Morale question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Morale question

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Morale question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Morale question - 1/15/2020 5:57:36 AM

Snake726

Posts: 21
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

After reading the manual and playing a few games, I'm not confident I understand how morale functions.

I'm playing a game where my opponent has managed to keep most units above 100% morale and readiness, usually 120. However I noticed that the British units I've had sitting in France, not engage, in good supply, next to an HQ, are only at about 50-60% morale after about 3 years of sitting in the rear.

National morale is poor - could that be doing it? I've noticed also that morale conveys a bigger advantage than I thought, to the point where it seems very high morale units can overcome entrenched positions on riverside hexes. So to that end I am very curious how to go about maintaining morale - I had thought it was as simple as avoiding casualties, staying in good supply, and being in HQ control.

Post #: 1

RE: Morale question - 1/15/2020 11:00:26 AM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline

In this is case it`s probably the bad command rating of the brit. HQ. Replace French with a better Commander, develop command & control and your readiness will go up.

(in reply to Snake726)

Post #: 2

RE: Morale question - 1/15/2020 7:55:58 PM

Snake726

Posts: 21
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

Oh interesting, there is a cap as to how much they can improve friendly troops? I imagined it was just a range that changed with command rating, will have to investigate more.

I haven't tried sacking yet - I assume it must be cheaper than purchasing another HQ then.

(in reply to Sugar)

Post #: 3

RE: Morale question - 1/15/2020 8:02:24 PM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline

Cheaper, and you probably won't need all available HQs, so there's no need to keep bad commanders.

(in reply to Snake726)

Post #: 4

RE: Morale question - 1/15/2020 10:51:43 PM

Snake726

Posts: 21
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

Interesting - is it not the case that this allows a bit of an exploit? It seems that good commanders cost more to purchase, so that I could purchase a cheap commander, sack him, and replace him with a better one? I suppose sacking has a commensurate price? (I'll give it a shot soon in a test game, but don't want to experiment in my live games).

Thanks for the help!

(in reply to Sugar)

Post #: 5

RE: Morale question - 1/16/2020 12:04:56 AM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline

Use the menue "sack/replace", the game will then ask if you're willing to pay the price, no risk at all, except you can't move the unit after replacing.

My pleasure.

(in reply to Snake726)

Post #: 6

RE: Morale question - 1/16/2020 1:28:51 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Also research Infantry Warfare as this will improve unit morale too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sugar)

Post #: 7

RE: Morale question - 1/19/2020 9:11:48 AM

Snake726

Posts: 21
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

Thanks, I just finished this campaign - lost as the Allies in 1916, down to the last man basically. I compared research with my opponent and we were on a par except for his getting Infantry Weapons 3.

I think what actually created the effect I witnessed was my opponent's force management. He suggested that he was essentially resting a line of his divisions at all times, so I think that over the course of the game this meant that, combined with my higher rate of replacing divisions, his morale and efficiency levels were maxed out on most units, whereas mine were at or below 50%.

This makes some sense, and I'm seeing some success doing this in a new game. However I'll offer my logic which led to the early collapse of Russia: my plan was to wear my opponent down by consistently attacking along the line as long as the odds were not more than 1:2, with the thought that my numbers advantage and front advantage would lead to a bogged down German army.

I haven't checked if this is the case already, but it might be a nice touch that morale/efficiency can degrade even when defending or attacking successfully. Honestly the tempo of my last few games has felt like there was in fact no trench warfare at all, and the best PBEM players I have encountered seem to be in the habit of force concentration on one front and conducting a blitzkrieg. Surely the troops need to rest, even when they succeed in their mission :)

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 8

RE: Morale question - 1/19/2020 1:28:38 PM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline

quote:

my plan was to wear my opponent down by consistently attacking along the line as long as the odds were not more than 1:2,

quote:

So to that end I am very curious how to go about maintaining morale - I had thought it was as simple as avoiding casualties, staying in good supply, and being in HQ control.

Seems to me something doesn't match here, either you were avoiding casualties or constantly attacking. For the record every single loss in strength reduces NM by the costs of replacing (and additional losses in case of units on low supply or ships). Constantly attacking also means usually to suffer more casualties than your opponent and leads to the loss of xp on units and HQs. Unit's morale above 100% usually means an HQ with nearly 3 xp.

Trench warfare happens mainly in the West, while in the East it's more a war of manouevre like historically.

(in reply to Snake726)

Post #: 9