Editor in Chief Bill | 10 Sep 2015 12:32 p.m. PST |
A set of wargaming rules is incomplete without providing morale rules. True or false? |
Mute Bystander | 10 Sep 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
True. Even TS&TF has them (although rather crude and abrupt in design, they still have them.) |
53Punisher | 10 Sep 2015 12:38 p.m. PST |
|
Ashurman | 10 Sep 2015 12:44 p.m. PST |
True except at a strategic level, and even then armies/corps should have them. |
TNE2300 | 10 Sep 2015 12:50 p.m. PST |
depends on scale also on period the more strategic the scale the less morale rules are required and a WW2 corps is a different animal from one in ACW |
RetroBoom | 10 Sep 2015 12:54 p.m. PST |
False. It's a board game, it's whatever the author feels it should be. That said, I wouldn't be interested to play them personally. |
Kropotkin303 | 10 Sep 2015 1:01 p.m. PST |
I like the "morale" in HOTT where certain units will follow-on an attack with impetuous bravery/foolishness. The recoil mechanism also models the too-and-fro of combat well, in my opinion. So I guess the morale results are built into the combat phase quite excellently. |
doug redshirt | 10 Sep 2015 1:28 p.m. PST |
Dont like them. It adds time to the game to roll for every unit that needs to check morale. Prefer rules that design it into the combat results. By that I mean rules that will have a unit removed after so many hits or losses. Speeds up the game and simplifies morale. |
Mako11 | 10 Sep 2015 1:37 p.m. PST |
Yea, it depends. I generally agree though, but some things, as mentioned above, really aren't applicable. Another one would be aerial dogfighting. Probably doesn't make sense to worry about morale in the thick of things, until losses for one side become rather severe, since the pilot(s) may or may not know about that, until afterwards, anyway, depending upon the era, their situational awareness, etc.. |
Extra Crispy | 10 Sep 2015 1:58 p.m. PST |
You can give a unit a strength that encompasses BOTH morale and numbers. So as such there will be no "morale rules" in that game. You must account for morale, but it does not follow there must be a section in the rules about morale. |
Dynaman8789 | 10 Sep 2015 2:16 p.m. PST |
Depends on scale. Division level counters, not such a problem but even then… You could make units with higher morale stronger but that almost always messes up something else. |
Zephyr1 | 10 Sep 2015 2:30 p.m. PST |
Morale provides a breaking point for one force to rout against a player's wishes, otherwise the game just becomes Rock'em Sock'em Robots between players until one army's head gets popped off… ;-) |
Liliburlero | 10 Sep 2015 3:04 p.m. PST |
Mute Bystander said: "Even TS&TF has them (although rather crude and abrupt in design, they still have them.)" I'm curious, MB. Were you bullied at a TSATF wargame as a child? Were you the last one picked for a TSATF game? Were your die rolls ridiculed? Perhaps your troops failed a "crude and abrupt" morale roll or you neglected to attach an officer prior to hand-to-hand coambat. It seems you have a problem with the rules and rather than not say anything (I reference your moniker Mute Bystander), you seem to have a rather pithy, sarcastic (albeit amusing) remark. Is there an intriguing back-story here you could share or are you just a disgruntled TSATF curmudgeon…. :^) |
Marshal Mark | 10 Sep 2015 3:30 p.m. PST |
The designer needs to take morale into consideration, except in some cases such as gladiator combat or very small skirmishes. However, that doesn't mean that there needs to be explicit morale rules, as the deterioration of morale can be built into combat results, as is the case in many modern rules. Long winded morale rules with frequent tests with tables of modifiers are a big factor in slowing many games down. |
IronDuke596 | 10 Sep 2015 3:48 p.m. PST |
|
Bill Rosser | 10 Sep 2015 4:09 p.m. PST |
I don't think morale is needed, just realistic casualty levels. Units maybe 30% casualties – remove as ineffective but if the total army reaches 15% you lose the game. This should make tabletop generals much more interested in taking care of their armies and planning their attacks better. After these types of numbers the pursuit is where the casualties begin to pile up. in campaigns roll a couple of percentage dice for the pursuit losses to capture and deaths. |
Timbo W | 10 Sep 2015 4:54 p.m. PST |
|
Dynaman8789 | 10 Sep 2015 5:12 p.m. PST |
Bill Rosser – What you suggest ARE morale rules, simplistic ones but morale rules none the less. |
nsolomon99 | 10 Sep 2015 5:28 p.m. PST |
True Crucial frankly, in any game involving human troops, its absolutely crucial. |
Doctor X | 10 Sep 2015 7:47 p.m. PST |
False Skirmish games, air combat games, naval games – many have no morale rules. Also figure ratio dependent. If you playing 1:1, then it is up to you to decide if you should run. |
Martin Rapier | 10 Sep 2015 11:16 p.m. PST |
It depends. There are certain wargaming conventions around morale mechanisms, however many of the effects can be factored into other mechanisms, unit ratings, combat outcomes or even victory conditions. If an army breakpoint is at say, five units, that is the same as making the enemy victory conditions "kill five units". For example. |
thehawk | 11 Sep 2015 2:39 a.m. PST |
Almost always true. The way people behave is dependent on a lot of things and morale is one of them. Morale exists for units (cohesion, esprit de corps etc). It exists for individuals (the early WW2 German soldier had a higher morale or confidence in what he was asked to do than his opponents). making him more determined to succeed and more efficient. The ancients Regular A, Irregular B etc nomenclature implies a morale classification. Similarly, grognard, conscript, volunteer, Croat, ranger all imply a base morale level. |
COL Scott ret | 11 Sep 2015 2:47 a.m. PST |
|
Florida Tory | 11 Sep 2015 5:29 a.m. PST |
|
nazrat | 11 Sep 2015 7:25 a.m. PST |
|
Weasel | 11 Sep 2015 7:26 a.m. PST |
Robots, aliens, mind controlled clones. I guess you don't need morale rules though it'd have to be a really specific focus of a game. |
Great War Ace | 11 Sep 2015 8:23 a.m. PST |
Morale is ubiquitous. From the individual to the whole nation. Morale is always the primary factor determining outcome. When a nation's morale never breaks they must either win or be crushed to finish the war. When a unit in battle never breaks the same thing applies in miniature (no pun intended). The Old Guard at the end of Waterloo. "Merde!" So, shoot them all down. The cavalry earlier, Ney was carried away with his "opportunity". Then carried away by the rout. To simply abstract that phenomenon into "combat effectiveness" and ignore the rest is too facile, imho. There were indeed times during the whole epoch of linear combat where whole units or sections of any army ran away. But it can change. A unit that fails morale in the ACW could react differently. A new unit, or one without experience, could "rout" into the face of the enemy, i.e. charge them. Whereas a veteran unit that "routed" would go to ground and wait this one out. Morale needs to reflect the time and place. There is no "one size fits all" approach. But there no need to make morale "testing" any more complex than a simple dice roll. All the traditional pluses and minuses to the situation are feckless efforts to add "detail" into the game. All they are is a waste of time and accomplish no added benefit to the final result, which is always "roll the dice and see if you stand or break"…. |
etotheipi | 11 Sep 2015 8:55 a.m. PST |
False. I don't put morale issues into the rules, I put them into the scenarios. And even then, they are not necessarily rules, but influences on the player based on victory conditions. F'r'ex, I usually have some victory point mechanism where when losing, it is better at some point to break and run rather than fight it out to the last man. Still, it's the players' decisions. |
Mute Bystander | 11 Sep 2015 9:02 a.m. PST |
Off Topic alert! Liliburlero, FYSA: "Mute Bystander" is my sarcastic commentary on my inability to stay passive about things I love such as miniatures war game. I use "love" unreservedly. It is not as in I love my wife, kids, faith, country, mixed heritage, or my occupation but it is a passionate love for history/war games. First, you have a 'gift' for sarcasm. I like that. A little bit heavy handed and bullying in tone but well played otherwise. Second, you seem thin skinned when someone expresses a criticism about TS&TF. That is understandable due to your familial tie but not a good public face for the product. Actually I do play TS&TF with friends who think it is the Bee's Knees but I do not think it is a 'great' game. TS&TF is solid, yes, but there are aspects that can and should be improved/modernized. It was a great game when I was younger but it shows its era of design to it's disadvantage IMO. It also is flexible (perhaps generically flexible) which is both a strength and a weakness. Even if I was the 1% (there always is 1% of any group) of people who loathe the game, which I am not, I would be entitled to my opinion and, here in America, I would be free to express it. You disagree with my criticisms and commentary and I respect your right to disagree. But I will not muzzle myself to soothe your soul. Now, if this is such a big issue that you feel a need to discuss this further you can contact me at ZorroGames AT att DOT net but honestly that seems unnecessary. We simply disagree about a set of war game rules. Seems relatively trivial in these days of "eternal undeclared war," expansion of nuclear capable weapons in the hands of unstable regimes, and fanatical jihad in my view. Consider this, TS&TF is pretty much one of the the standards by which I judge all war games rules. Some I find infinitely better (as in more satisfying, such as the Two Hour War Game sets) and some I find infinitely worse (such as 40K) but it was a core game back "in the day" and it influences what I look for in a game (both positive and negative.) I bought my own copy ("first revision" version) and multiple "supplements"/"derivatives" – official and unofficial – over the years. TS&TF was on my shelf along with Chainmail, Tricolor, Star Guard, and other early rules for a long time. Only Chainmail remains on my shelf as I have found replacement rules for all the others. In closing I hope you and your family are doing well. Larry Brom made a significant contribution to my war games play years ago and along with the likes of Donald Featherstone, Jack Scruby, SPI, Avalon Hill, John McEwan, Jeff Perren/Gary Gygax is the reason I play war games. TS&TF was fine in its day but the bloom is off the rose for me. |
Dye4minis | 11 Sep 2015 9:23 a.m. PST |
(This ought to be interesting….) What is your definition of "Morale"? Is morale really what you are checking in your games? Remember the Leaders? Do your games account for what the unit's leadership has done this turn to regain lost control over the men? Does your rules set only allow for degerating "morale"- not ever having a chance to regain lost "morale"? What if you changed the value set from "morale" to "Unit Cohesion"? (Unit cohesion defined as "the Unit's leadership's ability to maintain control over the men." Afterall, the men are NOT in charge of the unit….the unit's leadership is. Grading of units may make for an enjoyable game for some, but look how it usually works: An average unit is rated as (let's say) 60. For every figure loss, subtract 5. Count the number of "casualties" and subtract from 60 and the result is what you need to roll under to pass. This means that a loss of 1 casting will ALWAYS affect every unit the same way. Reduced firepower usually accompanies as well. In reality, units are made up of men- no two men are alike. Same with units- No two units are alike because one man cannot be in two places at the same time! Therefore, it's NOT the numbers of casualties that determines a unit's effectiveness, it's the effect the fire had on the unit as a whole. Pick any period of history and you will find examples where units ran with little or no casualties while others fought to the last man! The idea that losses have a direct relationship on the effectiveness of a unit by itself totally lumps it all into linear values as described above. Would it not be better to rate units by the training and experience of the leaders, training and experience of the men and (MOST importantly) How long have these men served under these leaders? So I beg the previous questions: 1. "What do you think you doing when you make a "morale check"? 2. Have you accounted for the unit's leadership's actions during this turn, to regain or keep control over the men? Thanks in advance. v/r Tom |
The Virtual Armchair General | 11 Sep 2015 11:10 a.m. PST |
Yes, absolutely. The degree and manner that a set of rules reflects the HUMANITY involved is the difference between a "war game" and a "toy soldier game." The human body is not ruled by the mind, only influenced. Real fear--and resultant flight, surrender, or assuming the fetal position and awaiting death--is at the core of our animal natures, and fear will always over rule the mind in the last extremity. TVAG |
Liliburlero | 11 Sep 2015 5:00 p.m. PST |
Mute Bystander - Interesting; thanks for sharing your back-story. |