Moral Boost before Attack on Russia?

[dicedtomato]

World in Flames uses a variable iniative system. There are several WWI games that track national morale.

But you're right that no one has done it quite like Hubert, and he deserves applause for a clever idea. It just needs to be tweaked.

DT

[fantasy57]

Hello from France,

So let's add my 2 bits.

I am currently playing my first game (with the Axis) and I only played one demo game of SC1.

Although I made some beginner's mistakes because I didn't want to read all the rules in detail (for example it took me one year to get Norway), I am now at the end of 42 and took Moscow and Leningrad, and probably Stalingrad very soon so Russia shall fall.

In the meantime, Allies stayed very shy, only air raiding France.

All of this with max. difficulty level and +0.5% bonus for the Allies.

So, maybe the main issue of this superb game, is the poor IA in single mode.

Regarding the discussion, first I have to mention I didn't use the morale boost before attacking Russia.

Second, I was surprised to see that I got a message "Russia prepares for war" just before I attacked.

I assume this was the IA reaction to my troops accumulation near the border.

Therefore, the morale boost could in that case considered as recreating the actual effect of surprise.

Otherwise any Red player knows it will be attacked one or the other day, which was probably not Stalin's case in June 41.

[R.J.]

Originally posted by Blashy:

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

Quite right, I hadn't noticed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

I guess I just gotta ask:

How many war-games you guys know of?

EVEN TRIED To effectively "model"

1) Momentum?

I think the plunder system in SC1 represented momentum to a degree. Nevertheless I take your point, and two of my comments were over the top ("very poor", and "axe it"; my apologies).

I agree the morale system is a great feature, and the momentum effect works very well in 1940's France. But '41 on still needs work.

Don't forget, it isn't strictly an axis exploit. After the US is in, Ireland makes a pretty tempting target. It's kind of hard to justify historically how invading Ireland would have been a morale lift for the allies, and a source of despair for the Germans.

I think a system where individual cities gave a morale bonus/penalty based on their strategic value would work better. I.E. Brussels would definitely be worth +/- 30%, but Copenhagen? 5% max. Dublin should actually penalize the allies, and Zurich might give a lift to the allies if the Germans take it ("Bloody Huns! Is nothing sacred?").

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by 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

I can think of a few, although in many the mechanisms are rather abstract but they still reinforce success which is what this boils down to:

Totaler Krieg - the Axis Tide mechanic.

Empires in Arms - the Political Status Dipslay also effects combat and production indirectly.

Third Reich - a country doing well can afford to save more ER's to invest for long term increases.

I'm sure there are more but I haven't kept up on new boardgames in about ten years.

[Desert Dave]

I think a system where individual cities gave a morale bonus/penalty based on their strategic value would work better. I.E. Brussels would definitely be worth +/- 30%, but Copenhagen? 5% max. Dublin should actually penalize the allies, and Zurich might give a lift to the allies if the Germans take it ("Bloody Huns! Is nothing sacred?").

Pretty good suggestion R.J.

And since it is, as I occasionally will do,

I have posted it on Beta Board,

Giving credit where it is due,

So that Hubert will quite LIKELY see it,

Sooner or later.

What he will think of it,

Or actually do about it, well,

That's the $60,000 MPP question.

Nonetheless,

Some system of "Objectives"

Whether that be a City,

As with Warsaw or Smolensk,

Or a resource,

As with Ploesti or the vital Ruhr mines,

Or a simple site,

As with Malta or Gibraltar or Suez Canal

Or Munich or critical city in Sicily (Palermo)

And each with varying +/- %,

IE, for instance,

Take Palermo as Allies and it is worth ~ + 40-50 % morale boost for the Allies,

But, grabbing Tunis would merely result in +5 %pro Axis.

Again,

Good idea and I have elaborated here AND there.

May come to nothing,

But I do like to "high-light" most excellent ideas wherever they arrive from. :cool:

[ May 25, 2006, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Lars]

Hey! I beat him to it back on page 1!

[Desert Dave]

Hey! I beat him to it back on page 1!

Yep, a variation of same.

And so,

I go back and amend my Beta post to include:

Lars!

Seeing 'em shooting stars!

That tell tales of olden adventures,

And, bold new gaming features!

If only the (very busy) Designer

Might also search the skies & see

Flaming stars - amazing as these!

[Desert Dave]

FWIW,

And may not come to much after all,

But here is "off top of my head" list.

By all means point out!

The flaws,

Add the oft-visited home

Of yer in-laws,

Whatever!

___________________________________

1) Warsaw... + 20 morale boost

2) Copenhagen... + 5

3) Brussels... 20

4) Oslo... 10

5) Trondheim... 10

6) Paris... 30

7) Madrid... 20

8) London... 40

9) Manchester... 30

10) Belgrade... 10

11) Athens... 20

12) Ankara... 10

14) Algiers... 5

15) Marseilles... 15

16) Tobruk... 20

17) Alexandria... 10

18) Cairo (Suez Canal)... 40

19) Baghdad... 20

20) Tehran (Persian Lend Lease route)... 20

21) Smolensk (Kiev)... 40

22) Leningrad... 30

23) Odessa... 10

24) Riga... 10

25) Moscow... 40

26) Stalingrad... 50

27) Helsinki... 20

28) Stockholm... 20

29) Gibraltar... 50

30) Malta... 30

31) Ploesti... 60

32) Constantinople (straits)... 40

33) Iceland... 20

34) Palermo... + 50

35) Boise... - 20

__________________________________

[ May 25, 2006, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Lars]

ooh, #35 is going to leave a mark...

[Desert Dave]

ooh, #35 is going to leave a mark...

Yeah, yer right,

Good catch of one 'a them flaming stars, Lars.

Mark is... 666,

As in... number of miles from Boise

To Peoria, Illinois.

If it ain't gonna play in Peoria,

It won't be, finally,

Banned in Boston,

Or denounced in Green Bay,

I always say.

[dicedtomato]

Tying morale to cities is an excellent idea, except for one problem; yuo're creating the infamous Death Spiral.

Russia loses four cities. Not only have they lost the MPPs, and not only have their armies taken a beating defending those cities, but now the surviving Russians suffer a morale loss, which makes it even easier for the Germans to keep advancing and harder for the Russians to counterattack. Like the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

And we still have the problem of the Red Army panicking because Tobruk has fallen.

DT

[Desert Dave]

Tying morale to cities is an excellent idea, except for one problem; yuo're creating the infamous Death Spiral.

I wouldn't do it for ALL cities, DT,

But ONLY for particular,

And,

Very vital objective sites,

Which may or may not

Include cities.

Pare down the list, fine by me.

Volunteer yer own vital sites.

As for Tobruk, oh yea,

Russians would know all about it, IMO,

EVEN yer Siberian reserves - way

WAY beyond the Ural hills.

[David Chapuis]

but none of these suggested changes affect the worst problem of all of this - and that is gamey player abuse. As it is now, some players entire strategy is centered around timing the takeover of insignifcant minors with major battles.

Does nobody else see this as a problem?!?!?!?

[Lars]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

Tying morale to cities is an excellent idea, except for one problem; yuo're creating the infamous Death Spiral.

Russia loses four cities. Not only have they lost the MPPs, and not only have their armies taken a beating defending those cities, but now the surviving Russians suffer a morale loss, which makes it even easier for the Germans to keep advancing and harder for the Russians to counterattack. Like the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

And we still have the problem of the Red Army panicking because Tobruk has fallen.

DT

Umm, isn't that what we're trying to create?

Don't think it'll be too much of a problem if you keep the moral loss/gain low for the cities alone, as I noted, 3-5%.

[Lars]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

but none of these suggested changes affect the worst problem of all of this - and that is gamey player abuse. As it is now, some players entire strategy is centered around timing the takeover of insignifcant minors with major battles.

Does nobody else see this as a problem?!?!?!?

Not really.

Myself, I'd rather take all those little countries as soon as possible and pour the mpp's into research and building stuff. There is an opportunity cost to that strategy.

As Russian player, if somebody were to try that, I'd just fall back a bit and bid my time till the morale effect wore off. It's not like the Axis will be able to hit you very hard when half their forces are tied up taking over peons.

[Rolend]

Well I do like the system but I think it needs some tweaking. I would think that it needs to be a little more centered around the country in question. Take Russia for example. Mucking up the war in Finland should have a much larger impact on moral then say Italy taking Tunisa. The fall of France was huge because pre war they were seen as the BIG militray power in Europe, even more so then England and when France fell and in such and EASY manner it shocked everyone and that inculded most Germans.

So to have a single rule applying to all countries is to me just way over simplified and that is really the only issue I have with it.

[Rolend]

One other note is that sometimes success can have an ill effect. Morale seemed to drop in the German army after months of great success in Russia, and this was before the set backs at Moscow. It seemed to many soldiers that no matter how many Russians they killed or captured and no matter how much territory they took there seemed to be an endless supply of both Russians and land.

I like the idea of morale in a game but I would think it is a very dicey thing to get right.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

[qb] but none of these suggested changes affect the worst problem of all of this - and that is gamey player abuse. As it is now, some players entire strategy is centered around timing the takeover of insignifcant minors with major battles.

Does nobody else see this as a problem?!?!?!?

Not really.

</font>

[dicedtomato]

Excellent, Dave!

DT

[Lars]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

So you like this scenario:

June 6, 1944:

Rommel - Hitler, the allies have landed. We must hit them now before they establish a beachhead.

Hitler - Good, I have been waiting to unleash the secret weapons.

Rommel - You mean the Super King Tiger Tanks and F-22 fighters you have been promising?

Hitler - No, we are right now in the process of conquering Syria and Iran. The allies will be so demoralized that you will have no problem driving them to the sea.

Rommel - Excellent thinking. I knew I could still trust in you. So when can I attack?

Hitler - Right away! Dont you know news travels fast.

Rommel - But hit them with what, mein Fuhrer? You have the Panzer Lehr and 12 SS Hitlerjugend in the Middle East.

Hitler - Doh!

[Blashy]

Dave and DT, have you been playing the game?

Because your examples are way out to lunch.

If you think taking two countries would be enough to eliminate an Allied landing, then stop dreaming about how the game is played and start actually playing it.

Lars seems to have a grip on the game as whole.

[David Chapuis]

Lars, your "cost-benefit" argument I can stomach. But my point is that right now the moral bonus can be used as a tactical weapon - and some people (eg Blashy) say that is OK!?!?!

And dont get me wrong - I love the game and I like the moral system. But dont try to say that tactical moral bumbs arent gamey!!!!

[ May 25, 2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

[David Chapuis]

blashy - we arent talking about stopping the allied landing

[Lars]

Er, did you watch the documentary on Goebbels the other night? These guys pretty darn near invented the morale bomb.

And the Stuka sirens scream on down…

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Lars:

Er, did you watch the documentary on Goebbels the other night? These guys pretty darn near invented the morale bomb.

And the Stuka sirens scream on down…

Might as well include moral bombs as purchasable units that you could release whenever you want... oh nevermind, we already have that.