Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

I think he suggested some units are not reaching 50 morale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

I think he suggested some units are not reaching 50 morale.

Fine, but what he 'suggests' and what he 'proves' are often two completely different things. Screenshots, tracking, and saved games are required to prove anything. All else is unsubstantiated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

It's probably this paragraph:

The unit’s morale is below its national morale. In this case it can recover as much as 10% of
the national morale but not more than the country’s national morale (Example: German national
morale is 70 in 1942 so a unit could recover 7 per turn, not to exceed 70 for a non-elite unit).

There is no requirement (refit, non-adjecency, distance to enemy) mentioned for this in 9.1.1

The exact requirements are a mystery. Supposedly, it's a complicated set of checks that have not been made known to the testers. However, my bolded bit should be kept in mind, and that it is representing a maximum gain, for this particular aspect of morale gain, given the best of conditions and lucky die rolls.

quote:

The exact requirements are a mystery. Supposedly, it's a complicated set of checks that have not been made known to the testers. However, my bolded bit should be kept in mind, and that it is representing a maximum gain, for this particular aspect of morale gain, given the best of conditions and lucky die rolls.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

I think he suggested some units are not reaching 50 morale.

Fine, but what he 'suggests' and what he 'proves' are often two completely different things. Screenshots, tracking, and saved games are required to prove anything. All else is unsubstantiated.

Like Jamiam said the nation moral rate of germans is 50.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Moral is one of the key issues that can effect the out come. For the German theres not much one can do once you start digging in to move it up. As the Russian you can do nothing an it goes up.

quote:

The bottom line is: that the Soviet position is improved over time even by doing nothing (that's true). But the only way the Soviet player gets that is that the Axis does "nothing" as in "nothing of an offensive nature".

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Here's what we know.
The game as released let units (only played Axis with this version) gain morale through combat quickly and fairly unrestricted. Infantry, if used correctly, could relatively quickly go above 86 and there was no exception for Axis minors. Indeed someone posted a pic with a Rumanian division at 99 morale at some point. That was all that was needed to nerf the morale system for the Germans. Even Panzer divs could not regain morale at a decent way and degraded fast, even through hasty's with few losses. I'm very, _very_ happy to see in my new game with 1.05.45 that Panzer divs are now again able to gain morale quickly (still early 1941). Low morale infantry seems to pick up quickly too but it becomes more difficult from (subjectively) 80+. From past comments, I'm assuming it is still so that as war progresses, even Panzer Divs will find it difficult to go above 85+ and infantry will likewise be pushed down with a hard cap (or it will become extreemly unlikely it will improve further through combat).

Cheers,
Glenn

Ps: I play both sides equally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Here's what we know.
The game as released let units (only played Axis with this version) gain morale through combat quickly and fairly unrestricted. Infantry, if used correctly, could relatively quickly go above 86 and there was no exception for Axis minors. Indeed someone posted a pic with a Rumanian division at 99 morale at some point. That was all that was needed to nerf the morale system for the Germans. Even Panzer divs could not regain morale at a decent way and degraded fast, even through hasty's with few losses. I'm very, _very_ happy to see in my new game with 1.05.45 that Panzer divs are now again able to gain morale quickly (still early 1941). Low morale infantry seems to pick up quickly too but it becomes more difficult from (subjectively) 80+. From past comments, I'm assuming it is still so that as war progresses, even Panzer Divs will find it difficult to go above 85+ and infantry will likewise be pushed down with a hard cap (or it will become extreemly unlikely it will improve further through combat).

Cheers,
Glenn

Ps: I play both sides equally.

I thought the system was changed because people were complaining that tons of Soviet units, late in the war, were able to get to 99 morale.

The changes in the system are now preventing that ( the mass Soviet force of 99 morale formations ), but again, how many games reach late 1944 or 1945, allowing people to see how much this decreases overall Soviet strength?

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Here's what we know.
The game as released let units (only played Axis with this version) gain morale through combat quickly and fairly unrestricted. Infantry, if used correctly, could relatively quickly go above 86 and there was no exception for Axis minors. Indeed someone posted a pic with a Rumanian division at 99 morale at some point. That was all that was needed to nerf the morale system for the Germans. Even Panzer divs could not regain morale at a decent way and degraded fast, even through hasty's with few losses. I'm very, _very_ happy to see in my new game with 1.05.45 that Panzer divs are now again able to gain morale quickly (still early 1941). Low morale infantry seems to pick up quickly too but it becomes more difficult from (subjectively) 80+. From past comments, I'm assuming it is still so that as war progresses, even Panzer Divs will find it difficult to go above 85+ and infantry will likewise be pushed down with a hard cap (or it will become extreemly unlikely it will improve further through combat).

Anyway, morale is the overall balancing design feature of WitE. I think most of us know this by now, which is a notable difference from the 4 months I've been away. Apart from whether or not is is necessary for this game to have such a balancing mechanism pushing the Germans down no matter how good they are doing, the real annoyance (although less than before with the new patch), for me personally, is does it have to be in this way?
A fact often overlooked is that people play the Germans to have great quality troops. You have less, but you have good to excellent quality. That's the fun of playing the Germans. By hacking into the morale, with all it's important consequences, you take away the very reason why most of us enjoy playing the Germans. So if morale is in fact proficiency, why is proficiency tied to a year regardless of how well the Germans/Russians are doing? Is there no better, more intelligent way to handle this? If the premise of stickiong to a year is what actually happened at that time historically (i.e. an erroding of German combat capability through losses or any other reason for this), wouldn't it be a GREAT feature, selling point, BIG PLUS, for a game like this to actually devise some way to simulate this?

For example, if losses are the undelying reason for lowering proficieny, why not establish loss levels and tie overall morale to this? Let's say (and there are tons of historcial data to make this possible) 1 or 2 or ... million losses had an effect on German profiency. So once a certain level is reached, lower maximum morale. Obviously this needs to be thought out, but a good system like this would certainly stimulate play, on both sides.
An additional feature would to allow for the use of morale, which is now called proficiency, to allow for it in part to be actual morale, the belief in the cause and willingness to die for it. Being succesful in campaigns, attaining the objective had a STRONG influence on the combat performance of the historical soldiers. So capturing Leningrad, Moscow, and so on, SHOULD really COUNT for something other than what it stands for now.

Interestingly, I've read the same people who now ask questions about the German blizzard run-away, defend that same Russian strategy with vigor. I'm not saying I disagree with either, it just strikes me as odd, and more importantly, if some might mistake this for bias towards the Russian side I understand their concerns. It is a matter of perception, not necessarily the truth.

Give this game back to the players to decide who wins, please don't script it. In the end, any mechanism which forces the game down a certain path is the aknowledgement of the desinger thazt he has created something that he doesn't believe will be balanced without artificial intervention. In a way it is admission of defeat... 2by3 games has made great games in the past, I see no reason why WitE should not become one in the future. It's already a very good one, it just needs to get ride of a few things that just don't feel right, play right, or cause a lot of frustration. It's probably going to mean the designers will need to make a leap of faith and DARE to change with the risk of perhaps making a mistake that will create other problems along the way. I'm sure I speak for many that we'll gladly forgive you those potential mistakes, we've already had quite a few patches to come this far, we can have a few more.

Cheers,
Glenn

Ps: I play both sides equally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
For example, if losses are the undelying reason for lowering proficieny, why not establish loss levels and tie overall morale to this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
For example, if losses are the undelying reason for lowering proficieny, why not establish loss levels and tie overall morale to this?

The problem here is that if basal national morale lowers due to losses, there are going to be more losses in the future, and you can ignite a forward feedback loop that makes the game "unbalanceable". No game will be alive in 1945. Every new small tweak in the game (i.e, fort building times) could have devastating consequences. If you combat this eventuality by making the morale losses and gains as a consequence of a battle much more unlikely (to have smoother morale increases and decreases), the Soviets will not have a decent chance to arrive to the German proficiency/basal morale, unless they begin the game much nearer to the Germans in this regard. This would mean to redesign the whole GC41-45 scenario.

Some have said that the National Morale is a balancing mechanism. I’d rather say that it is a buffering mechanism. If you remove that brake, or weaken it by making it event-linked, I am not sure the game becomes more interesting. As many players consider unpalatable the feeling of a scripted decrease in German prowess, I would rather suggest keeping constant the German Basal Morale at 75, and letting the Soviets hit 75 by 1945.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
For example, if losses are the undelying reason for lowering proficieny, why not establish loss levels and tie overall morale to this?

The problem here is that if basal national morale lowers due to losses, there are going to be more losses in the future, and you can ignite a forward feedback loop that makes the game "unbalanceable". No game will be alive in 1945. Every new small tweak in the game (i.e, fort building times) could have devastating consequences. If you combat this eventuality by making the morale losses and gains as a consequence of a battle much more unlikely (to have smoother morale increases and decreases), the Soviets will not have a decent chance to arrive to the German proficiency/basal morale, unless they begin the game much nearer to the Germans in this regard. This would mean to redesign the whole GC41-45 scenario.

Some have said that the National Morale is a balancing mechanism. I’d rather say that it is a buffering mechanism. If you remove that brake, or weaken it by making it event-linked, I am not sure the game becomes more interesting. As many players consider unpalatable the feeling of a scripted decrease in German prowess, I would rather suggest keeping constant the German Basal Morale at 75, and letting the Soviets hit 75 by 1945.

I'm Brian of Nazareth and so is my wife.

I think the big thing about the Soviet recovery in National Morale is that it models the actual effectiveness in the Soviet combat forces as a whole in the period 1941 - 1945. If you base national morale on events such as the loss of Moscow or Leningrad then the game is much more easily won by the player that gets ahead early.

One could argue that the reverse should apply. The loss of major centers causes the Russian peasantry to fight ever more gallantly to defeat the invading fascist menace. One could even argue that that was in fact what happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Ya know, I read the whole section 9.1-9.14.

It must be in invisible ink, or one has to wear feldgrau glasses because I don't see anywhere that it says German NM is 50.

Russian NM, yes. 9.1.3 shows it's 50 from 42 on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
For example, if losses are the undelying reason for lowering proficieny, why not establish loss levels and tie overall morale to this?

The problem here is that if basal national morale lowers due to losses, there are going to be more losses in the future, and you can ignite a forward feedback loop that makes the game "unbalanceable". No game will be alive in 1945. Every new small tweak in the game (i.e, fort building times) could have devastating consequences. If you combat this eventuality by making the morale losses and gains as a consequence of a battle much more unlikely (to have smoother morale increases and decreases), the Soviets will not have a decent chance to arrive to the German proficiency/basal morale, unless they begin the game much nearer to the Germans in this regard. This would mean to redesign the whole GC41-45 scenario.

Some have said that the National Morale is a balancing mechanism. I’d rather say that it is a buffering mechanism. If you remove that brake, or weaken it by making it event-linked, I am not sure the game becomes more interesting. As many players consider unpalatable the feeling of a scripted decrease in German prowess, I would rather suggest keeping constant the German Basal Morale at 75, and letting the Soviets hit 75 by 1945.

I'm Brian of Nazareth and so is my wife.

I think the big thing about the Soviet recovery in National Morale is that it models the actual effectiveness in the Soviet combat forces as a whole in the period 1941 - 1945. If you base national morale on events such as the loss of Moscow or Leningrad then the game is much more easily won by the player that gets ahead early.

One could argue that the reverse should apply. The loss of major centers causes the Russian peasantry to fight ever more gallantly to defeat the invading fascist menace. One could even argue that that was in fact what happened.

quote:

Shock Armies provide their +5 bonus for non-guards units which don’t already have a specialty bonus. Guards Armies provide their +5 bonus for Guards units which don’t already have a specialty bonus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Ya know, I read the whole section 9.1-9.14.

It must be in invisible ink, or one has to wear feldgrau glasses because I don't see anywhere that it says German NM is 50.

Russian NM, yes. 9.1.3 shows it's 50 from 42 on.

Check out the readme's on patches. The manual isn't up to date.
Although I'm not saying NM is 50.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Glvaca,

I am also an equal opportunity player; you got me interested in organizing the morale rule changes

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
I think the big thing about the Soviet recovery in National Morale is that it models the actual effectiveness in the Soviet combat forces as a whole in the period 1941 - 1945.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

What does your reference to Brian of Nathreth mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
"As I have written before, there are no "hero cities" in Wite. But the fact that cities did receive that recognition and indeed given that the Soviets were quite willing to accept close to a million casualties in the Battle for Moscow shows that cities did make a difference. Tying national morale to territorial gains, by either side, would appear to be an absolute minimum necessary if we want to move the game closer to history."

The Soviets were often forced to fight and die in cities for idiotic reasons, not necessarily because anyone except Stalin saw any value in what was being done. Morale is closely linked to territorial gains --> one has to fight to advance, and this causes morale to increase.