| David Brown | 11 Jul 2018 6:27 a.m. PST |
After playing several enjoyable games of Team Yankee as NATO holding off the Soviet hoards, (well just twice!) can anyone assist with a question from our games – though it might be obvious and we've just missed it, that Nato forces, (except West German) seem to have lower morale? British Irish Guards morale/rally is stated as 4+.
A US Mech Platoon morale/rally is 4+.
A Soviet Motor Rifle Company morale/rally is better at 3+. Are we missing something? DB |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 11 Jul 2018 7:50 a.m. PST |
It probably has to do with the following assumptions by the game designers, whether you agree with them or not: The Soviets are better indoctrinated and motivated to fight. They have political officers and commissars to ensure that soldiers do not lack "proper motivation" or flee the battlefield unnecessarily. The Attacker generally has an edge in morale over the Defender. West Germans have higher morale than the Americans and British because they have the additional motivation of defending their homeland and families. The stakes are higher for them. |
| Tgunner | 11 Jul 2018 8:18 a.m. PST |
I've personally questioned the US Army's skill levels too. 4+ makes shoot and scoot very sketchy. In the real world we quite happily pulled off stunts like that and that was in real combat too. I'm not sure why we have such a "meh" number. It's enough to ensure that I don't use movement orders a lot without my company CO showing the way. That doesn't seem realistic to me and I'm a former 1st ID Abrams tanker. But hey, this was 1985. Phil and company might be thinking that the "hollow Army" was still lingering even at that date. |
 Saber6   | 11 Jul 2018 9:27 a.m. PST |
"because it is a game"? I know of a house rule where you roll against each unit for Morale and skill. 1-2 -1 to value, 3-4 "book" value, 5-6 +1 to value Some units are better than others in the same battalion |
| David Brown | 11 Jul 2018 2:19 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the replies, to follow on: re: The Soviets are better indoctrinated and motivated to fight. They have political officers and commissars to ensure that soldiers do not lack "proper motivation" or flee the battlefield unnecessarily. I'm not really convinced that a mainly conscript Soviet army was better motivated to fight. I believe that Political officers and commissars were a relic of WW2 and didn't feature in the Soviet 1980's armies? The Attacker generally has an edge in morale over the Defender. I can go with that, except NATO morale remains worse even when they have managed to blunt the Russian on-slaught and go on the counter-attack…..so this doesn't seem to quite fit. "because it is a game" Yeah, ok, there's a lot about TY on that level, but it's fairly major factor; for example if the game said that the Chieftain 120mm gun couldn't penetrate a T55 would we be happy to say it's just a game? Perhaps I'll just have to live with it or use a house rule! DB |
| McWong73 | 11 Jul 2018 3:01 p.m. PST |
Morale as a die roll shouldn't be looked at outside of the context of its game impact. The higher Soviet value balances out the lower skill rating they have. |
| Lion in the Stars | 11 Jul 2018 3:42 p.m. PST |
Possibly because it'd make NATO troops even more outnumbered? |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 11 Jul 2018 3:55 p.m. PST |
Game balance requires realism to become a casualty. What a novel concept. |
| David Brown | 13 Jul 2018 7:36 a.m. PST |
28mm F, Game balance requires realism to become a casualty. I know, and I agree to an extent, as all games do this however there are or at least should be limits on how far you are prepared as a game designer to sacrifice realism. Realism becoming a casualty one can accept, but realism being "killed" off completely for game balance pushes it, IMHO, perhaps a little too far. DB |
| Walking Sailor | 14 Jul 2018 8:44 a.m. PST |
As a simulationist (is that a word? spell-check doesn't recognize it), set the numbers to reflect reality.
For game balance, adjust point values, victory conditions, or both. |
