janh
Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
|
Ron, the Soviets are not overpowered at this point, nor is the op-tempo usually too slow, but the way the game allows the Soviet player to use his forces can create a lot of trouble for the Axis. Naturally, if a Soviet player ignores the South after a Lvov (or because he knows he will win the war there) sends all reinforcement and the good-quality survivors to the gate of LG, or Moscow, essentially focusing everything on only 2 AG's, this must have consequences. This raises the question on whether Axis should actually reinforce AGS, or better to the opposite, though.
The Axis window of opportunity is kind of small, and two or three turns delay may seriously derail Barbarossa unless the Soviet player fails to make use of that, or gets poor dice rolls.
Axis, though it can improve on historic performance (e.g. because it today knows the opponent much better as well as his reinforcement and production capabilities, knowing when and where to strike), it seems apparent that the potential that the Soviet player can squeeze out of game with hindsight is bigger. Yet the Soviets could and should fight forward much better with this patch now. A couple of months would be required now to let things settle and both sides adapt to the new standard with fixed morale rules. If it proves to be devastating and Axis get stuck before Smolensk and Kiev too often, more often then LG or Moscow fall, then there shouldn't be any more need for discussion agree on reducing to 45 or so.
Nonetheless I think for one setting the threshold of the rear area "benefits" to >> 10 is quite sensible. The morale issue might better wait a few months to conclude on that. The catch remains that it now puts other parameters (fort building, rear area range, reserve reaction tables, routing losses as fct. of morale etc.) into question as well as the game's freedom with chose when and where to fight with what.
Since no quick or complex change is going to happen, there could be simple house-rules:
- Either adjust moral difficulty settings at player's desire, but allow Soviet and Axis to transfer large formations north and south at will or, what I consider much more sensible in the context or realism:
- reducing fort building rates to ca 70% to adapt to the new morale standard (delays will not cause such quick trouble, as well as breakthrus would get easier and the situation remain more fluid), and agreeing on limits of force transfers (e.g. Soviet only move say max 4 division belonging to Southern Army fronts per turn north of the Axis minor's line unless a Lvov renders contesting AGS forward hopeless/Axis sends >=1 Panzer Corps from AGN or AGC south/or LG falls before say turn 12). If you'd even want a more realistic, slower op-tempo, top it off with what players are now doing against AI in the context of the forgiving logistics: reduce the Logistics setting to 70% for both sides.
If anything, more than "breaking" the fixed morale mechanics again, the blizzard now needs toning down so Axis can survive it better. It has the single most negative effect on the Axis, more so than the fixed morale now -- yet of course only as long as you try to repeat what the Germans did, i.e. hardly give ground. However, as long as Axis is allowed to send numerous units back to Poland and winter them in towns well behind the front, enabled by disengaging and conducting a slow but safe Sir Robin, fixing blizzard won't get a major topic since all this allows the German Ostheer to remain high-morale, and high-strength for a death blow in 42 anyway. If you are all about winning but dislike the >=43 part, this is as much the route to go as not wasting your troops fighting forward of the Djenpr is for the Soviets.
Worse, now only eying the morale change could keep the focus on a small part of the whole GC and game, and not the whole. It would be much better if the Axis would as much as Soviets (be able to) fight forward, and a serious Soviet blizzard offensive only develop naturally and locally with an overexposed Axis front (a matter of player's aggression and events), some winter logistic penalties (we have, just on morale and combat scaling factors are a little too much), and better Soviet troops (we can perhaps have now with the fixed morale rule). I think there isn't so much to change there except a few floats in the modifiers, and perhaps could be a doable thing to consider that would very greatly improve the game...
< Message edited by janh -- 7/12/2013 6:19:43 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread