I know the game is completely different, but in AGEOD's AACW on the American Civil War, they have VPs and National Moral. VPs are just what they are, and they matter only in so far as the players reacht the endgame without automatic victory, than they are tallied to say who won. But NM matters a lot more because it has strong operational consequences : With more NM the CSA or USA forces have more cohesion (which in WITE would be morale), the recruitement or replacements is better and basically the army more efficient.
What is interesting is that in AACW NM is a dynamic number influenced by actions in the game and events. Actions in the game that influence NM are the results of battles and the loss or conquest of objective cities. in the standard AACW scenario, there are about 12 to 15 objective cities, from those unlikely to change hands (NEw York) to the capitals and all major cities that were objectives in the war : St Louis and Louisville and Lexington in the neutral states and all big southern cities (from NO to Charleston via Nashville, Memphis, etc...).
At the start of the game the CSA has substantially higher NM, which means its troops are better, and its objective throughout the game is to keep this edge as long as possible to compensate its numerical inferiority. Once the USA start grabbing objective cities and winning battles, the NM differential goes down an than inverts, making it very hard for the CSA to hold..
Now NM is also influenced by events : For example to emulate's the pressure in the Union for offensive action to finish of the reb rabble, several times the USA have to get armies within two provinces from Richmond otherwise they lose 5 or 10 NMpoints...
This system is really good, as it makes the game lively, and gives acual importance to objectives : the CSA has to try to keep Memphis, NO, Norfolk or Little Rock for as long as possible, not for its own sake or just to gain time, but because it has actual benefits in game : allows its forces to stay stronger, more cohesive. and both parties have incentives to actually win battles, just for the NM use of it.
Now I know WITE is a completely different beast, but the way I see it suffers from an overly linear game development. German national morale is X in 41 and will evolve to y, than z, etc... Same for Russians.
Now imagine WITE with an NM system where there is say 25 objectives cities, with variable values, from Berlin and Moscow as the capitalsls, to Leningrad, Stalingrad and Koenigsberg, than all different layers. We could have a system where the NM of the two sides evolves, from a starting point of x for Germany and Y for the Soviets based on : battle results or losses and objective points.
It would matter for the players to try to hold NM objective cities because they affect the overall NM level which in turn affects units moral and for example production (Mampower and Armts begin affected by a multiplier).
The system would be tailored so as to emulate in a typical game the natural evolution of the situation : German NM gets better in 41 because of their success, recedes during the winter, than again gets better in 42 as they regain objective cities. Opposite for the Soviets. This would also lead to a more historical play of aiming for big objectives. The Russians would try to delay the fall of Leningrad because the earlier it falls the bigger the positive NM effect for the Germans. Later in the war the Germans would actively try to hold the festpunkts because each extra month you deny Kharkov of Smolensk ot the Russians, you maintain your army strength and limit the growth of theirs.
Ideally the objective cities and their NM value wouldn't stay the same, it would evolve during the game in a somewhat random way to emulate a form of political pressure on the players. Say it's summer 43 and Kharkov becomes a major NM points objective : The Germans know it and so do the Russians, and even if the German line is long and almost flanked, each extra week they hold that NM objective city prevents the Russians from getting the nm bonus its capture would entail, which would provoke a surge in the units morale.. It might be wort losing quite a few divs for an extra month or 6 weeks of holding it...
See this type of dynamic system would be great. The players would still be free to do what they please, but in game actions would have consequences. A soviet players retreat to fast ? He just allowed the Germans to gain NM points very quickly and boosted their morale... with added events, it would be even better. the Germans let the Russians advance 10 hexes in the Blizzard from the december front line ? boom, -5NM for Germany and +5NM for Soviets.
Make the player make decisions that have a cost. with the ethereal und unimpactful actual VP system + preplanned linear evolution of the settings (Morale, etc...), the player's actions have no impact as long as force conservation is ensured.
just two cents but really, I find the AGEOD model of NM very interesting.
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam