Morale rules

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

Agreed that they are a pain, but they also add something to the game that
simply "counting bullets" doesn't get across. In any event, the 'simpler is
better' doesn't make sense here because TacOPS (at least the version I'm
familiar with) is a computer game, so we don't have to fiddle with all the
counters.

Actually, that was one thing that attracted me to DSII, and SGII to a lesser
extant; the morale rules are pretty easy to keep track of. Much better than
counters on a track sheet, or trying to figure
out who has tempo/momentum at any given point in the turn.  (Though,
I should give GMT and VG points for trying hard, and it is different between
board games and minature games.)

Besides, how else can you replay scenarios where a bunch of hardened, cynical
mercernaries destroys the armed forces of several planets?
(Okay, maybe I'm getting silly here.  (8-) )

J.

In a message dated 98-05-22 12:28:41 EDT, you write:

> > Actually, I agree with this view. Many gamers (as opposed to

Most power gamers and their ilk don't like morale rules, but myself and just
about every other player of historical or realistic games would not play any
game without at least some rudimentary system of morale. Warfare through the
ages has always had more to do with men and their mental state than it has
with what sorts of weapons they had, etc...

Brian

> On Sat, 23 May 1998, BJCantwell wrote:

> Most power gamers and their ilk don't like morale rules, but myself

Chess players are power gamers? Anyone out for a simple fun gaming night

is a power gamer?

In a beer & pretzels game if you have more than two things to remember, the
rules are too complicated. Separate morale rules typically fall into

that category -- if the designer is good enough to weave them into other

rules, it will work.

In any case, DB* games have next to no (separate) morale rules, yet they are
immensily popular with the historicals crowd.