Re: [FT] Ship morale

On 19-Jul-99 at 11:52, bbrush@rev.state.ne.us (bbrush@rev.state.ne.us)
wrote:
> JMO, but you paint a tad too extreme picture of military discipline.
> 
> If a ship is no longer an effective fighting unit (i.e. massive
damage)
> then I would see an admiral not only not denying the request, but
ordering
> it if necessary.  A ship is a very expensive piece of equipment and if
it
> was the difference between saving a ship to repair and having a bunch
of
> wreckage to clean up, I would expect that everyone involved (except
for the
> guys shooting at them) would rather have a ship.
> 

Yes, I agree with this, a good Admiral should order that ship to drop
out, but that is not a crap shoot morale roll.	And sometimes it may
be a case where the Admiral needs that ship in even with the major
damage.

> I believe you are the one that mentioned the Honor Harrington series
and
> stated that you could only think of one instance where a ship broke
from
> formation and ran for it.  You are partly correct.  There is only one
> example of a comparatively undamaged ship breaking out, the Pavel
Young
> incident.  There are however numerous mentions of SD's and DN's
dropping out
> of the wall due to battle damage.  Presumably without orders, but
required
> by the situation.  I would also humbly submit that however important
the
> battles are that are portrayed in the books they are a small fraction
of the
> number of  battles that would have actually had to take place.

There is a major difference between a ship dropping out because it is
unable to follow the Admirals orders and due to dropping morale.  In
the "unable" area it is still basicly the Admirals decision, either he
can ammend his orders to stay with the problem ships, or he can leave
them behind.

> I guess my motivation for this is that I have a philosophical problem
with
> a ship ALWAYS staying in the fight until it's dead.

I agree with this also, I just don't like the particular mechanic
that is being proposed.  I think a better one would be any ship
completely destroyed counts as double it's NPV for victory conditions.

>  The people running
> that ship have the same self-preservation instinct as any
ground-pounder,
> and it's captain knows that while a ship may need to be sacrificed for
> victory staying in a fight when you no longer have anything to
contribute is
> foolish and wasteful. 

There are many scenarios where that lone cripple would be ordered to
stay and fight.

IE, been left as gaurd for that civilian transports full of doctors and
med supplies while the rest of the task group went off to deal
with the bad guys, only the bad guys managed to slip one in close to
the convoy.  Hold him while while the fleet comes back at max.

> 
> I also think that the "Strike the Colors" rule is perhaps too harsh in
that
> you have a one third chance of losing a ship at every threshold check
(I'm
> guessing, but I would surmise from your comments you don't use that
rule)
> and I would find that withdrawing from the battle would be much more
likely
> than surrendering. Another problem with it, IMO is that it makes no
> allowance for the quality of the captain.

> Well I guess I'm just going to have to test my ideas and see if they
go too
> far or not far enough.  Those of you who are happy with the perfect
> control over your  fleets are welcome to ignore them, but IMO it's not
> terribly realistic. 

I would rather have the perfect control rules rather than an crap shoot.

I know we fight many battles of the type "two fleets happen to encounter
each other in space" type, but in reality those should rarely occur.
The battles you would see would be fixed point things.	You see
incompetant
Admirals and CO's making mistakes, but seeing someone turn tail and
run because of morale is going to occur to infrequently to really 
model it.  If your fleet is fighting as a unit removing your piece
without the Admirals consent could well cost the battle.

Just as an example, current carrier escorts are tasked with attempting
to imitate a carrier to draw fire off of the carrier.  When the weapons
they are expecting are tactical nukes they know before they start their
survivability chances will be slightly above 0.  Same thing with the
destroyers people put out to soak up salvo missles.  If it was a war
most governments would do exactly the same thing.  A 1 hull box no
weapon speed 2 CL can draw off any number of SM's if maneuvered
properly.
I can't see making the CO cut and run when he knows there are more
lives than his and his crews at stake.

Roger Books (Who had a destroyer surrender in my last battle rather
	     than see the crew die.)