.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   WinSPWW2 (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=139)
-   -   Experience and morale (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=52702)

Kiwikkiwik May 1st, 2021 11:45 PM

Experience and morale
Here is what the game values are for Experience:Morale.

65:65 65:70 70:75 70:75 70:75 75:75 75:75 USMC
75:75 75:75 75:75 75:75 70:75 70:75 65:70 Jap

75:70 75:75 75:75 75:70 75:65 70:65 70:65 Fin

60:60 60:60 60:65 65:75 65:75 65:75 70:75 US
75:75 75:75 75:75 75:75 70:75 70:65 65:65 Ger
75:70 75:70 65:70 70:75 70:75 70:75 70:70 UK

50:55 50:55 55:55 60:60 65:65 65:65 70:70 Russ
60:60 60:60 60:60 60:60 60:55 60:60 60:65 Ital

and what I think would be an improvement


65:65 65:65 70:65 70:65 70:65 70:65 70:65 USMC
80:95 80:95 80:95 80:95 80:95 80:95 80:90 Jap

75:75 75:75 75:75 75:75 75:75 75:75 75:75 Fin

60:60 60:60 60:60 65:60 65:60 70:60 70:60 US
80:75 80:75 80:75 75:75 75:75 75:70 75:70 Ger
70:80 70:80 70:80 70:70 70:70 70:65 70:65 UK

50:55 50:55 55:55 60:60 65:65 65:65 65:65 Russ
70:60 70:60 70:60 70:60 70:55 70:60 70:60 Ital

It looks as though in game the Experience and Morale values have been linked to the overall strategic position of the various armies as the war progressed. When they are winning they get high values, when they are losing they get low values. In General this wasn't the case, For example US, UK and Russian Experience stayed relatively stable throughout the war, the reason these armies had their late war successes was not because of increased Morale and Experience. It was because by late war they had achieved a massive Material superiority over the Axis.

The number of shells that rained down on a german division in Normandy on an average day? 4000! plus another 5000 mortar bombs, complete control of the air.
For an attack on two German companies send in 3500 rounds in 2 hours.
These numbers are from 3:28 minutes into this video.
There are endless examples of Allied material superiority.
In Normandy the Germans did not have enough shells to even allocate counter battery fire. The only thing that kept the Germans from collapse under these circumstances was exactly better Experience and Morale.

Game help describes Experience as meaning troop quality. Personally I would change the label from Experience to Training. No matter how much experience poorly trained troops get they won't improve by much. However really well trained troops go to battle and always perform excellently, the "green" Germans troops in the Polish campaign for example. If game Experience actually meant experience then obviously the most "experienced" troops in every year of the war would be the Germans, their divisions were in action continuously, but the game values don't show that. So I am thinking Experience really means training. In particular the work of Officers cannot be picked up on the job through experience, they have to be trained. Experience is not a substitute for good Officer training. The Russian army is the best example of an army poorly trained throughout, the soldiers had plenty of 'experience' but the Officers poor training translated into enormous casualties in every year of the war. In game Officer poor leadership translates into low experience.

Various units experience values range from about 55 to 90, Morale from about 45 and 90. 70 is considered the base or average value for Experience and the average value for Morale.

I understand Morale as being the troops ability to absorb casualties and keep fighting. Which is why morale affects only rallying. In fact you could just call Morale Rallying ability.
The Japanese had the best Morale (Rallying) of any troops in WWII. When out of food, ammunition, and hope, all other armies, -elites included- surrendered. In this situation the Japanese continued fighting, and then, when out of ammunition they fixed bayonets and charged. Banzai is only possible if you have supreme Morale. The entire Japanese Army was actually an elite force Morale-wise. The regular Japanese should get the best Morale of any unit (including elites) in the game. As US SSF has a Morale of 90 then Japanese Morale should be 95. Because the Japanese had better Morale than the SSF.
All other armies Morale values, elites included, should always be less than what the regular japanese Infantry have.
The game help says that the Japanese were the "best trained force in the world". Their experience values don't show this, Their base experience starts at 75 drops to 70 in 1943 and down to 65 in 1945. The Japanese were never short of trained soldiers and rotating divisions through China before WWII meant that most of their infantry and Officers had not only been excellently trained but had been exposed to real combat, ie experienced. I would think the level of training never dropped and that they actually had more excellently trained, battle hardened, experienced troops throughout the war than any other nation. So Japanese experience I think should stay at 75 over all years, or even sit at 80.
I would give the Japanese 'elite' types like Guards units the same Morale of 95, but marginally better Experience values than regular Japanese Infantry.
Japanese SNLF experience is +7 this should probably be a -7 as they were actually sailors put into the infantry role, they were shore parties rather than marines. Courtesy of Leeland Ness's book Rikugun US intelligence says this about SNLF "exhibited a surprising lack of ability in infantry combat"
Apparently 7400 Japanese prisoners were collected on Okinawa so maybe morale might drop in 1945.

I don't think I've ever heard or read a disparaging comment made about Finnish performance or Morale, yet in 1943 their Morale becomes substandard (65) for the rest of the war. I can only imagine the game has equated a reluctance to fight deep into Russia with a drop in Morale. This was a political decision, apparently bowing to US pressure to stop their advance, not a morale issue. I would leave Finnish Experience at 75 throughout the war. All the men in Finland had been trained as soldiers for a couple of decades prior to WWII so they had to look really hard to find an inexperienced soldier to put into service.

Anderson in the History of the Panzerjager sums up the Russians this way
"In General, a soldier in the Red Army was poorly trained and lacked combat experience, although as an individual he was often described as being a fearless and courageous fighter led by ineffectual (inexperienced) Officers."
Zalogas Red Army Handbook has these comments about training in the Red army
"The turmoil in army policy in 1938-41 left the red army in a state of permanent crisis".
"The lack of well trained officers forced the Red army to employ cookbook tactics, following rigid and unimaginative templates under a tightly centralised command"
"lack of a strong NCO tradition a fatal shortcoming in a conscript army attempting to absorb new technology."

This stayed the same throughout the war, because the Soviet armed forces suffered continuous heavy casualties which were replaced post haste by raw recruits. This is what Stalin acknowledged when he said quantity has a quality all of it own.
Some sources say that Russian training actually got worse as the war progressed. I think there is an argument to leave experience at a very low level throughout the war. Putting it higher than German is clearly wrong. Russian training was barely adequate. Leadership documented as poor in nearly every source on the subject.
Poor leadership plays into Russian Morale. Though the troops may have been keen, the ineffectual leadership can't have inspired them much. So Russian Morale also needs to stay below German.
Game Russian Morale and Experience values reflect the Russians increasingly successful operations as the war progressed. These successes weren't due to better experience and morale. the Russians crushed the Germans with overwhelming material superiority, not better experience and morale.
Zalogas Red Army Handbook also describes Russian mountain troops as poor and run down, that is, no different to normal Russian infantry. So probably don't need the +5 Experience and Morale.
From the same source Russian ski troops were first formed at the 'last minute' after the Russians saw how good the Finns used ski troops, they were anyone who could ski and not necessarily infantry. Zaloga says this "The ski battalions did not perform well in the winter war, undoubtedly due in large part to their hasty formation and lack of unit training." When the snow melted they were disbanded and used as regular infantry. This pattern continued until September 42 when ski units actually got infantry training and then for the first time actually trained as units on skis. So they probably should get some minus instead of plus values up to sept 42 then normal infantry values would apply.
Russian victories late in the war usually came at the cost of many, many Russian casualties.
Poor leadership leads to poor morale So it makes sense for the two values to track roughly together for the Russians. The political Commissars made matters worse.

In the US army poor (ly trained) leadership led to low morale, even cynicism.
The USA had to build a huge army from scratch starting in 1940! and had to build the training units to train said army at the same time. Nobody had any experience. The US infantryman wasn't looked after by his administration, Green troops were sent directly into action in the front line without having met the rest of their squad or commanders previously, with no regimental system you had city boys mixed with farmers, confederates wixed with unionists, making it very hard to build esprit de corps.
From game help
"Unlike the US Army who in this period saw the rifleman as the lowest of the low (and assigned the lowest draft categories to rifle units, enlisted and officer)"
"So they (Marines) had a form of the rest of the world's 'regimental' system whereby you 'belonged' to some particular outfit, unlike the US Army where you were more of a commodity."
"They (Marines) were more likely to go for the close assault than the US Army infantry who preferred to shoot the enemy off the objective if they could. USMC infantry doctrine is very similar to British. Fire is used to facilitate manoeuvre, and the point of manoeuvre is to get your men up close and personal to the enemy. This tends to settle the argument quickly, rather than wasting time in a pointless firefight."
World War II armoured infantry by Gordon Rottman has a section on US armoured Infantry training.
"When first committed to combat virtually all replacements, Including NCOs and officers were standard infantry with no armoured infantry knowledge, and most had not even seen a halftrack."
"This training shortfall was amplified during the infantry replacement shortfall during the winter of 1944-5, when some replacements assigned to AIB (Armoured Infantry Battalions) were not even trained infantrymen"
and so on.
And yet game gives better Experience than the Germans, should be less.
There is actually a very good book on the subject Van Crevelds Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945.
If you can't read the book then this article is almost a summary
Having read the book I can't disagree with the points made in this article, Their Wehrmacht Was Better Than Our Army
But really the difference is common sense really, for the US why risk men's lives when you can shell the enemy into submission.
The only way the Germans could have held for 11 months after D-Day against the allies overwhelming odds was precisely by having better Experience and Morale, they had no other advantages.
So for America, using German values as a benchmark I would set US Experience low at 65. I would do this because it is well documented that training could not keep up with expansion in the US army. So both Skills and Leadership suffered. I would set Morale at 70 as they could and did take casualties. But by the end in Normandy 20-30 percent of casualties were battle fatigue, This was very bad for Morale so it might drop in 44 or 45.
Eisenhour recognised this problem in 44 and purged the Officer corps so Experience might increase in 45.

Generally considered better than the US infantry, never really tested in the war, as they usually had crushing firepower superiority and substantially outnumbered the Japanese.
To read about general performance this link is illustrative.
Unlike US army they were aware of the value of keeping men together, so better Morale than US infantry

Best way to asses Germany is to compare them to US that's been done for us already in these two books
Fighting Power German and US Army performance 1939-1945 Martin van creveld.
Numbers, Predictions @ war Colonel Dupuy.
Summary; On a tactical level the Germans performed better than the Russians, Americans and British throughout the war.
Dupuy gives the Germans an overall 20% performance advantage compared to the Western allies. This should translate into a better experience value for the German units.
Fighting Power German and US Army performance 1939-1945 undertakes a thorough, detailed examination of the subject. Rather than submit the detail, here is a more general quote, amply supported in the text
"If it is indeed true, as is so often said, that the officer corps counts for everything in war, then the American officer corps of World War II was less than mediocre. Owing partly no doubt to pressure of time, the methods used to select and train officers were none too successful. Far too many officers had soft jobs in the rear, far too few commanded at the front. Those who did command at the front were none too successful. Those who did command at the front were, as the official history frankly admits and the casualty figures confirm, often guilty of bad leadership. Between them and their German opposite numbers there is no comparison possible."

German recruits were integrated into their units when they were rotated out of the line and so had time to find their feet the were always from the same geographic region. The US 70th infantry division implemented a German style system for receiving replacements, it worked. This division was on of the few to be explicitly commended in the US armies official history of WWII.

German units were still able to put together an effective successful offensive operation right up to march 45, though they were outnumbered everywhere. You might be interested to see
The last German WWII attack - operation potsdam 1945 by Mark Felton

As the war progressed UK ran out of men and put in place policies to minimise casualties. Though this isn't poor morale it translates into low morale in game terms as they choose not to take a lot of casualties, same as the US they decided it was much better to call in the artillery.
The British Expeditionary Force, Sept 1939 to May 1940 started out as a nearly all volunteer force, conscription having come into force in September 1939. Volunteers want to fight, conscripts not so much, In the battle of France the British forces failure was technical not Morale. Those volunteers had very high Morale and plenty of training so British Morale and Experience in 1939 and 1940 should be 75 80. Montgomeries Attritional style of warfare burned through most of the volunteers by 1942-3 so a drop down to 70 Morale would be appropriate for 1943 and maybe down to 65 in 45 as Soldiers knew they were going to win so why die now. Britain had to expand to a large army and training organisation very quickly. This in combination with trying to master the same tactics the German had already thoroughly bedded down before the war began led to a lower Experience than German.
The tank war by Mark Urban contains a relevant excerpt from 1944.
"Many within the 5th RTR felt they had been failed by their infantry... Verney gave another example of being let down... with a planned night attack with one of the Queens Battalions: 'When the moment came for them to form up the CO found that the majority of the men had melted away'"
The book goes on to say that the British had a shortage of suitable replacements. And after being ground down by months of combat in Normandy the British became shy of taking casualties because replacements wern't forthcoming.

Volunteers have better morale than conscripts
Australia has two Armies CMF (games Militia) and (Second) AIF. Like BEF AIF were volunteers that wanted to fight. AIF remained composed of volunteers throughout the war. I would give Australian/New Zealand troops 75 for experience and 80 for Morale for the duration.
Firepower by Bidwell and Graham describes the Australian and New Zealand troops as superb. Other sources agree.
From Asiatic land battles by Dupuy, "but these aussies were the best soldiers in the world"
After the capitulation of Poland Polish troops in English service were effectively volunteers and should have a Morale value of 75 from 1940.
SS were volunteers also as well as being fanatical.

Handbook of Italian military forces US Military Intelligence service says Italian Morale no better than satisfactory, but Training OK. OK training suggests Experience should be set to 70 or at least 65.
The Italian failure was that they had a serious lack of equipment, and what they had was outdated and often poorly designed. Of course in the game Italian equipment is much more available than it really was. This quote agrees
"The Italian forces, as Rommel (and many others) said, were continually asked to perform tasks they were not equipped to do. The outcomes were inevitable, and in most cases do not reflect badly on the individual soldier".
Italians Leadership often ended up being chosen for being politically compliant. In combination with poor and missing equipment I think there Morale should be low, But training, ie experience is OK.

Just some general points
I don't think it makes sense for an elite units values to be a standard mark up on the same armies base/average infantry values. Take Paratroops in 1942 for example, Because Italy has low base values of 60:60 their paratroops get 70:70 whereas the higher base values of the British, 70:75 gives their paratroops values of 80:85. Probably Italian paratroops where every bit as good as Britians so should be same at 80:85. In fact all armies paratroops should probably have very similar values. I would argue the same holds for most other elite Formations.
Scouts Snipers aren't very consistent some don't seem to have any bonus experience morale values others do. I think for scouts in particular, 6 men being size 0 is enough to reflect their being the 'best' men in the platoon without adding an Experience or Morale boost. At size 0 6 men units are already I think a bit problematic.
Linking Counterbattery fire to overall base experience or morale also gives some odd results, Japan had little or no counterbattery ability during the war but has game excellent values because of their high base values. Italy had excellent counterbattery but counterbattery performs badly in the game because of their low base values.
Fighting in and for your homeland probably gives an automatic morale boost.
I noticed that panzergrenadiers in trucks get +1 but in APCs get +2. I think these were the same panzergrenadiers. I would also give all armies armoured and artillery units a slight experience and morale boost.

I think in general very large experience differences lead to some odd results, for example a -moving- high experience size 0 scout party in the clear can spot a stationary low experience scout party in trees without being seen first itself.

Imp May 2nd, 2021 01:57 AM

Re: Experience and morale
Its never going to be right its just a BASE. Different situations would effect the overall morale.

I think the Japanese already get some sort of hidden morale bonus. Been a while since I played them but they seem to bounce straight back after taking punishment.

Also while some formation modifiers are uniform like scouts not all are.
Units like Paratroopers get different modifiers based on the OOB they are in.

The only problem for me is actually early Russia. This is because below 60 they react poorly & their opponents are above average for that time period. So you are talking a difference of 20. Takes a bit of time to adjust to fighting with them because of that difference. Makes it challenging as things are far more likely to go wrong till you realise you need to expect that.

Mobhack May 2nd, 2021 05:42 AM

Re: Experience and morale

WW2 Japanese don't gt a national morale bonus - they just tend not to surrender. They are also less likely to rout. Now, that can lead to thier units standing stll while 'stunned' and thus taking punishment while they do, but that was what happened in WW2.

He is also not seeing the other tables like the leadership values, those effect platoon etc commanders rally and experience, artillery command etc.

So the basic tables are just a base as you say - there are also boosts for e.g. elite formations and conscripts in the OOB formation data.

Russia does have a problem in the era of Stalin's purges and dont really recover till you get Guards troops available (early 42?), but that was true in WW2. There are also Siberean troops available from 11/41 who are above the average.

But when fighting in the Winter war the Russians are badly affected by the purges. So you will have to plan ahead and stonk the Finns with concentrated arty with long delays for calls for fire, and hope the Soviet armour gives you an advantage - the infantry is rather poor then.

If he doesn't like the base vales, as usual he has Mobhack to use should he want to adjust the values. He can always adjust the formation morale and experience modifiers in his own custom OOBs.

DRG May 2nd, 2021 08:12 AM

Re: Experience and morale
This is all I will have to say about this post


Over 2 decades ago when we first started working on what would become SPww2 and later spin-off into SPmbt and we were working with a team of people, all of which are listed in the game guide credits, and the subject of the experience and moral values in the game were being discussed I remember clearly saying that if we handed the UNITexp and UNITmor lists to 100 people with instructions to adjust those values to what each thinks is closest to correct we would get back 100 different lists

That is still true.

There will never be a time when somebody doesn't think they have better ideas on what they should be but like most things in this game those base values are just base values. There is very little in this game that uses absolute values in its calculations and UNITexp and UNITmor are no exception. It is the randoms in this game that have kept a game concept originally developed in the 90's still being played and argued about a quarter-century later and as Andy pointed out the leadership values also have a random effect in how combat results are calculated

This is one reason the game preferences allow players to turn "Training" off and enter whatever they think it should be, higher or lower, than what the game uses now from the UNITexp and UNITmor lists .....and then those values are randomized


In SPWW2 there are 13,017 units. There are 28 infantry class units that have 6 men and size Zero and those 28 units are spread across 11 OOB's and they are all specialized commando/recon type units so those few units are hardly "a bit problematic" at 0.2% of the units in the game.

Mobhack May 2nd, 2021 09:02 AM

Re: Experience and morale
And Quickywiky, you have been told before that "War and Peace" novel length posts are not welcome on the forums.

Make one point/query, in one concise post and we will more likely read and respond to such a comprehensible message.

War and Peace level rambles will be treated as TL;DR - because we have better things to do with our time than spend the time figuring out exactly what the point (if any) of such Tolstoyan lenghth tomes might be.

(TL;DR, in case you are not au fait with the term; Too Long; Didn't Read)

And we have told you before (multiple times!) on these forumes that we aren't going to change the game to suit your particular viewpoint of what it should be. You have Mobhack available to massage the game data to suit your own opinions. Perhaps one day you might get the message?.

Imp May 7th, 2021 01:29 AM

Re: Experience and morale

Originally Posted by Mobhack (Post 850248)

WW2 Japanese don't gt a national morale bonus - they just tend not to surrender. They are also less likely to rout. Now, that can lead to thier units standing stll while 'stunned' and thus taking punishment while they do, but that was what happened in WW2.

He is also not seeing the other tables like the leadership values, those effect platoon etc commanders rally and experience, artillery command etc.

So the basic tables are just a base as you say - there are also boosts for e.g. elite formations and conscripts in the OOB formation data.

Russia does have a problem in the era of Stalin's purges and dont really recover till you get Guards troops available (early 42?), but that was true in WW2. There are also Siberean troops available from 11/41 who are above the average.

But when fighting in the Winter war the Russians are badly affected by the purges. So you will have to plan ahead and stonk the Finns with concentrated arty with long delays for calls for fire, and hope the Soviet armour gives you an advantage - the infantry is rather poor then.

If he doesn't like the base vales, as usual he has Mobhack to use should he want to adjust the values. He can always adjust the formation morale and experience modifiers in his own custom OOBs.

Bad expression on my behalf with the Japs I just meant they behaved differently.
Not disputing the values for Russia just commented they are the ones that are hard to play early war, you have to adjust to play them. Once facing tanks things are compounded. Your tanks are inaccurate & your infantry does not have much in the way of AT weapons & can suffer tank fear. Its always a challenge.

Kiwikkiwik May 16th, 2021 03:53 AM

Re: Experience and morale
Hi Imp
Yes that is exactly right I am talking about and comparing the standard infantry base values.

Mobhack blithely dismisses the base values as "just a base" but they are central because ALL the other values stem from them. Elite forces might have +15 but it's +15 from the BASE value. Mobhack also says I am not seeing Leadership table, yes I am but they are once again based on the BASE values. Randomness doesn't matter either because ON AVERAGE low base values will always give low other values.
So these base values are absolutely critical because all the other values are derived directly from them. A unit with low base will on average have lesser other relevant values than one with a higher base value.

I say scouts are problematic because multiple men 0 size units lend themselves very readily to gamey play. I think that for a group of 4 to 6 men moving about being size 0 is already enough of a bonus without giving them the extra +3 or so for Morale and Experience. Removing their +3 bonus makes them a little less prone to being the tools of Gamey types.

Its not "my particular viewpoint" I just present published data that demonstrates where your game contains errors, that you want to keep the errors in the game never fails to amaze me. My posts are only long because the game contains so many errors.
Anyone who reads my posts can see they are not ramblings but that they are concise, comprehensible, well thought out, relevant, documented and referenced.
The game Base Experience and Morale values are clearly wrong according to the literature. But from your side once again we see absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION of WHY the game base values are as they are. Just the usual personal attacks on me.
You're not covering yourself in glory calling me insulting names either. It would be nice if you treated members of the forum with some respect.

Mobhack May 16th, 2021 04:45 AM

Re: Experience and morale
Kwikky - please show me where exactly I am calling you "insulting names" or making "personal attacks"?

We have told you not to post marathon novel length posts. Several times. That is neither an insult, nor a personal attack. Yet you insist on dropping them here from time to time - sorry, but TLDR. Post them, but we will be ignoring them in future.

We have directed you towards Mobhack as a tool where you can make OOB sets that address your personal viewpoint. Those OOBs can be posted in the Mods forum for those who agree with your POV. That is not insulting, nor a personal attack. Its fact.

So if you want your own version of the game that does things your particular way, please learn to use Mobhack and post your mod in the appropriate forum. Then anyone who agrees with you will be able to download your mod and comment upon it.

You have the tools to do what you want to but we are not going to it for you.

zovs66 May 16th, 2021 09:15 PM

Re: Experience and morale

Originally Posted by Kiwikkiwik (Post 850361)
Hi Imp

Its not "my particular viewpoint" I just present published data that demonstrates where your game contains errors, that you want to keep the errors in the game never fails to amaze me. My posts are only long because the game contains so many errors.

If there are so many "errors" why do you even bother posting here. The only errors are in your own mind. The rest of are just plain happy with the way things have progress for the last 22 + years.

Please stop berating the developers other fine contributors. You seem to have a never ending axe to grind with the game and its developers. Its getting quite boring and tiring see your encyclopedia size posts that do nothing but gripe and complain. You have contributed nothing positive here. Your just making matters worse.

Kiwikkiwik May 21st, 2021 07:30 AM

Re: Experience and morale
Well mobhack
Its school playground one oh one to use an insulting name in place of the real posters proper name, Quickywiki is not Kiwikkiwik I find Quickywiki insulting. But ill take it if I can make a nickname up for you, Its not hard to make Mobhack into something quite funny as well..
Have a read of my latest post in TOEs. Once again I have pointed out a series of errors contained in your game but instead of hey thanks for pointing that out I'll get the usual stonewalling or the thread closed up before anyone else can comment.
And none of it is my POV. It's the published FACTS from the literature that your game has got wrong. But pointing it out is a crime. There is nothing wrong with showing where the game can be made more realistic. if you prefer a game that ignores the errors it contains thats fine by me, but I think I should be allowed to point out where the game contains errors without being ridiculed and attacked, calling my posts rambling is an example of exactly that.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2021, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.