German & Russian Morale Unique

[Liam]

Don't you think that Axis & Russian Morale should be seperate from the Free Western Democracies? In Germany you had the Propaganda Ministry that was run more like a one-sided we've got this in the bag type of war. In The Soviet Sector, I won't even go there. Most of their soldiers were probably illiterate, and didn't have radios!

Honestly, neither Nation was Honest with their people or Soldiers. I think the effects of Morale in the Neutral department should be modified for these nations. The Penalty should be harder hit upon the West. Also since these were oppressive regimes, including Spain...... The West should get a bonus for the Victories it achieves.

[jon_j_rambo]

Historical Fact: US Troops rallied quicker after being demoralized.

Yes, the Buntas have their songs, pride, uniforms, marched pretty, flags, etc. Problem is, when they were demoralized, they didn't have the true & living God on their side for an uplifting force. Same with the Reds, that mother Russia garbage only goes so far, their country has been in the tank ever since the removal in a belief in The Creator.

Nations that forget God die.

"And that's all I have to say about that" --- Forrest Gump

"Hope is a good thing" --- Andy, in The ShawShank Redemption.

"The path of the righteous man" --- Jules, in Pulp Fiction.

[ October 12, 2006, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[JerseyJohn]

While Liam's posing an interesting question here, I think it would be extremely hard to reflect in game terms.

In a battlefield context the Soviets often fought fanatically under hopeless conditions -- Brest-Litovsk 41, Stalingrad garrison 42 and numerous other examples. The Germans did the same -- Stalingrad 43, Berlin 45. And U. S. troops were equally stubborn at Bastogne 44.

Where I think morale would come into focus would be a prolonged war. American fighting spirit was beginning to wane in 44. The U. S. troops in Europe had a noticable drop in morale when many of them were told they'd be transferred to the Pacific for an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Soviet troops had no such problems, they were just shifted east and invaded Manchuria and Korea when their commanders told them to do so.

But I do believe Soviet morale would also have dropped if they'd been made to attack the Western Allies when their war with Germany came to a close. Whether it would alos have dropped if they'd been attack by the west seems doubtful to me; it would have become a continuation of the Great Patriotic War.

To me morale would have come into play on a national level in a very protracted conflict. Possibly if the U. S. and UK were still fighting in 1946 both countries would have begun suffering from war weariness. I don't know if it would have had a great effect on units in the field, but it would certainly have put pressure on the leaders to bring an end to it all, either through a military victory, or peace treaty. The popular cry might have been to drop the unconditional surrender stance.

[Yogi]

I don't know if it would have had a great effect on units in the field, but it would certainly have put pressure on the leaders to bring an end to it all, either through a military victory, or peace treaty.

You may have a good point here JerseyJohn. I think both Viet Nam and Iraq show that today at least the American Public tends to waiver as do many politicians. It is one our weak points and the enemy today knows it. They don't expect to win the on the battlefield, but do have reason to expect to win on the American Home Front. All they have to do is watch the American evening news and/or the statements of some politicians to make them feel like victory is near if they just hold on long enough.

I have often wondered if the American's of today could have handled WWII or our own Civil War. But, I do think there is reason to believe that you have at least a good point that "war weariness" could have eventually had a very strong bearing on what the West would do.

[Liam]

Granted War Weariness is an issue Nationally. My thoughts drifted more to the direct impact upon the Fighting Units in Strategic Command 2. Each time they liberate or conquor a Neutral, effects are the same. Axis get the same Morale boost that an Allied nation will recieve for conquoring say Ireland. What unit in the field would care if Ireland was conquored? By Western Standpoints, this might be a morale decreasing event. I think it is jaded now the system of Morale increase or decrease by certian actions and certian minors.

Certianly Russians would be more enticed by conqouring Finland. Also Germany would be for conquoring Minors. Though the West would benefit more from liberating... The system needs to be re-examined. Also the original thought I had still stands.. Above it is true, the Morale system of certian nations is unique and dependant upon their Government and People.

[SeaMonkey]

I agree Liam, the Allies should receive there most beneficial increase in morale from liberating countries rather than their surrender.

For Allies, things like taking Tobruk, Paris, Copenhagen, etc. would supply the morale boost.

The Axis are OK as is as long as we can have a cap on morale value, max 150%.

[Retributar]

Novel Concept!, and i 'Like-It'!. Yes!!!,...

Quote from SeaMonkey:

The Allies should receive there most beneficial increase in morale from liberating countries rather than their surrender .

[Liam]

Exactly my point!

The Allies SHOULD not get morale boosts for conquoring Independant Democracies that reduce the Readiness of nations such the USA.

Nations like Tunisia or Syria, Portugal, Denmark, etc... Are to insignificant on top of it to really be a meaningful increase to Morale to the Axis. Also the Axis should pay for invading Allies. Spain would be a VERY big morale hit in the negative for the Germans. They supplied them many resources during the Civil War there and to conquor them for no apparent reason rather then to reach a Political Aim would not make the troops feel confidant. It would make them feel their leader was wreckless... So it wouldn't increase morale, it may not decrease it.

If the Allies say Knock out Ireland, Portugal, or Switzerland in any sort of gamey move... It may not hurt their morale, but it definitely wouldn't increase it. Same for nations like Norway, or even Sweden...Finland... Which people use now to gain morale and use for it's resources! Now the Russians on the other hand, this is a different story.

The German and Russian Governments being closed off to the outside world, being private..... Dark in their dealings in other words, would be hit as I said bit less. The American, French and British Governments are Outspoken and would suffer due to their loud free speech...

All in all, If the American's say Liberate France this would be a Huge Morale boost, though Denmark, minorly...

I'd say a Table of the following to be something to study and use:

Nation Morale Value

Denmark, Conquored by Axis-USSR: +%5

Denmark, Liberated by Allies: +%7.5

Denmark, Conquored by Allies: -%5

Tunisia: Conquored by any nation +0%

Liberated by the Allies: +%2

Ireland conquored by Allies -%7.5

Liberated by Axis +%2

France Conquored by Axis +25%

Liberated by Allies +25%

See the differentials? See the importance of Key Nations.... That is how it was historically. I do not see why my men are in the German Army are as happy about France as they are about Tunisia? Do you?

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

I agree Liam, the Allies should receive there most beneficial increase in morale from liberating countries rather than their surrender.

For Allies, things like taking Tobruk, Paris, Copenhagen, etc. would supply the morale boost.

The Axis are OK as is as long as we can have a cap on morale value, max 150%.

[Guest Mike]

1% would be a good maximum for any individual morale boost IMO.

[jon_j_rambo]

The Lord of Hosts factor needs added.

[Guest Mike]

That could be a simple -1%.

[well-dressed gentleman]

The U.S. had better music and hence better morale.

Make Vera Lynn and Glen Miller units in the game.

Truly, propoganda belongs in the game as a tech category. Morale shifts should be limited to your nation's propoganda rating in order to reflect the government's ability to spread the news. Where's Tokyo Rose? Where's the movietone news? Or the Sovinformburo?

[ October 12, 2006, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: well-dressed gentleman ]

[Guest Mike]

Tokyo Rose died 2 1/2 weeks ago.

[Liam]

Agreed, propaganda is big. That is why I said Units under the German's and Russians should be effected less. What if the German's lost at Kursk? What was the official Announcement to the German public? I know news travels in the Forces... See that is a bit of a seperate affair, one officer speaks to another. I'm certian the Russians were as the Germans... Hush Hush, on the losses category! Even the British have sealed files to this day.

The German's had some really sneaky Propaganda. If someone can remind me, some Canadians Commandos attempted a mini D-Day in '42 '43, failed so terribly. The German's took the photographs of the landing craft and equipment to make look as though D-Day had failed, am I wrong?

Something the USA would do a bit more subtly... The UK press is notorious for scams, they love to unveil them. I'm certian they were untrustworthy! Before D-Day the Island was sealed off. Security, Intel, etc... is important... though Brits and Americans are Western Nations, free, Democracies... Their troops heard about surrendering nations and lossed battles. They got exact figures pretty much, when a ship was sunk, when something dreadful happened. Word travelled freely amongst the ranks as well...

In contrast, I'm certian the Proffesional German Army shared. I'm also pretty sure the Russians shared certian things. I'm not even sure why morale isn't tied into Cities, Battles, and other such objectives... Those were more paramount that Capitol Captures. I suppose the easiest to program. Though it should be made proper and balanced to each event and each accomplishment. If conqouring the UK gave the Germans a 100% Morale increase for 10 tens, that would make the british weary of giving up the Island for an exchange for Russian victory. Change the dynamics of the game.

Positively in my opinion. More historical... Conquoring Vichy Algeria, Tunisia and Syria gives you this effect now, which really wouldn't have taken more than 50,000 German soldiers

The former objective, probably 500,000 German Soldiers and half that to garrison

[Retributar]

Liam!... the German's did lose at Kursk, after Kursk, the Russians had the offensive momentum on their side on the battlefield that took them all the way to Berlin!.

The German's were lured into prepared killing boxes, where many panzer unit's were destroyed!. After the Killing-Boxes did their work, the T-34'S were unleashed in huge number's, forcing the German Army to recoil and retreat, a retreat that did not end until Berlin!.

Not only that, but one of the relocated tank factories that went to the Ural's [Now called TANKOGRAD], in 1943 was producing in excesses of 2000 T-34 tank's per month. Over 50,000 T-34 tank's were produced in WW2,...and was overall considered to be one of the best tank's produced in the war, not just for what it was, but also for it's quantity of production as well as it's direct damaging effect it had on the German armoured forces.

[Liam]

lol retri I know, tired

[SeaMonkey]

Liam, you are spot on. I'm afraid that incorporating these details into the game might be an endeavor beyond what Hubert sees as critical.

I totally agree with your assessment and hopefully someone with a great deal of experience manipulating the scripts could pull this off.

[JerseyJohn]

I think it would the results wouldn't justify the programming effort and, also, I'm not sure the premise can be accurately written into the game to begin with.

Both sides had great propaganda, at least in terms of convincing their own troops and people. German morale sank because of mounting casualties and bombed out cities more than anything either side was saying. And it probably didn't become a factor till very late in the war.

Regarding the United States and UK having to be justified, that would have been easy enough to accomplish. All either side needed to do was claim a country was aiding the Nazi cause and had to be occupied and it's citizens would have bought it on the spot.

-- Ireland was mentioned and the thing is, it actually did some things that were blatantly pro-Axis. For one, it wouldn't allow the Brits to use it's territory in any way to help in locating German subs. This was very important early in the war.

For another, I was told by several Brits and Americans who were on the British west coast in 1940-41 that the lights would be on across the water, in Ireland, even spotlights, so German night bombers would have a better idea of where British targets were located. -- Now it may be that the Irish lights were on for the simple reason that they didn't have a wartime blackout, but three of those five people added that Irish spotlights seemed to point at specific areas from their shoreline.

It would have been easy to turn an invasion into a liberation. Britain didn't hesitate to invade the Vichy territory of Syria nor to bomb the French fleet at Mirs el Kabir, nor did it hesitate to try to take Dakar (with Free French, operation staged by the Royal Navy) along with attacking French naval forces on the West African Atlantic coast. It isn't a wonder that Vichy played with the Germans in some ways, but what is definitely a wonder is the fact Vichy didn't go outright to the other side after any one of those British actions.

How did the U. S. and Britain explain away the landings of Operation Torch on French North Africa? Well, naturally Vichy wasn't really neutral, it was an Axis collaborator. Yeah, just look at the way they gave their fleet over to German and Italian use in 1940 and '41. My mistake, now I remember it was still at anchor when the Germans tried to seize it, the vessels scuttled in Touluse even after Torch should have put Vichy in the German camp.

-- For that matter, neither the Brits nor Americans asked Iceland if it wanted to be garrisoned.

From my own experience, I was at a SAC base when Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos. There were two reactions among the airmen and officers. Those who wanted to believe in the war said it was about time we got serious. Those who either didn't believe in it to begin with, or had stopped believing in the cause, just said they weren't surprised. Both camps hoped that, justified or not, the action would at least lead to an earlier conclussion. I'm sure that would have been the feeling of troops in the field during WWII. So many countries were involved anyway, by the middle of the war they'd probably stopped trying to make much sense of it.

[Liam]

Reflecting on the Great Battles in Russia, I just thought of it a moment. I miss them, today the SC2 games are a little slow. Russian strategy is usually to lay back dorment too long. They wait for the weary German forces to step out of supply then "whack!" That I suppose is history. The Russians ran a bombing raid on Berlin in the early days of Barbarossa, I heard of it on a Documentary. From an Island in the Baltic sea. Bombed Berlin, don't know if they hit their target.

[Liam]

Those are isolated cases of seizing assets that could be used against the Allies.. The UK was pretty desperate to secure herself John, I'm certian she didn't want to hand over the Mediterreanan to the Axis and those ships were vital... The Vichy did throw their lot in so to speak, sounds as if Petain was attempting to retain as much of France as possible. In one way a Conspirator in another just one of self interest and self preservation.

I see all that you say, there are justifications, though not so easily sold off on Capturing Major Capitols... In the end my formula stills stands, mini-nations shouldn't provide what Major Nations provide, it should be a seperate equation...

I suppose it is an abstract morale system of Tactical-Strategic Position, gauging Morale by Capitols and Liberations... Sadly some Capitols are not in a defensible position! I can take England against most players faster than I can take Spain!!! With less losses if I gauge it right...

Insightful posting, I do know that we will justify the means to an end. We always do, history was written... Just that we're not reliving exactly as so doesn't mean it wouldn't be rewritten going back. BUT my morale system needs to be employed, it's accuracy is better suited and solves the current Bug.

P.S. Major Defeated, Liberated = Higher or Lower Morale Minor Defeated or Liberated = relative to their value, even fixed

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I think it would the results wouldn't justify the programming effort and, also, I'm not sure the premise can be accurately written into the game to begin with.

Both sides had great propaganda, at least in terms of convincing their own troops and people. German morale sank because of mounting casualties and bombed out cities more than anything either side was saying. And it probably didn't become a factor till very late in the war.

Regarding the United States and UK having to be justified, that would have been easy enough to accomplish. All either side needed to do was claim a country was aiding the Nazi cause and had to be occupied and it's citizens would have bought it on the spot.

-- Ireland was mentioned and the thing is, it actually did some things that were blatantly pro-Axis. For one, it wouldn't allow the Brits to use it's territory in any way to help in locating German subs. This was very important early in the war.

For another, I was told by several Brits and Americans who were on the British west coast in 1940-41 that the lights would be on across the water, in Ireland, even spotlights, so German night bombers would have a better idea of where British targets were located. -- Now it may be that the Irish lights were on for the simple reason that they didn't have a wartime blackout, but three of those five people added that Irish spotlights seemed to point at specific areas from their shoreline.

It would have been easy to turn an invasion into a liberation. Britain didn't hesitate to invade the Vichy territory of Syria nor to bomb the French fleet at Mirs el Kabir, nor did it hesitate to try to take Dakar (with Free French, operation staged by the Royal Navy) along with attacking French naval forces on the West African Atlantic coast. It isn't a wonder that Vichy played with the Germans in some ways, but what is definitely a wonder is the fact Vichy didn't go outright to the other side after any one of those British actions.

How did the U. S. and Britain explain away the landings of Operation Torch on French North Africa? Well, naturally Vichy wasn't really neutral, it was an Axis collaborator. Yeah, just look at the way they gave their fleet over to German and Italian use in 1940 and '41. My mistake, now I remember it was still at anchor when the Germans tried to seize it, the vessels scuttled in Touluse even after Torch should have put Vichy in the German camp.

-- For that matter, neither the Brits nor Americans asked Iceland if it wanted to be garrisoned.

From my own experience, I was at a SAC base when Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos. There were two reactions among the airmen and officers. Those who wanted to believe in the war said it was about time we got serious. Those who either didn't believe in it to begin with, or had stopped believing in the cause, just said they weren't surprised. Both camps hoped that, justified or not, the action would at least lead to an earlier conclussion. I'm sure that would have been the feeling of troops in the field during WWII. So many countries were involved anyway, by the middle of the war they'd probably stopped trying to make much sense of it.