Re: [FT] Ship morale

I don't think you've really thought about the rules as I proposed them. 
Let me
run the numbers for you.

Assuming most ships would have a Leadership of 1 (veteran) they would
pass the
first test automatically (1+ on a d6), would pass the second test on a
2+, and
pass the third test on a 3+.   An elite ship would not even have to test
until
the third threshold check.  This is hardly a "crap shoot".  Using the
"Strike
the flag" mechanic you lose the ship on a 5+ on a d6, although someone
stated
that he thought you only checked on the 2nd and 3rd threshold checks.
Apparently nobody uses that rule though.

You seem to be looking at this as though an Admiral does and should have
"god-like" powers of command.  They don't.  In actuallity there are
people on
those other ships that want to live just as much as anyone else.  As
long as the
ship is ok the captain is going to follow orders, but if the ship is
within
seconds of being blown out of the sky then the captain will think much
harder
about how his country is best served.  I'm sure if the admiral had his
way every
ship would fight until it was dead rather than retreat or surrender. 
After all
if they surrender then the enemy just got a ship.

As far as your description  of how screening units are used to soak up
missile
hits, you are correct that this tactic is used, but I have philosophical
problems with it too.  (As well as the fact that i think missiles are a
little
too effective in the FT universe)   Given the technology of the FT
universe I
would expect a Naval design office to be able to come up with ship
designs
capable of either a) severely degrading a missile salvo's effectiveness
(increase PDS, ADFC, etc), or b) absorbing the damaged caused by it. 
That's
JMO, but I think most navies find that replacing ships and crews is
pretty
expensive and finding a way to avoid having to do that is high on their
list of
priorities.

You state several scenarios where these morale rules would not be
applicable,
but if you are playing a scenario, then it would certainly be within
reason to
adjust them to meet your needs.

I think you are looking too much of this as being a mechanism to model
cowardice.  It's not.  It's proposed mechanism for how to model the
presence of
a living breathing captain on board each ship.	A captain that has to
make
decisions which affect the suvival of himself and his crew, not to
mention the
strength of his country's navy.   The basic question that is being
answered when
the Leadership roll is being made is:  Is the ship still in good enough
shape to
fight in the opinion of the captain (not the admiral)?	For the most
part a good
captain is going to stay in there until his admiral tells him to leave,
but
captains are only human and sometimes they are going to decide their
ship has
had enough and attempt to save it to fight another day.  Sometimes a
captain is
going to have a difference of opinion from the Admiral.  This may get
him
court-martialed, but at least his crew will be alive to attend his
court-martial.

You state that you don't like the mechanic being proposed.  That is
perfectly
acceptable to me, you don't have to use it.  Personally I'm not a real
big fan
of of victory points.  IMO it should be fairly obvious who got the
better end of
the fight.  VP's all too often result in someone doing something that
results in
a lot of VP's gained, but at the expense of what is tactically sound,
especially
at the end of the game.

Brushman

Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> on 07/19/99 12:29:16 PM

Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
							      
							      
							      
  To:	       gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU			      
							      
  cc:	       (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue) 	      
							      
							      
							      
  Subject      Re: [FT] Ship morale			      
  :							      


<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.