Moral Boost before Attack on Russia?

[Fire]

What countries are good to get the moral boost/demoralization effect before an attack on russia?

Iraq?, Egypt (cheese when not taking Cairo), Iran?

Fireball

[Blashy]

Syria, Iraq and Tunisia one turn before.

[dicedtomato]

Can someone please explain why the Axis takeover of a minor French colony demoralizes the Red Army 500 miles away, most of whose soldiers couldn't even find Tunisia on the map?

The rule should only apply to conquest of major powers.

DT

[Desert Dave]

Good and Bad news

Travels fast, they say.

The average soldier is WELL aware

Of almost everything that happens

WRT the Enemy; whether

That be by way of folks at home

Reading the local Rag

And sending letters along,

Or a Commander warning that "the Enemy"

Is making dangerous advances

All over the place! :eek:

Not to mention, deliberate "propaganda"

Which will over or under-state

The universal situation,

The unique case,

Depending on need.

It's always been thus,

Going back to cave days; as for instance,

With that Greek endurance Cat

Who raced 26 miles to Marathon, true?

[dicedtomato]

Say what, Haiku Dave? You think when Anna in Magnetogorsk wrote to Ivan at his regiment in Minsk, she said, "Don't despair, my darling. The Italians have captured Tunis, but somehow Comrade Stalin will prevail."

The average soldier in WWII was lucky if he knew the name of his company commander, let alone what was happening thousands of miles away. There was no cable TV, Internet or cell phones, nor passenger jets for annual home leave. Whtever mail arrived would have been censored.

By the way, does it occur to anyone that the shock effect of Axis conquests would have worn off? Conquering Western Europe in three months was the apocalypse. By 1941, invading Vichy would have been business as usual.

DT

[Blashy]

Because as Dave stated, news travels fast.

They might not know where Tunisia is but they know ANOTHER country has been taken. One country, the moral bonus is not much but when news comes that 2-3 countrie have fallen it becomes cumulative, you're this soldier who knows nothing of the world (this is the 40s) and you keep hearing about the German war machine kicking everyones ass and now you have to face the juggernaut, your morale would be just as low. Even in todays world it would affect morale, soldiers asking "is no one doing anything about this?" .

[Blashy]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

By the way, does it occur to anyone that the shock effect of Axis conquests would have worn off? Conquering Western Europe in three months was the apocalypse. By 1941, invading Vichy would have been business as usual.

DT

Sure it does occur, then again I've seen plenty of war veterans talk about such instances and that was not the reaction, the reaction was fear and worry they would get crushed by this seemingly unstoppable force, there is no "business as usual" when you are the one on the frontline.

The shock remains until the enemy finally looses one fight.

And yes even without all the technology of today, this type of news DID travel all the way to nowhere land.

[dicedtomato]

Help me understand this, guys. You're saying that in SC2, the Axis occupying Vichy Tunisia causes Russian morale to falter. But the Allies landing in France does nothing to help Russian morale until Paris is taken? Or, if the Royal Navy wipes out the Italian Navy, Allied morale is unaffected?

DT

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

Can someone please explain why the Axis takeover of a minor French colony demoralizes the Red Army 500 miles away

What do you mean ? Does taking these countries demoralizes the USSR ? Or does it give a morale boost to the Axis troops, like any other conquered country ?

[dicedtomato]

As far as I know, when any country surrenders, all the other countries on that side take a morale hit. So the Red Army loses morale if Tunisia is taken. If the Axis blitz two or three little countries just before Barbarossa, the Red Army takes a morale hit.

Naturally, this is an extremely pro-Axis rule because the Germans can conquer lots of small countries at will, while the Allies have a tougher time retaking them.

DT

[Fartknock3r]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

Naturally, this is an extremely pro-Axis rule because the Germans can conquer lots of small countries at will, while the Allies have a tougher time retaking them.

DT

I agree, seems a bit gamey.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Because as Dave stated, news travels fast.

They might not know where Tunisia is but they know ANOTHER country has been taken. One country, the moral bonus is not much but when news comes that 2-3 countrie have fallen it becomes cumulative, you're this soldier who knows nothing of the world (this is the 40s) and you keep hearing about the German war machine kicking everyones ass and now you have to face the juggernaut, your morale would be just as low. Even in todays world it would affect morale, soldiers asking "is no one doing anything about this?" .

Even if you did buy into this argument, which I dont - the rules still need to be modified because of gamey abuses. Holding off taking a country until the turn before you attack Moscow is so preposterous - it baffles the mind that Blashy would even try to support it and say that it is a valid reflection of real life.

:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

[R.J.]

The Germans are on a roll, they push 100 miles into Russia, capture three cities, and destroy six units. And yet, Russian morale is totally unscathed. A few turns later, the Russians strike back. They liberate 4 cities, push west 120 miles, and destroy 7 German units. BUT, on the next turn Italy captures Tunis and Lisbon and suddenly Ivan is so depressed he needs prozac to make it through the winter. Meanwhile Fritz is so delighted by his comrade's success against miniscule nations, that freezing his tail off without supplies and quite obviously loosing the war, suddenly seems trivial.

I think the idea of momentum is good, but that its implementation is very poor.

If the morale boosts/penalties were much smaller, capped at a max and min effect, limited to the relevant theatre, and based on things like units destroyed, tiles, cities, and capitals captured (including capitals that don't lead to immediate capitulation), that would be far better and more realistic.

If that's too difficult to program, then I'd rather see the feature axed than stay as it is.

[Wisbech_lad]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dicedtomato:

By the way, does it occur to anyone that the shock effect of Axis conquests would have worn off? Conquering Western Europe in three months was the apocalypse. By 1941, invading Vichy would have been business as usual.

DT

Sure it does occur, then again I've seen plenty of war veterans talk about such instances and that was not the reaction, the reaction was fear and worry they would get crushed by this seemingly unstoppable force, there is no "business as usual" when you are the one on the frontline.

The shock remains until the enemy finally looses one fight.

And yes even without all the technology of today, this type of news DID travel all the way to nowhere land. </font>

[Timskorn]

R.J. pretty much said what I was going to say. The current system is a cool idea, but it's too basic to accurately reflect true morale changes. And as R.J. pointed out, if anything morale was dictated by events on the battlefield, which is not reflected in the game at all. If you've ever read personal accounts of men at war, you'll know that the things that affect them the most are what's going on right around them.

If the Russians are striking back at the Germans and rolling them over but suddenly lose heart because Tunisia fell, that's an inaccurate potrayal of morale.

[Agamemnon]

Help me understand this, guys. You're saying that in SC2, the Axis occupying Vichy Tunisia causes Russian morale to falter. But the Allies landing in France does nothing to help Russian morale until Paris is taken? Or, if the Royal Navy wipes out the Italian Navy, Allied morale is unaffected?

Correct. That's what makes SC2 so much "fun". It's really cool features like this. It's the gamey qualities that everone loves.

The Germans are on a roll, they push 100 miles into Russia, capture three cities, and destroy six units. And yet, Russian morale is totally unscathed. A few turns later, the Russians strike back. They liberate 4 cities, push west 120 miles, and destroy 7 German units. BUT, on the next turn Italy captures Tunis and Lisbon and suddenly Ivan is so depressed he needs prozac to make it through the winter. Meanwhile Fritz is so delighted by his comrade's success against miniscule nations, that freezing his tail off without supplies and quite obviously loosing the war, suddenly seems trivial.

That is why this game is so great! It takes a good strategy in Russia, and arbitrarily turns it into total defeat. What could be better than that? Nothing I tell you. Nothing.

Holding off taking a country until the turn before you attack Moscow is so preposterous

No you couldn't be more wrong. That is what this game is all about. Arbitrary nonsense, trumps strategy everytime. Again I say, what could be more fun than that! You guys are missing the main point, it's all about "gamey fun".

Because as Dave stated, news travels fast.

I hope so. Once it gets out that SC2 is Arbitrary, Gamey, and oh so much fun, people will flock, flock I tell you, to this game.

[Sombra]

OK Agamemnon you don´t like the game. Sad but you already said it clearly all over the board in your thread "the game is to buggy to play".

I won´t say that morale shouldn´t be tweaked but its is NOT a game breaker IMHO and not game deciding as you put it.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

Naturally, this is an extremely pro-Axis rule because the Germans can conquer lots of small countries at will, while the Allies have a tougher time retaking them.

DT

And like there are not pro Allied rules in this game. It goes both ways so stop insinuating the game was made by axis friendly people. You whining is getting boring and redundant.

You and Agamemnon should get along fine.

You should both read the rule book or REMEMBER it if you did read it, because a few of your complaints are obvious you do not remember or have not read the rulebook.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by R.J.:

The Germans are on a roll, they push 100 miles into Russia, capture three cities, and destroy six units. And yet, Russian morale is totally unscathed. A few turns later, the Russians strike back. They liberate 4 cities, push west 120 miles, and destroy 7 German units. BUT, on the next turn Italy captures Tunis and Lisbon and suddenly Ivan is so depressed he needs prozac to make it through the winter. Meanwhile Fritz is so delighted by his comrade's success against miniscule nations, that freezing his tail off without supplies and quite obviously loosing the war, suddenly seems trivial.

I think the idea of momentum is good, but that its implementation is very poor.

If the morale boosts/penalties were much smaller, capped at a max and min effect, limited to the relevant theatre, and based on things like units destroyed, tiles, cities, and capitals captured (including capitals that don't lead to immediate capitulation), that would be far better and more realistic.

If that's too difficult to program, then I'd rather see the feature axed than stay as it is.

RJ I gather you have not noticed your morale boosting as you defeat your enemy in successive fights?

Morale is boosted not only from defeating countries but from winning battles, so in your example Russian morale would be high and then lowered a "little", it goes both ways, German morale would be lowered from defeats and then news of a victory would boost it back.

Remember that this boosts only last 2-3 turns.

[Cheese Panzer]

I know it's hard to identify with this 60 years out, but the fall of the small countries in the early war, and espcially the Fall of France, were earth-shaking events on a par with 9/11, at least for the Western countries. You can read any memior from the period and hear the fear and shock even today. Even in backwaters like Greece these events had an impact - I've read a memior by the wife of the Greek Prime Minister, and although she doesn't say much about the rest of Europe, the Fall of France definitely worries her.

Russia is a different story - with rigid control of the press by the government and population still struggling to survive and rebuild after WWI and the Russian Civil War, I just can't see the Russian troops knowing that these events had happened or caring very much if they did. Add to that a lack of primary accounts from Russian soldiers that weren't edited for Party Doctrine - it's hard to give a hard and fast rule.

I think the game as written handles the demoralization for the Allies very well but not as well for the Russians.

[Retributar]

Cheeze Panzer's point need's careful scrutinization and consideration!,...for example, i for one, never gave it any thought!,...but it seem's to makes good sense!.

I just can't see the Russian troops knowing that these events had happened or caring very much if they did.

Add to that a lack of primary accounts from Russian soldiers

I think the game as written handles the demoralization for the Allies very well but not as well for the Russians.

Changing this Morale Aspect could have the Benefit of Canceling the Cheezy Morale Boost that the German's get by conquering 'near defenseless countries' before they attack the Russian's!.

---What think 'You-All???.'

[dicedtomato]

I actually agree with Blashy (about the only thing we agree on) that it's tough to balance this kind of game without making Germany too strong or too weak.

Blashy may also be right that there are pro-Allied rules in SC2. The problem is timing. Germany knocking Russian morale down 30 percent in 1941 has more impact than German morale plummeting 30 percent in 1944. D-Day doesn't help much if there's no Russia around.

DT

[Blashy]

In this instance it is not Germany that is too strong, but more that Western allies are too weak.

Looking at history, the invasion of North Africa (Casablanca and Algiers) was done in November 1942.

Sicily was in Summer of 43.

Both of which can not be achieved in the current context of the game due to lack of Western industrial might.

Fear not, progress is being made in that area .

[Lars]

Perhaps for the Russians we could add a morale boost for liberating their own cities. Might help.

In fact, I think you could make a case for adding a city based morale effect (say 3-5%?) to the country morale effect. The Brits felt pretty good both times they took Tobruk and the Germans knew they were screwed when Stalingrad went.

But there's really nothing you can do to stop the German juggernaut in '41, they're on a roll. Deal with it.

[Desert Dave]

I guess I just gotta ask:

How many war-games you guys know of?

EVEN TRIED!

To effectively "model"

1) Momentum

2) Large-scale Esprit d' Corps

3) Initiative

4) Folks back home merrily, yet warily singing

"Happy days are here again! The skies once more are bleu anew... etc,"

Which, quite naturally encourages soldiers in the field, or at home on leave, or recuperating from injuries received, to arise up and get after it all over and again!

5) Sudden bursts of "re-newed elan" and "new-found confidence" mongst the troops, who WOULD indeed know of Enemy successes or failures,

**EVEN down to lowest, near-illiterate Private, ANYWHERE in ANY theatre, to include a tiny palm-tree shaded Oasis in North Afrika, IMHO

6) Home-town increases in belief, more production due to worker hopes for... final relief

Anyway,

Have very many war-games, board or pixel

Implemented such a "nebulous" yet,

**Most tangible AND potentially decisive thing, hmmmmm?

It was Hubert's original idea, and he can read the many most excellent comments and suggestions, should he choose, and perhaps?

Find a way to improve/tweak this unique feature?

But,

I hardly think we need get all non-plussed

And frustrated, and "ax" it altogether,

That would be a crying shame.