|
janh -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (6/29/2013 10:24:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: STEF78
We should also keep in mind that the new morale rule gives a big bonus to the GHC in 1942.
It does, I updated during a mid 42 game and noticed how much more I can now expect from the Axis minors. The morale issue is beneficial mainly for Axis past 42, so the largest time of a GC it balances the game in favor of the German side I'd expect.
Yet in 41 I can see how it can reduce op-tempo and how it can make the game a greater challenge for the German player. In my next game I assume I can no longer almost blindly rely on Hasty Attacks and stick my Panzer-heads out too far without serious counter-stroke, so I hope against AI at least, but advance slower and more carefully with greater caution (and so without needing to disbalance the morale difficulty setting as much anymore). The focus shifts from hex-counting and fuel logistics optimization more towards fighting with this patch.
If you are used to the latter way of gaining vast areas and making huge pockets easily for a quick win in 41 or 42, I can see how you dislike this reducing in speed and increased demand for caution. If you are all for the long run, I think you'll fare better with the fixed rule.
Though I was initially inclined to agree with the request to link the morale gaining instead of a fixed 50 threshold to NM, following this discussion for a while, as well as the MichaelT vs Kamil and SmokingDave's AAR, I ain't quite sure anymore. If there were plans to increase Soviet reinforcements to historical levels, it sure would be necessary.
But there ain't, and there are very few games and experience with the new rule so far. SmokingDave's game looks actually (turn 10) quite ok for Axis, though I do not understand why he stopped brute forcing his way to Leningrad. Michael, in contrast, appears to be still rocking with concentrated infantry power through level 2 and 3 forts (in turns around 14-16) and is bullying his way through the best fortifications and units Kamil has concentrated as if the 50 moral fix never occurred.
So at least from those two games, I'd say one has benefited in its suspense of disbelief with this fix, the other is still showing what amazing progress the logistics engine allows if squeezed by a player focusing and optimizing every detail like Michael. Of course both is only my personal opinion where the "average"/"normal" should be, just as others may think Axis should be able to go faster and easier, or even with heavier, closer to historical 41 losses. So I am more with posts 39 (Loki100) or 43 (Carlkay).
Both sides may need to adapt their game to the new fix. I'd hope that this now induces the Soviet to fight more forward in 41 despite hindsight, and violating basic military logic (poor defensive terrain etc). And I'd hope this will lead to less transfers of forces from the south to LG and Moscow as the units there should be able to hold up a little better on their own, i.e. consequently to more or, at all, some fighting south.
As primarily Axis player 2/3 of the time, my gripe remains with other things, so many, confusing and interacting things that hopefully will change by WitE2, like resilience of pocketed units, routing vs combat losses, reserve activation, reaction moves, mixing AP for C&C changes and unit building, the lose logistic chain...
However, the one thing that surprises me most that Axis players still do not focus on the most evident rule with the perhaps biggest negative impact that can and does give hugely unhistorical results: The blizzard rules. Apparently either they are happy because with sufficiently successful Barbarossa the Soviets are too trashed to encircle many German divisions as back in BigAnoraks time, or the retreating strategy for Axis during December and January to surrender comparably worthless and poorly defensible terrain are now fully accepted unlike the Soviet summer move for the same reasons. With the new morale 50 fix, the Axis will have a slower op-tempo as long asked for, and Soviet losses may, or probably will be at least some lower. Now why not largely defuse these harsh blizzard penalties?
|
|
|
|
