Just got back from running a DS demo (every Monday, alternating DS with FT),
and I tried out a variation on the morale rules. Instead of taking one check,
and only the most harsh, when fired on, I made them
take all aplicable. So when the green-three scout platoon lost 3 out
of 6 vehicles including the PL's vehicle, they took a total of four confidence
checks. And unsurprisingly routed off the board, rather than (at worst) simply
becoming shaken. I was very happy with the
overall results throughout the game--morale became very real
consideration rather than minor sideshow. Comments?
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Just got back from running a DS demo (every Monday, alternating DS
> taking one check, and only the most harsh, when fired on, I made them
Do you like rolling dice John? Some morale systems encpasulate this by adding
a modifier for every other morale check necessary in a given round (that is to
say for each condition satisfied in some cases). This means you only make one
roll, but it can be a doozie.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> At 10:17 PM 6/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
In Victoria (Canada) we play with a slightly modified morale system. A unit
that is required to roll a morale check must continue making tests until it
passes one. Each subsequent
test is made at -1 threat level from the last test. So if the
original test was at +3, then the second would be at +2,
the third at +1, the fourth at +0, and the fifth would be
an automatic pass.
I have a feeling that the severity of our system is somewhere in between yours
and the vanilla rules.
One thing that you may want to try is to allow units to rally themselves at
threat levels equal to the leader value.
> John
/**********************************
> Just got back from running a DS demo (every Monday, alternating DS
Hmmm. Although I like the ide of making the morale checks somewhat more
important, this sound like it's just a little over the top. Perhaps if they
were to just take one check, but the maximum drop could be a factor of how
many - or how bad - checks would have been made total. This makes for
less dice rolling too.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> But under DS II rules, you can only loose two levels of confidence per
> check. I don't like that--it should be entirely possible to rout a
Firstly, I was under the impression DS2 turns were on the order of minutes?
But as this isn't germaine to the point, we'll ignore that. I'd agree that it
is entirely possible for a formation to be routed within short order.
Interestingly enough, another thing morale rules tend to not handle
all that well is the tendency of men to do an ostrich - to hit the
deck, get behind cover, and do NOTHING and not respond to orders, not move,
etc. Most of our morale systems have them withdraw a distance or until they
rally. In reality, they might just freeze.
Morale is undoubtedly the most human, unpredictable and complex
aspect of such games as DS2 and SG2. Humans react in various ways -
soetimes fighting to the death over nothing other times routing in defence of
important points. Sometimes one casualty will route a company, sometimes you
have to kill every stinkin' one of them. The best any set of morale rules can
do is reasonably cover most situations most of the time. Not cover all
situations or work all the time. That's too much to hope for (especially since
this aspect of human behavior is sort of unpredictable). Sometimes a crappy
militia unit will hang on to the last guy, and sometimes the elite paras will
punch out and didi real early on. All a morale system can do is represent
tendencies.
You want it to be possible to lose more than two morale levels, but not
commonplace. Maybe certain circumstances (either a certain loss level or a
certain number of checks you'd have to make as you passed breakpoints) allow
the loss of a greater # of morale levels. This would represent single crushing
events more accurately.
Just my 0.02.
Tom.
Actually, I've been working with both the 'multiple-roll' morale check
and the 'biggie' morale check. (multiple = make every check that applies;
biggie = add all of the threat levels that apply to that roll)
I'm not sure which I like more - the multiple roll doesn't increase the
time that much, but the biggie tends to be pretty harsh, especially on poor
troops. Even good troops can take a hard thump. If you are using the
Untrained/Elite
troop levels from SG2, the distinction becomes very pronounced. Also, I've
been working on a force morale modifier system. This will be represented by a
number added to every roll made that depends on leadership (morale, infantry
fire effectivenes, etc). It is acquired when a unit is pretty well obliterated
in one turn, and can be removed by a specific rally test by either the force
command unit, or lots of command units (haven't decided which yet). It
represents the 'shine' being taken off of a force when the realities of combat
sink in. After being blooded, they will be less likely to risk themselves.
This may promote a 'shock' tactic to shatter the
morale of a whole force - not too unrealistic, AFAIK. Comments welcome!
Noah
Hmm, a big difference between SG and DS is the Mission Motivation. I bet most
people play with Medium or High. Well try a few with Low and you will see a
differnce in your morale! Also are people adhering to the cumulative factor
for having untreated wounded? It hurts too!
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> One thing that you may want to try is to allow units to rally
Do you mean at TV+0, or TV+leadership (i.e., does the Green three have
to beat a 3 or a six)? And double the TV is a two-step improvment in
morale? And do you permit this automatically at the end of the turn, or must
it take the place of activation?
> At 07:46 AM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
This is one thing that we haven't actually used yet (although the other part
we have). My intention would be that a green three would need a 6. It would
use up the whole squad's activation and increase the morale level by a maximum
of one. With the system we use we haven't yet felt that this ability was
necessary, but if things start going to hell really quickly it may help to get
them back in the fight.
I could see this combination making confidence really fluctuate during games.
> John
/**********************************