Morale?

[Exel]

Are some troop morale modifiers going to be included in SC2? I think they definitely should, since they had a great impact on the results of the fighting as well as the final outcome of the war. In some cases morale clearly had a more significant effect than equipment, training or sheer numbers did.

Let's take some examples. First, as is universally known, the Italian war success war very poor, and it is quite widely agreed that, despite their poor equipment on some branches, the primary reason for that was the poor morale of their troops. The Brits who fought them in Africa had a lot better motivation and were able to beat them even when outgunned and outnumbered. On the other hand, when Italy changed sides some of the Italian units demonstrated great fighting spirit when fighting against the Germans in northern Italy. A quite similar example is Soviet Union, which fared poorly against the Finns in Winter War as they lacked all motivation for the task, but later proved to be fierce fighters when defending their homes against Axis invaders. Finland on the other hand was able to resist overwhelming Soviet offensives in both 1939 and 1944, and there's no doubt the primary reason for that was great morale.

So please tell me you have plans to include morale as a combat modifier in SC.

[pzgndr]

OK, there are plans to include morale as a combat modifier in SC.

Seriously, there is a new morale modifier being added to the readiness formula. Morale would drop over time for a unit that is suddenly cut off or low on supply, and this would affect the unit’s readiness. So morale and subsequently readiness will drop more gradually than was done for SC1 where readiness would immediately drop by about half. Clash of Steel had a similar system.

[Exel]

But can morale give a boost to readiness and/or combat stats if it goes exceptionally high? This is the crucial part, since that would really make the combat engine more life-like and it could have a great effect in certain game situations like in the defence of Moscow and Stalingrad, defensive battles in Finland and in the case of successful Sealion.

I don't know about your plans, but I'd suggest making the morale system similar to experience. Except that it wouldn't be directly related to the number of battles fought and it wouldn't decrease (at least not much) with reinforcing.

The importance of morale in wars is often underrated, and too many games ignore it completely. A great example of successful implementation of morale (though on tactical level) can be found in the Close Combat series - I'd hope to see something similar more often in games.

[ April 19, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[pzgndr]

Morale and experience are different. Morale will help slow the adverse effects of being out of supply but won't provide the positive bonus you're thinking about.

Experience will do two things. One is the positive bonus in the combat formulas we have now. The other is new. Elite reinforcements to increase a unit's strength above 10 will be based on experience. If a unit has 2 medals of experience then it can be built up to strength 12, etc. So that will help also.

This should model morale and experience a lot better. Between the two, you'll definitely see differences between the raw recruits and the veterans.

[Exel]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Morale and experience are different. Morale will help slow the adverse effects of being out of supply but won't provide the positive bonus you're thinking about.

Well it should. :/ It's not only poor morale that is a factor in real combat, like in the case of Italy, but exceptionally high morale as well, as in the case of Finland.

The way I see it, morale and experience should be about equally important, adding up with or negating, while not directly effecting each other.

[Bill101]

My concern with national characteristics, such as the poor morale of the Italians, is whether the good Italian units will be tarred with the same brush as the rest.

A friend of mine who was in the Desert Rats agrees that the Italians were generally pretty poor, but he has also told me that if they knew that they were going up against the Bersaglieri then their hearts would sink. Some of the Italian armoured and paratroop units were also rated highly, even by some Germans.

[pzgndr]

There are no national characteristics planned. At least nothing to directly affect morale and experience. Italians are going to be naturally limited by poor leadership and limited research advances, and that will translate into poor combat performance and low experience. Or maybe they will be able to achieve successes and partially overcome these issues? It will depend on gameplay, not something pre-ordained.

As for morale/experience, I think we're getting wrapped around the axle over semantics. Exel, I don't disagree with what you're saying. But the code is going to do specific things, and the thing that prolongs readiness longer for units out of supply is being called morale and the thing that provides veteran units with combat bonuses is being called experience. Call it whatever you want, but the net game effect is still the same in the end, yes?

[benpark]

Any chance of units surrendering if out of supply for "x" amount of turns, and the lowest morale state?

The fight to the death quality of most operational/strategic games is unrealistic. It would be great to see high morale/good quality troops be able to attempt to fight their way out of encirclement, until they dropped in both. Also, being able to "bag" poor troops by surrounding them within a week or so.

[Wodin]

The Italians were so poorly equiped thats why there moral was so low.

Apparntly a section of Italian paratroops fought exceptionaly well in the battle of El Alamien.

[roman uk]

pzgndr,

I like your use of morale and experience.

But I think benpark's surrender idea goes very well w/ morale explanation. If you encircle a large enemy formation and it sits > than 2 months it should either surrender or should offer only token resistance.

I cant think off any episode where surrounded army formations fought to the death or remained intact greater than 2 months; Running out of petrol reserves usually meant abandoning your armor. Even Manstein rushed Winterstorm knowing he had very little time (3/52)

I Know I repeat myself, but if you allow your units to be encircled you should pay a heavy penalty in grand strategy ww2 games. Clash of Steel removed those units eliminated for over 1 year from the limitted build list with full cost of rebuild.

Amateurs plan strategy, generals plan supply.

[Shaka of Carthage]

... Clash of Steel removed those units eliminated for over 1 year from the limitted build list with full cost of rebuild.

SC already has exactly the same concepts, it just doesn't use the same terminology.

COS............equiv....SC

Limited build...........reinforcing 1 str pt unit.

Full cost rebuild.......purchasing new unit

If you surround a unit in SC, its readiness (because of no supply) drops to nothing. The unit isn't capable of defending itself and is easy for you to eliminate. In SC, you have to attack the unit to eliminate it. Otherwise, its the same effect in COS of a unit being destroyed and requiring a full cost rebuild.

[KDG]

Clash of Steel removed those units eliminated for over 1 year from the limitted build list with full cost of rebuild.

We now have control over how long it takes a unit to be built. Thus you can delay how quickly units can be replaced.

[pzgndr]

If you surround a unit in SC, its readiness (because of no supply) drops to nothing.

With morale in SC2, readiness will not drop so quickly.

Based on Exel's comments, I made a suggestion to Hubert about factoring in unit experience somehow to the morale formula. That way, veteran units might hold out longer than inexperienced units. Seems reasonable enough.

The morale and experience formulas still need to be implemented. Besides the new morale, experience may also be revised slighty. There are still a few things to work out.

[Exel]

I see your point pzgndr, but still... Morale as an actual combat modifier, while similar to experience, would be different in a number of ways. First, it wouldn't depend on the number of combats fought, nor would it reduce with reinforcement and it would possibly be the same for all units. Its effects would also be less obvious and perhaps, in general, milder than those of experience, but they would shape the long term results of war. That would also give different countries their own characteristics, which I think would add to the immersion and gameplay.

[Arngrim]

roman uk:

Actually the germans cut off in the baltic fought out the war there, and were destroyed / slipped into the countryside when the end was obvious. I'm a bit hazy on the details, haven't brushed up on my WWII history in a decade or so... But they were surrounded for quite some time.

[Edwin P.]

What about the Battle for Stalingrad.

[roman uk]

the Stalingrad Kessel lasted 2.5/12:

22/11/1942 The Soviet 4th Mechanised Corps from the south and the 4th Tank Corps from the north, join hands at Kalach on the Don, thus establishing the complete encirclement of the 300,000 men of 6th and 4th Panzer Army's.

31/01/1943 The exhausted troops of 6th Army's southern pocket, having expended their last ammunition, surrender to the Red Army. The Russians capture Field Marshal Paulus and 16 generals.

02/02/1943 The remnants of 6th Army under General Strecker in the northern pocket cease fighting and surrender to the Red Army. In all, over 96,000 survivors of the once 300,000-strong Army are captured, of which, only about 5,000 will live to return to Germany after the war. At Moscow, the victory over the Germans is celebrated with a salute of several hundred guns.

You are right about the Kurland pocket lasting 7/12:

10/10/1944 The Russians reach the Baltic at Memel and cut off Army Group North (26 divisions) in the Kurland for the rest of the war.

09/05/1945 As Stalin announces the end of war German forces of Army Group Kurland surrender.

However, the Soviets gladly bypassed the isolated remnant of Army Group North in their drive west towards Berlin. Secondly, supply and command continued via the coastal ports (example Libau), to the point that on January 28, 1945, III (Germanische) SS-Panzerkorps was evacuated from Kurland to Germany for refitting (though never to return). In fact, Guderian proposed pulling out German forces from the Kurland pocket in January 45 for a proprosed operation called Sonnenwende.

Thus, I think then that the Kurland kessel is not indicative of cut off out of supply units.

I think SC2 should heavily penalize

out of supply units if it is to hold true to the main lessons of WW2: Mobile units exploiting thrusts through front lines on a scale never seen previously in history.