just before the launch of Operation Uranus.

To the south of Stalingrad, we have the 4th Romanian Army, to the north the 3rd Romanian, 8th Italain, and 2nd Hungarian armies.

Much further north at the Rzhev salient, and not on this map, is where Operation Mars is happening where the Soviets take a real beating but prevent any Germans troops from being able to be transferred to the south.

map

[AlbertN]

That Soviet breakthrough was made by late '42 Soviet troops and mostly with grand armoured support, which no Axis Minor nation really had adequate weapons to deal with; and by sheer force of Soviet human waves.

I do not believe anyone here is asking for Romanians to have super equipment or German alike national morale - what it is said that the present situation for the Axis minors is way excessive in the 'lows' levels.

[DesertedFox]

This series on youtube by TIK. It is quite amazing and well worth anyone playing this game time to watch.

TIK

A good read about Romanian troops.

ROMANIA AS AN ALLY OF NAZI GERMANY ON THE EASTERN FRONT OF WW2

Generally speaking, the Romanian troops performed to the capabilities of their officers, equipment, and personal motivation, all of which were very poor.

This is no reflection on their bravery because many times they did fight bravely even in the face of overwhelming odds.

This is about their ability to fight effectively against the Russians consistently without the heavy support of German formations.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

That Soviet breakthrough was made by late '42 Soviet troops and mostly with grand armoured support, which no Axis Minor nation really had adequate weapons to deal with; and by sheer force of Soviet human waves.

I do not believe anyone here is asking for Romanians to have super equipment or German alike national morale - what it is said that the present situation for the Axis minors is way excessive in the 'lows' levels.

I am very interested to hear your "suggested" levels of experience and morale for the Romanians then.

Given the randomness of the Russian morale at the start, I can still give a very accurate coverage of what they will have.

Romanians (non mountain/cav)have mostly a 45 for morale and experience (some above these numbers).

Russians (non NKVD/Cav/Mounain) have a LOT of mostly 35 experience (many under 40) with a trickle going up to 50, and as far as morale goes from 35 to 60, mostly at 45 or under though.

So Romanian troops are generally slightly above the Russians in morale and on par in experience.

I don't see these numbers as being out of wack as to their true resepective abilities.

Increasing Romanian numbers would make them superior to the Russians and I don't see any historical accuracy in this.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

That Soviet breakthrough was made by late '42 Soviet troops and mostly with grand armoured support, which no Axis Minor nation really had adequate weapons to deal with; and by sheer force of Soviet human waves.

I do not believe anyone here is asking for Romanians to have super equipment or German alike national morale - what it is said that the present situation for the Axis minors is way excessive in the 'lows' levels.

I am very interested to hear your "suggested" levels of experience and morale for the Romanians then.

Given the randomness of the Russian morale at the start, I can still give a very accurate coverage of what they will have.

Romanians (non mountain/cav)have mostly a 45 for morale and experience (some above these numbers).

Russians (non NKVD/Cav/Mounain) have a LOT of mostly 35 experience (many under 40) with a trickle going up to 50, and as far as morale goes from 35 to 60, mostly at 45 or under though.

So Romanian troops are generally slightly above the Russians in morale and on par in experience.

I don't see these numbers as being out of wack as to their true resepective abilities.

Increasing Romanian numbers would make them superior to the Russians and I don't see any historical accuracy in this.

Rum Cav & Mountain is 65. Regular Divisions are 45, Guards Division is 60. I have some Rum Divisions in the 50's Morale & EXP already from attacking with Germans. That is how you improve them (I have had in another game regular Rumanians in the 60's for Morale and Exp, so I know it can be done)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Remember that experience & morale will rise too based on these rules. Thus getting them in "winning" combat is key.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I personally think it is a growing pain but if you work hard at it you can have some tough regular Rumanian Divisions. Getting there is the pain but well worth it if you work at it.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

So I concur with DesertedFox. The current morale and experience of Rumanians is where it should be and if raised you would have the potential of a 70 morale/experience regular Rumanian Division which I feel would not be accurate to history as I know it.