My experiences playing Stargrunt 2 at GenCon were the first outside of playing
my own Ork Hill scenario. I noticed that there seems to be a fairly low chance
of units dropping morale levels in SG2. I thought this might have to do with
the set up in my own scenario, but it seems to be fairly common.
Now, this isn't NECESSARILY a problem. After all, the players seem to like it
this way. It leaves the units capable of acting, and suppression is common
enough that units are frozen in place fairly often.
However, I have noticed some weird things. In particular, total casualties to
a unit has no bearing on the unit's drop in morale. I had a unit lose one or
two figures per turn until the commanding officer was all that remained. She
kept her morale status as Confident. Okay, she was a veteran, but even still
this seemed very strange.
You take a major morale hit if you lose more figures in one attack than you
have left over after the attack. This is good. A major loss of life in one
quick burst should lower morale drasticall. If you lose the men piecemeal,
though, this has a very small effect. This doesn't seem right.
During the con, the house rule used by Jeff Guillion was that a unit only
tested for morale once, at the end of the turn. This speeds up the game and
causes some nasty morale results, but I didn't care for it. I found it to be
too much of a pain trying to remember which unit had to take a morale test and
for what. Still, the current system seems not to result in enough of a
lowering of morale unless the unit takes a lot of casualties and is below the
level of Veteran.
Has this been common with other groups? Is this a problem, or do people
generally prefer a game where morale isn't that big a deal? Or am I just
playing with too many "veteran" units on the table?
I'm thinking that something along the lines of a morale test or a panic test
should be done when a unit loses more than half its strength. Currently a unit
takes a TL 4 test when it loses more figures than it has left at the end of
the combat. Perhaps a TL2 test when the unit drops below half strength, and a
TL4 test when it drops below one quarter strength is needed.
For that matter, perhaps a straight +1 to the TL per casualty is in
order. The squad data card has a space for the unit's full strength
complement, so we might as well use it. If this is used, I suggest scrapping
the TL2 and TL4 tests listed above.
Finally, I noticed that the condition of the rest of the force on the table
has no effect on the morale of a given unit. That is, the whole platoon could
be taking a beating, but the morale of an individual squad that still hasn't
seen action hasn't been affected. I know that this was a bit of a sore point
with me in DS2, but it doesn't seem to be that big an issue in SG2. Still, has
anyone found this to be an issue, and if so have you looked at it?
> At 11:30 PM 8/19/98 GMT, you wrote:
[snip intro]
> However, I have noticed some weird things. In particular, total
I know it wouldn't make me happy...
> You take a major morale hit if you lose more figures in one attack than
Another related effect is how casualties only effect the unit's morale if the
soldiers are screaming in agony. The vacant stare of death in your comrade's
eyes has no effect on TL. I don't really understand the logic behind it... it
just seems wrong. There is a lot of literature on the psychological effects of
combat. IIRC, hiding from gunfire with dead squadmates all around you had a
profound negative impact on morale.
[snip GenCon rules]
> Has this been common with other groups? Is this a problem, or do people
Personally, I would like to see a system where morale played a much higher
role than in any of the systems I have used so far. The group I game with has
been doing some experimenting [see below]. Morale is starting to play a higher
role (most units try to run away before being wiped out), but morale still is
a bit too "static" IMO.
What we have started using is the idea that a unit is required to pass its
morale check. For each failed check, reduce the TL by one and roll again. Once
the TL is below 0 the test is automatically passed. For example,
a squad is required to make a confidence test at TL+3. It fails, and has
to immediately roll again at TL+2. It passes, so only drops one (or two)
confidence levels. Another example is a unit making a confidence test at
TL+1. Again, it fails its first test, and rolls again at TL+0, which it
also fails. It doesn't roll a third time, since a TL-1 test is
automatically passed.
Note that we don't (at least not yet) use this for any of the rolls required
during close combat. In practice this has worked quite well for us. No
noticable increase in game time, it fits in very well with the current system,
and it is easy to remember. One thing that we haven't really looked at is the
different effects of being "dead" as opposed to being "wounded". One step at a
time, I guess.
One side effect is that it is possible for a unit to drop from CO to RO in one
go, although it isn't very likely, which is something that is not possible in
the vanilla SG rules. This is especially appropriate for greens, as they could
quite easily be routed by the loss of the squad commander.
> I'm thinking that something along the lines of a morale test or a panic
The
> squad data card has a space for the unit's full strength complement, so
I think that the latter suggestion is better, since "one half" and "one
quarter" are quite arbitrary, whereas enemy fire isn't. I'm assuming that you
mean a
TL+1 per casualty inflicted during a particular attack? I would also set
limits
on the maximum TL according to mission motivation, e.g. +3 for High MM,
+4 for
Medium MM, and +5 for Low MM.
> Finally, I noticed that the condition of the rest of the force on the
Still, has
> anyone found this to be an issue, and if so have you looked at it?
Haven't looked at this one yet.
> Allan Goodall agoodall@sympatico.ca
I hope this helps,
**********************************
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 18:32:14 -0700, Tony Christney <acc@questercorp.com>
wrote:
First off, Tony, for some reason your To: address isn't munged! I don't know
if someone at your ISP finally woke up and fixed it or what, but it looks
fine!
> I think that the latter suggestion is better, since "one half" and "one
I see what you mean. Yeah, why is 25% or 50% the magic number for a squad?
> I'm assuming that you mean a
Actually, I was thinking of having it accumulate for all combat. For instance,
if a unit took two casualties last turn, and one this turn, the morale roll
this turn would be TL+3.
Maybe your idea is better, making it a TL+1 for every casualty this
combat only. You still don't get a cumulative effect for casualties, though.
If you
lose one figure per turn, you get a TL+1 every turn. Maybe that's fine,
though.
> I would also set
That's good. I like that.
As for your home rules, I really liked those. It does seem pretty simple, too.
You might want to implement a maximum CL drop based on the unit's quality. A
maximum of 2 CLs for Elite, 3 for Veterans, 4 for everyone else. Or maybe 2
for Elite and Veterans, 3 for Regulars and 4 for everyone else. This is only a
suggestion, and isn't exactly intuitive.
I'm going to try your rules out at some time. I like the feel of them.
> My experiences playing Stargrunt 2 at GenCon were the first outside of
I've never really seen this unless you make everything highly motivated fresh
troops. Try mixing motivation levels and troop fatigue, they really make a
huge difference.
> Now, this isn't NECESSARILY a problem. After all, the players seem to
But the morale problems of keeping a tired, poorly motivated unit on the table
attempting to fulfil a mission objective are trmendous, and IMO make a
challenging and fun game. However, if you are just looking for a shoot 'em up
type of contact then this type of maorale issue is less important.
> However, I have noticed some weird things. In particular, total
Again I would ask how higly she was motivated, plus as a GM I'd get her to
take reation rolls as everyone around her was blown away. On the flip side it
may be that she is worth keeping in mind and using as a chracter in
another game, if a player identifies with a figure/character then they
will
play the unit he/she commands VERY differently next time as they will
want to protect thier favourite fig.
> During the con, the house rule used by Jeff Guillion was that a unit
You should really test every time it is required, in this case it is not
uncommon for a single unit to take several tests during the same turn. This
obviosly has a radical effect on the faliure rate.
> Has this been common with other groups? Is this a problem, or do people
I'm not sure about too many veteren, try lowering the overall quality and mix
the motivation and fatigue states and see if you like games that way, if not
its back to th ebetter quality units.
> Finally, I noticed that the condition of the rest of the force on the
Still, has
> anyone found this to be an issue, and if so have you looked at it?
I generally havn't had a problem with this. In the main i try to play point of
view of the troops on the table. On a dense battlefield it is not uncommon for
individual squads to be strung out such that they are not aware of other
squads in the smae pltn, therefore if not comms are made they don't know who
has been wiped out as the CO will not relay that to them. Of course if they
can see th aother squad then this may be a problem which could be rectifiewd
by reaction tests etc.
> You wrote:
> Speaking for myself, and most of the other infantry members I know, I
Well, among us Engineers, if the junior enlisted are dead, the NCOs and
even officers have to fill in for us--the breach goes on, so to speak.
I've known platoon breaches to end when the PL and PSG are down at the breach
lighting the fuze on the bangalores to clear out the wire on the other side of
the minefield, which is strewn with the "dead" bodies of the entire platoon.
Tony spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Now I haven't played a lot of SGII as yet but if it's your
Speaking for myself, and most of the other infantry members I know, I don't
think the NCOs loved us, but I think it was in their best interest to take
care of us. If we're fragged, their chances of ending up so increase,
especially if its due to their lack of concern for the wellbeing of their
troops. This translates in SG2 to crappy motivation and morale levels. I've
seen a unit commanded by good NCOs and by good Officers who did care about the
men (or put on an excellent smoke and mirrors show if they didn't) and the
units performance was head and shoulders above that of one where the
leadership showed a lack of care. Furthermore, the unit routing has more to do
with the rank and file deciding to bugger off than anything an officer or NCO
do...for the most part. A good officer or NCO will engender much more desire
to stay and fight (if that's what they want) than one who you know doesn't
give a hoot. And losses can even make that irrelevant. The shock and violence
of combat can cause even experienced soldiers to break and bug out in fear.
All studies (that I'm aware of
> anyway) on combat behaviour show that there are two types of people,
I note too that Leader personality types don't stay privates all that
long - they either get killed or get promoted. But the point is a
unit breaking and leaving has more to do with the morale of the body of the
squad.
Now all of this is
> general and as with everything there are exceptions. The SGII morale
The points raised by Allan are fairly valid though. There is no morale effect
for overall casualties, just for new ones received. This negates the
cumulative effects of shock, loss, and stress caused by seeing buddies dying.
Even if I saw one guy I served with killed every day for a week, it would chew
my morale down. Also, there is no concept (and this is something we've
wrestled with in AD&D Battlesystem and other systems) of formation morale. As
Allan said, you can have half your platoon dead in front of you, but if they
aren't in your squad, you can stick till the cows come home.
Here's a suggestion for unit morale:
If a unit at level X in the command structure fails a morale check and loses
confidence, routes, or takes casualties (at the some
breakpoints), the unit commanding this unit at level X+1 must make a
morale check at a threat level (need to fill in some blanks here). The higher
level squad should check at a reduced threat level to reflect the 'distance of
command' that is trained into command staff and their awareness of mission
priorities.
So if a squad is eliminated from your platoon by enemy fire or routes, your
platoon commander must make a morale check. If the command squad fails a
morale check, it may drop confidence levels. If it drops some number (again
some work needed here) of confidence levels, it either halts its attack (if it
is the attacker) or orders a withdrawal (defender). If it actually routes, it
leaves the board without giving such orders. (Unless it rallies). ("Hey Sarge,
we're being overrun here... and look.... there goes Major Boniface in his
Squad Carrier.... the HQ squad is RUNNING!").
Now, you can see there are a lot of loose spots in this, but the idea might be
sound. Also, I think one of the morale triggers that might force a test would
be seeing a friendly unit in your command structure (same platoon or whatever)
route or be eliminated. This might force a relatively low threat level test.
Historically, in some situations, units just seeing another unit obliterated
have fled without firing a shot.
Tom.
/************************************************
Stuart spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I generally havn't had a problem with this. In the main i try to play
Yes, I agree to a point with you here Stu, only I don't think you or I have
operated with telemetry and personal comms like these future troopies. And the
lack of a morale for the company means that whereas in real life the commander
might say "I'm taking a beating time to withdraw" even when he really could
have still won his objective, your little lead guy will tend to ignore that
because his squad personally doesn't have to check morale. Now, players with
maturity can play this the right way, but the point of morale is that
sometimes your troops won't do what you expect, and that should apply at the
company level too.... I don't know how many WW2 accounts I've read about
generals pissed off because some formation (platoon, company, whatever)
withdrew from action or halted an advance because they felt they'd been beaten
up even when they really hadn't. Unfortuately we can play these battles up to
mutliple platoon level in SG2 without any concept of formation morale.
Tom.
/************************************************
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> The points raised by Allan are fairly valid though. There is no
Another factor is the time in which you take casualties. A platoon taking ten
casualties over the space of an hour has a better chance of driving on than
one that suffers them all within one minute.
In a message dated 8/20/98 10:16:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca writes:
<< Now I haven't played a lot of SGII as yet but if it's your officers and
> NCO's that don't care (sometimes anyway) about the rest of the squad
<< Speaking for myself, and most of the other infantry members I know, I
don't think the NCOs loved us, but I think it was in their best interest to
take care of us. If we're fragged, their chances of ending up so increase,
especially if its due to their lack of concern for the wellbeing of their
troops. This translates in SG2 to crappy motivation and morale levels. I've
seen a unit commanded by good NCOs and by good Officers who did care about the
men (or put on an excellent smoke and mirrors show if they didn't) and the
units performance was head and shoulders above that of one where the
leadership showed a lack of care.
Hear, hear. I have had the opportunity so serve with some good units and
some not-so-good units and i can tell you that leadership makes ALL the
difference.
<<Furthermore, the unit routing has more to do with the rank and file deciding
to bugger off than anything an officer or NCO do...for the most part. A good
officer or NCO will engender much more desire to stay and fight (if that's
what they want) than one who you know doesn't give a hoot. And losses can even
make that irrelevant. The shock and violence of combat can cause even
experienced soldiers to break and bug out in fear.
or anything unexpected.. hehe.. I remember the when the platoon i was in (one
that i would consider good) first encountered the SAW. we were in Panama doing
excersises with the 193rd AB Bde. and they had just received the (then) new
weapon. The sound of a new weapon threw mass confusion in our ranks and i
experienced my first "rout"...and this was in training.
my.02 Mark
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
True, but that is covered in the rules to a point in the how many casualties
have I suffered this round factor....
So if we had modifiers for losses from before the battle (which can arguably
be setup factors determining scenario morale and motivation levels), losses
within the battle (the ones that don't currently
exist - maybe with TL modifiers for the extent of the loses as allan
suggested) and the momentary losses modifiers the rules gives us, we'd have a
pretty good coverage of the casualty issues.
Tom.
/************************************************
Now I haven't played a lot of SGII as yet but if it's your officers and NCO's
that don't care (sometimes anyway) about the rest of the squad buying a farm,
well that sounds about right to me. All studies (that I'm aware of anyway) on
combat behaviour show that there are two types of people, Leaders and
followers. Followers keep their heads down, leaders tend to watcg for incoming
fire. Followers shooting in the general direction, leaders tend to aim.
Followers try not to bother anyone too much, leaders tend to kill people.
Leaders tend to do heroic and stupid things (4 VC's were won by Australians in
Vietnam all by officers and NCO's, 2 were awarded posthumusly) followers tend
to come home. Now all of this is general and as with everything there are
exceptions. The SGII morale rules have a big penalty for losing the leader and
it's not everytime that a lone squady is going to hang around. I think Jon got
it right so I have no problem with it. My 2 cents worth anyway.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 23:30 19/08/98 GMT, you wrote:
<snip>
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:31:49 -0400, Stuart Murray <smurray@aecom.yu.edu>
wrote:
> I've never really seen this unless you make everything highly motivated
All of the troops were medium motivation. The Space Marines had two units who
were regulars (leadership 1 and 2) and two that were veterans (again, 1 and 2
leadership). The Orcs had 2 veteran groups, one green group, and the rest were
regulars, with a mixture of leadership. Again, medium motivation.
I did start off with the Space Marines as tired (starting at Steady) and they
did tend to have more morale problems. Maybe this is the problem. Unless the
scenario is at the very start of the fictional campaign, the units should
start off as Steady, not Confident.
> But the morale problems of keeping a tired, poorly motivated unit on
No, I like the morale problems. I agree that this makes for a fun and
challenging game. I just didn't find morale to be that big a factor in my
games.
> Again I would ask how higly she was motivated, plus as a GM I'd get her
Medium motivation. She made a morale roll every time the unit took a casualty.
She was a pretty good leader (a 1, I think).
> You should really test every time it is required, in this case it is
In my game, I tested every time it was necessary. In Jeff's rules, he tested
once per turn, but added up ALL the TLs for that one test. For instance, if
you take your first suppression (TL1), take a casualty (TL1), and lose the
squad leader (TL4) in one turn, instead of taking 3 tests Jeff makes the unit
take one test at the end for a combined TL of 6.
Yes, this has a radical effect on failure rate: failures are more common. I
tend not to use this, as I don't like having to remember what unit has to test
and what TLs to use. However, the increased failure rate that Jeff likes about
it feels about right.
> I generally havn't had a problem with this. In the main i try to play
My feeling is that a unit should have to make a morale check whenever a
friendly unit in line-of-sight drops to broken, routs, or is wiped out.
I also envision a future battlefield where battlefield intelligence is far
greater than it is today. A small screen held by the leader of the unit tells
him the disposition of his own forces. At this point, it would be fairly easy
for pretty much anyone to know how badly the platoon is being mauled.
Even today units have this problem. As gunfire is sounded in another part of
the battlefield, soldiers start to get a little nervous even if they are in
good positions. Then, as their buddies start to crumble, the sounds get
closer, and closer, unnerving the confident unit. A bunch of guys stream past
the untouched unit, that unit becomes unnerved, and suddenly a general rout is
on.
Howdy!
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Allan Goodall wrote:
> My experiences playing Stargrunt 2 at GenCon were the first outside of
Over the last two years, we have never had any problems with the
morale rules. Our average game runs 6-10 turns (30-50 minutes of 'game
time'), and there are always units with plummeting morale. In
attack/defense games, it is not uncommon to have a unit or two drop
below routed and surrender.
> However, I have noticed some weird things. In particular, total
Yeah, Vets and Elites are for the most part unencumbered by morale problems.
That's why we play mostly with Regs, with the occaisional Vet or Green (talk
about morale problems!).
> During the con, the house rule used by Jeff Guillion was that a unit
We find it easier to tst for morale after each 'insult' (i.e. casualty, loss
of squad leader, etc.). It is fast and easy.
> I'm thinking that something along the lines of a morale test or a
Currently a unit
> takes a TL 4 test when it loses more figures than it has left at the
By the time a unit has lost half of its strength, its morale should have
dropped a bit, unless you are lucky (or a Vet). Of course, even if you are
confident at only half of your squad size, more casualties WILL gut your
morale.
> Finally, I noticed that the condition of the rest of the force on the
Still, has
> anyone found this to be an issue, and if so have you looked at it?
We've had no problem with this, as it simulates nicely part of the 'Fog of
War'. Each squad has their own fight or variables to deal with. Absract things
like 'Oh, beta squad just got hammered' may not mean a lot, especially when
you may not hear of it during the heat of battle.
Laterish!
Ken
I'm replying to this a little bit late, but I wanted to think about a few
things first...
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 13:57:44 -0400 (EDT), Kenneth Winland
> <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Yeah, Vets and Elites are for the most part unencumbered by
This is probably part of my problem... too many veterans. I'll have to make
sure most of the troops are regulars with only the occasional veteran. I
haven't used elites yet. I'll leave them for commandos and the like.
> During the con, the house rule used by Jeff Guillion was that a unit
Not necessarily. This is where I'm not crazy about the rules. Say you had a
six man squad, down to 3 men. The squad has lost half its strength. Let's
assume it is still confident. If it loses 1 more man, it tests as though it
lost a casualty. Since it still has more or the same number of men after
taking the casualty as before, the test is at TL0. It can still pass this
test. Even one more casualty will drop it from 2 men to one, which means there
are still more or the same number of men after taking that casualty as
before...
> We've had no problem with this, as it simulates nicely part of
That's where this kind of morale rule gets a bit tricky. I would say, though,
that in a modern battle this becomes more of an issue. You hear guys yelling
over the radio as someone next to them screams. In the future, your mapping
system starts to show squads as having lost men, or even obliterated. That's
bound to have a minus on morale.
I can agree with you with regard to SG2, though. I found this was more of a
problem with DS2.