Re: Low Tech Scenarios..morale rules

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> You think so? I'm not sure, but if you look back historically, many
> units have broken with less than 30% casualties. And even starting an
> engagement depleted (a la Eastern Front WW2) can really impact
> morale. Both long and short term losses have impact, and I hate to
> see units fighting to 50 or 75% casualties when that rarely seems to
> have happened (I did say rarely, not never) in the real world.
>

I actually I was less concerned withthe actual percentage of loss (I
threw out any number) than I was with the time span in whcih they are
incurred. You are right, most units will pack it in long before 50%
losses.

> No morale system is perfect. And no morale system that encourages
> players to do suicidal things is good either. And very few morale
> systems capture the 'momentum' of battles (the short term ebb and
> flow of morale with events - could be casualties, could be a raise in
> morale due to your unit overrunning a tough enemy). But that is such
> a debatable set of rules, its probably not worth the agony.

Do you remember that game TACOPS? Not a bad game but it had NO morale
rules. The designer thought that players didn't want to be bothered with
them PLUS since you can't quantify maorale exactly it owuld be
unrealistic. Of course my argument was no morale rules at all was ten
times more unrealsitic than having something.