Russian National Morale

[Glabro]

Can someone tell me how Russian National Morale works in detail?

I'm playing a game against Bill, and I'm interested in knowing how it falls. Of course I know that in general, if you just crush them, kill units and take locations, it falls (I should know, I do Russia first usually) but this time I'm not being aggressive in the East after the initial "crushing" phase in Poland / Minsk and taking the Ukraine.

Will the NM just keep falling? I noticed that one turn it actually rose, when the Tzar fell! I assumed the fall of the Tzar would cause the NM to drop, but it actually rose 4% - which is somewhat alarming, I don't want a resurgent Russia.

Don't really have a great motivation to crush Russia ever since I learned of the surrender conditions that actually make you lose a lot of income as the CP, so that affects my decision not to be very aggressive this time and concentrate on the west.

[Ivanov]

I thought if you went for the "east first" option, you'd pursued a total military victory against Russia i.e capture of Petersburg and Moscow. I imagined that a numerical superiority in the Eastern Front would allow you to follow this path and avoid sending in Lenin, what eventually would have a negative consequence on the CP aswell, as the pestilence of the red propaganda is supposed to spread to your countries too:)

What I still don't understand, is what is the alternative to not signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. It's seems to me that the Treaty is only beneficial to the CP and not signing the treaty has negative consequences in regards to the bolshevik agitation affecting Germany and A-W. Shouldn't it be the opposite? If the CP player decides not to sign the treaty and crush Lenin militarily - shouldn't that kind of move eventually prevent the agitation? That would be a logical offset to not signing the treaty. The war in the east would be prolonged but in the long term the CP NM would benefit from it.

[Ivanov]

Also, why would the CP lose some income due to the russian surrender? Haven't heard of it?

[Glabro]

I understand now. The NM value of each resource is subtracted from the original owner's NM pool EACH turn, not just when captured. Furthermore, apparently it adds to the conqueror's NM pool!

I am not sending Lenin anywhere. Why would I? He just causes them to surrender faster and I get some negative morale effects either.

I lose income from the Brest-Litovsk treaty because I lose all the resources conquered in Russia. Therefore I don't want them to surrender, but stay in the war longer so I am allowed to keep the mines etc. for longer. Plus by doing this I was able to deliver a killing strike in the West. Bill wasn't ready for it and the results were very severe!

The Russians aren't a threat to the Germans in their beaten state, they cannot really recapture their lost areas once beaten thoroughly in Poland. But I can see how this would differ from game to game, depending on Russian teching and reserves.

[Ivanov]

I lose income from the Brest-Litovsk treaty because I lose all the resources conquered in Russia. Therefore I don't want them to surrender, but stay in the war longer so I am allowed to keep the mines etc. for longer. Plus by doing this I was able to deliver a killing strike in the West. Bill wasn't ready for it and the results were very severe!

That's strange - shouldn't you be able to hold on to the conquered teritorries ( Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Belarussia ) after the treaty is signed?

[Glabro]

Actually there is no treaty since the Brest-Litovsk DE only appears if you send Lenin, but in either case, you lose all your conquered territories except Poland.

The Ukraine does send 50-ish MPP to you at least (not sure if that happens if you sign the treaty), and Bill said you are supposed to get the Baltic Countries automatically in the next patch too (not that you can't just go and capture them again).

We've talked about this before, and I can understand that Germany couldn't conquer Russia proper in WW1, but however, I think that if you don't sign the treaty and Russia surrenders (due to NM), you could keep the independent countries you have conquered already (the Baltics, Ukraine, Crimea, even Transcaucasus if you've gotten it - not sure about Belarus but possible), some automatically, some perhaps with a DE with pros and cons?

Note you can already reconquer everything but Belarus, so it isn't too bad.

Also, why doesn't Russia pay any war reparations if it surrenders?

[lettowvorbeck]

I've read that the extremely harsh terms that Germany pressed on the Russians with the B-L Treaty actually made the rest of the TE powers even more determined to not suffer the same fate rather than be demoralized from it. So their NM should actually rise with the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

In the game, does the NM of France, GB, and Italy fall with Russian surrender? I don't recall.

[Ivanov]

I don't recal what happenes with the Entente NM in case of the Russian surrender, but I repeat thet it seems illogical to me that the Brest-Litovsk treaty prevents the bolshevik agitation effect on CP. I think it should be the oposite, as it actually saved the Bolsheviks and as we know the world revolution, happiness and freedom for all the workers and peasnts was always their ultimate goal and they would never abandon it. If the Brest-Litovsk wasn't signed, then I can imagine that the "white" generals and Germans could crush Lenin & C.O with a considerable ease.

[Bill101]

What I still don't understand, is what is the alternative to not signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. It's seems to me that the Treaty is only beneficial to the CP and not signing the treaty has negative consequences in regards to the bolshevik agitation affecting Germany and A-W. Shouldn't it be the opposite? If the CP player decides not to sign the treaty and crush Lenin militarily - shouldn't that kind of move eventually prevent the agitation? That would be a logical offset to not signing the treaty. The war in the east would be prolonged but in the long term the CP NM would benefit from it.

Hi Ivanov

The Guides have been amended slightly for 1.04, so just to clarify here are the details of the Brest-Litovsk decision:

DE 620 - Germany: Sign The Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Russia?

Event fires: Automatically on or after the 1st August 1914 when Berlin is in Central Powers hands, Germany is aligned with the Central Powers and fully mobilized, Russia is aligned with the Entente and fully mobilized but having undergone a Bolshevik Revolution after Lenin was sent to Russia in DE 619 and with her National Morale having fallen below 10%.

Cost of accepting: Germany receives 300MPPs.

Yes: Russia withdraws from the war and Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Ukraine will all become independent neutral states.

No: Russia will stay in the war until its National Morale has fallen below 1%*

Note: Bolshevik agitation will continue to affect German and Austro-Hungarian unit morale irrespective of the decision made here.

*From the text to DE 619 on whether or not to send Lenin to Russia:

"In the event that Russia’s National Morale falls below 1% then she will surrender and many new countries will form as the Tsar’s Empire collapses. Germany with gain Russian Poland and all the Central Powers will receive a boost to their National Morale."

This morale boost doesn't come if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is signed, because signing that treaty significantly increased the hope for peace within Germany, i.e. it lowered their morale to continue the war.

[Bill101]

Will the NM just keep falling? I noticed that one turn it actually rose, when the Tzar fell! I assumed the fall of the Tzar would cause the NM to drop, but it actually rose 4% - which is somewhat alarming, I don't want a resurgent Russia.

Hi Glabro

Yes, ultimately Russia's National Morale will keep falling, so your conquests aren't good news for the Entente.

However, the toppling of the Tsar and the new provisional government did to a certain extent improve confidence in the regime and also in their hopes in the war, so Russia receives a one-time boost at the first revolution. This means that they can set about organizing either a prolonged defense or the Kerensky offensive.

[Bill101]

That's strange - shouldn't you be able to hold on to the conquered teritorries ( Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Belarussia ) after the treaty is signed?

Germany will annex Poland if the treaty is signed, or alternatively if the treaty isn't signed but Russia's National Morale falls below 1%.

In 1.04, there is a significant National Morale boost to Germany due to grain imports from the Ukraine, if the Ukraine is neutral but pro-Central Powers. This is worth 100 points a turn. This is because the Germans can just import it without having to use force, and that goes hand in hand with the MPPs the grain will provide.

However, failure to keep four German units within five tiles of Warsaw as a reminder to the various political forces in and around the Ukraine of the threat of force, will see the Ukraine swing towards the Entente.

Were Germany to conquer the Ukraine then the active service of her forces there, even as just an occupational force, would prevent the morale boost caused by the grain imports. German forces in the east really lost the will to fight quite significantly, and David Stevenson's 1914-1918 says that approximately 10% of them deserted, or attempted to desert, when passing through Germany on their way to the western front. 10% is a really surprising and astronomical figure!

[Bill101]

I've read that the extremely harsh terms that Germany pressed on the Russians with the B-L Treaty actually made the rest of the TE powers even more determined to not suffer the same fate rather than be demoralized from it. So their NM should actually rise with the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

In the game, does the NM of France, GB, and Italy fall with Russian surrender? I don't recall.

Hi

It's true that determination increased, but on the other hand morale definitely took a real hit. In the game this is represented, but the entry of the US into the war, and the arrival of US forces in France, will offset most of this.

In real life, had it been the case that the US wasn't in the war then I wonder how much more determined the Entente would have been. Would they have put more effort into negotiating a satisfactory peace? I don't know, but because they had the prospect of a large US army entering the war it certainly boosted their confidence to carry on the fight.

[Ivanov]

Were Germany to conquer the Ukraine then the active service of her forces there, even as just an occupational force, would prevent the morale boost caused by the grain imports. German forces in the east really lost the will to fight quite significantly, and David Stevenson's 1914-1918 says that approximately 10% of them deserted, or attempted to desert, when passing through Germany on their way to the western front. 10% is a really surprising and astronomical figure!

Great news:) And I see that we read the same books too

[Bill101]

Stevenson's book was the most useful single source for designing this game, and I'm looking forward to reading his latest With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918 in the near future!

[Ivanov]

Stevenson's book was the most useful single source for designing this game, and I'm looking forward to reading his latest With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918 in the near future!

Yes, I got a feeling that the things vere strangely familiar when I was reading it recently:)