Before we release....

[KingHunter3059]

Can I ask a question? If the Axis player pulls off a successful 'Sea Lion', it seems that the British are permanently in a moral abyss, or deficit of 35% or lower. Is this going to be the Norm? Or will the British recover? I apologize if this topic has been covered before, but this with the 'It’s now only possible to invade an occupied hex if within 10 hexes of a friendly port. ' rule, destroy any possibility of retaking Britain, thus allowing an AXIS win - Maybe I'm not getting the point, but this change was spurred by Morris and his unconventional style of play, as he is now doing with an AXIS Sub blob. Most (99% I think) players won't take the elaborate steps Morris did to win, and I think any opponent would simply not play with Morris (Or anyone who did this) again, thus limiting their playing availability. So, I would think that we may want to 'dial down' some of the Morris changes, which would bring Balance, I think, back to the game...


J.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The penalty is reduced by 10 for each of USSR and USA joining the Allies. In addition it's lowered by 10 for Italy surrendering.

If you manage to keep units in Scapa Flow and northern Ireland you can also reduce the morale drop. Britain can keep units in Scotland and that will take time for Germany to destroy.

So dropping to 35 as we saw in one game was where the Allied played had abandoned Belfast and Scapa Flow. That was a major mistake. If England is about to fall then UK should evacuate to northern Ireland. Each unit you can have here will reduce the morale drop by 5.

[zechi]

Can I ask a question? If the Axis player pulls off a successful 'Sea Lion', it seems that the British are permanently in a moral abyss, or deficit of 35% or lower. Is this going to be the Norm? Or will the British recover? I apologize if this topic has been covered before, but this with the 'It’s now only possible to invade an occupied hex if within 10 hexes of a friendly port. ' rule, destroy any possibility of retaking Britain, thus allowing an AXIS win - Maybe I'm not getting the point, but this change was spurred by Morris and his unconventional style of play, as he is now doing with an AXIS Sub blob. Most (99% I think) players won't take the elaborate steps Morris did to win, and I think any opponent would simply not play with Morris (Or anyone who did this) again, thus limiting their playing availability. So, I would think that we may want to 'dial down' some of the Morris changes, which would bring Balance, I think, back to the game...


J.

If the Axis manage to clear Britain completely of any British units (including Scapa Flow and Northern Ireland) the morale penalty is -40 %. However, the British recover. In my current game with Supermax the morale penalty is only -20 % after the activation of the US and Soviets in 1942. However, I'm not sure if it will go down any further in 1943. As British partisan pop up here and there the morale penalty is also reduced by 5 % for each partisan unit active in Britain.

Nevertheless, it will be hard to invade Britain and/or France if Sealion is succesful, but I think this is fair as it would have been much harder for the western Allies to get a foothold in Europe. The western Allies will have to adapt to the situation.

[PionUrpo]

British recover morale after US (+10) and USSR (+10) are in the war and, I think, after Italy surrenders (+10).
Of course it can also be recovered by 'Reverse Sealion'.

The 10-hex-from-port means no CONTESTED landings are possible outside of the radius. If the hex is empty you can still land on it.

I think the current rule is good (dissuades from carefree UK play, like suiciding everything in France or sending nearly everything early on to North Africa etc.) but Royal Navy should either be exempted from the morale loss OR take much less of it (say -10 and recover fully after one of the prequisites above is met). Low morale makes RN too easy target for subs.

EDIT // haha ninja'd twice, man I'm slow to write

[zechi]

Concerning the British morale penalty I don't like the mechanic at all and think it is unhistorical. I agree that the British morale would be down after Britain is invaded and London and other major cities are lost. However, I think the remnants of the British Army would regain morale after the first shock, similar to the Soviets after Barbarossa has been launched or the French after Belgium has been overrun.

If you look at other countries which were defeated by the Germans, such as the Polish or French, their Soldiers continuing the fight against the Axis did not have any real morale issues. In contrary, morale of the Poles and Free French were rather high as far as I know. They lacked manpower and equipment, but not fighting spirit as they were eager to liberate their motherland.

Therefore, I think a permanent morale penalty feels wrong as I doubt that the remants of the British Army would have any morale issues. However, they would have manpower problems as well problems to replace old or lost equipment. From my point of view it would be better (and more realistic) if the British would lose (a lot of) manpower (perhaps up to 50 %) instead of a permanent morale penalty.

[Cybvep]

The French and the Poles were fighting alongside the UK, a bastion of democracy still in Europe (which was dominated by the Axis). If the UK was conquered and the USA was still out of war, the morale loss would be severe. That's why I think that it should be high until the USA and the Soviets join the war. Italian surrender should have nothing to do with. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that the Allies would prioritise invasion of the occupied GB, not Italy. IMO the morale recovery should be +15 when the USA joins the war, +15 when the Soviets join the war and +0 when Italy surrenders.

The UK already loses MP after London and Liverpool are taken. Don't know if it's too high or too low, though.

[Diplomaticus]

Concerning the British morale penalty I don't like the mechanic at all and think it is unhistorical. I agree that the British morale would be down after Britain is invaded and London and other major cities are lost. However, I think the remnants of the British Army would regain morale after the first shock, similar to the Soviets after Barbarossa has been launched or the French after Belgium has been overrun.

If you look at other countries which were defeated by the Germans, such as the Polish or French, their Soldiers continuing the fight against the Axis did not have any real morale issues. In contrary, morale of the Poles and Free French were rather high as far as I know. They lacked manpower and equipment, but not fighting spirit as they were eager to liberate their motherland.

Therefore, I think a permanent morale penalty feels wrong as I doubt that the remants of the British Army would have any morale issues. However, they would have manpower problems as well problems to replace old or lost equipment. From my point of view it would be better (and more realistic) if the British would lose (a lot of) manpower (perhaps up to 50 %) instead of a permanent morale penalty.

It's important to remember that this "morale" Effectiveness loss isn't just about how chipper the troops are. The loss of Great Britain would mean an incalculable loss to the Allied cause: lost industry, lost manpower, lost resources (think of Bletchley Park gone!), lost naval bases, etc., etc. To be historically accurate the game needs to reflect how devastating such a loss would be. The Effectiveness penalty is an abstract but, IMO, effective way to reflect all of this complexity.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One thing we could do is to increase the less morale drop for USA joining from 10 to 20. We could also halve the morale loss for naval units.

This means the British will recover mostly when USA joins. Then the British would have a real hope to liberate their island.

Free France got a morale boost when USA joined because it increased the chances for the Allies winning the war. Since Free France joins with Torch then USA is most often already active

[KingHunter3059]

One thing we could do is to increase the less morale drop for USA joining from 10 to 20. We could also halve the morale loss for naval units.

This means the British will recover mostly when USA joins. Then the British would have a real hope to liberate their island.

Free France got a morale boost when USA joined because it increased the chances for the Allies winning the war. Since Free France joins with Torch then USA is most often already active

THANK YOU! I think that is great... I did have units in Scotland and a GAR at Scapa Flow - However My opponent managed to destroy all of those units...


J

[Kragdob]

One thing we could do is to increase the less morale drop for USA joining from 10 to 20. We could also halve the morale loss for naval units.

This means the British will recover mostly when USA joins. Then the British would have a real hope to liberate their island.

Free France got a morale boost when USA joined because it increased the chances for the Allies winning the war. Since Free France joins with Torch then USA is most often already active

I agree but we should remove +10 increase from conquering Italy. This would beUS's +20 increase due to industry/naval bases etc. and Soviet's +10 would be pure morale increase

I do not agree for halving morale drop for navy. If UK lost all its bases (shipyards) in UK they would have very hard time for any replacements/ammo/resting till US enters the war. The cause for effectiveness drop would be slightly different but result would be the same.

All I'd change is that drop of effectiveness should not apply to units directly in Britain (defending homeland) except that I love this change