From: Republic of Cascadia
While all these tests and huge discussions were going on, I heard from a couple of people via pm off forum, that this stratagem of knocking off one smallish country at a time, e.g. New Guinea, then Solomons, etc, etc or some combination, consecutively, and not at the same time..was the trick.
Yes, this seems the way to go. This buff is so powerful, that Germans troops have higher morale than soviets despite Soviet Winter event. Same for China - if it's somehow alive still, then it will get a final stab with prolonged morale buff for JP.
These effects seem quite powerful, this case from SC:WW1 seems to underline it.
Yes..it is. I do understand the rational of this mechanic, (The Luxembourg surrender helps the Germans possibly take Ypres..the third and usually last capital of Belgium)...but, I think the Soviet example pinned with Japanese methodical take downs in the SW Pacific shouldn't have such a high impact on the USSR's NM. Also, if anything, if the Japanese and USSR agree to a Non-Aggression Pact (NAP) around the same time period, you would think that would have a positive morale outcome for the Soviets.
When I did those two tests (Montenegro Gambit Test 1 and 2) featured on the SC-WW1 War Room forum, I down loaded multiple map images turn by turn. So did Bavre, my test partner. I looked at the NM reports repeatedly as did Bavre, but unfortunately, did not screen shoot and upload those.
I can say with high confidence though, that looking at those, coupled with checking the contending units..mirrors what seems to be the case with the Soviet morale hit in the winter of 41/42 right after the Japanese start consuming small Allied or neutral countries around the Pacific littoral. e.g. The Central Powers get back to back buffs from taking down Luxembourg, and then next turn Montenegro.
The Germans (whom many of thier corps are already experienced) and Austro-Hungarias have corps that jump temporarily to 124% morale and extremely high readiness as opposed to Russian corps that drop to 50%-60% morale..etc. Even if I sacked the crappy generals Russia had, it made little benefit. Having this go on for 4 turns or so was enough to permanently cripple Russia in that game (before the last two patches changing Russian dispositions and incoming unit placement helped greatly..but no change to the surrender buffs..which is fine for SC-WW1).
It seems like this can be the case here with the Soviets also concerning the global surrender buff mechanic. How hard it would be to localize the surrender buff I personally have no idea. I do like the mechanic...but imho, it needs to be moderated, especially in regards to the Soviets. I think it needs to be geographically and geopolitically moderated...so that, while the surrender of a neighbor or close ally should have an impact...having something like the loss to the Allies of New Guinea might greatly have an adverse impact the UK(Australia et al), it shouldn't be so pronounced on the Soviet Union.
All this might be complicated to improve...but maybe it would not. Food for thought though. This is already a most excellent game for sure, and while on the surface, it may look like beer and pretzels..it is actually quite deep if approached the way some of us hardcore grognards do.
< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 6/23/2021 6:13:20 AM >