Re: [SG2] morale/CC

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:53:29 -0500, "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
wrote:

>	Morale is weak in SG2. Some people like having a game where
units
>don't route with 10% casualties like real units sometimes will. Some
people
>like fighting to the last man. And others don't. (Me included). 

Me, as well. 

>Allan took
>some good steps towards remedying the problem with morale. There was a
>cascading morale rule suggestion (don't recall if Allan was using it)
but it
>seemed like too much rolling to me. 

No, I don't. Thought about something like it but discarded it in SG2 in
favour
of scenario specific rules. 

>If one platoons
>morale reaches a point where they refuse to advance or will pull out,
then
>test other platoon commanders for morale (and possibly the company
>commander). 

This is an interesting idea. At what point to you test morale for a
platoon?
You could generate platoon commander tests in a similar manner to squad
tests.
Test when a squad breaks, routs, or is destroyed. Test at a higher level
when
a certain percentage break, rout, or are destroyed. Perhaps do a rally
test if
a squad rallies. I'm not sure, this is all just scream of consciousness
stuff.

>History has plenty of stories of units that rallied, returned to a
fight
>after an initial fright/retreat, and gave a good accounting of
themselves. 

Oh, definitely... 

>1) Why do you retreat from CA before you even know the enemy will reach
you?

I hadn't thought of that, but that's an interesting point.

>2) Why do whole units retreat or stay? (I think this is simplicity
reasons,
>but in real life some retreat, some stay to the bitter end from time to
>time)

Well, the entire game is based on whole units where morale is concerned.
Whole
squads do not break and rout like they do in SG2. You get one guy
panicking,
another slinking off, a third refusing to move, etc. An argument can be
made
that you don't need morale in SG2. You basically only have casualties,
but
some are through wounds and death, and some are through slinking away.
Of
course, then you have to have a mechanism for getting some guys back in
a
reorg. I've seen this in other games, mostly regiment + ACW games. I'm
not
suggesting it for SG2. SG2 would be a LOT slower if you had to deal with
every
figure running away or cringing.

So, in general, the game deals with morale at a squad level. All the
figures
stay or run. They all find your morale collapse in stages.  

>3) Why do you have to be base-to-base when close assault is grenades
and
>high volume fire at close range? Would 2" away, 4" away or 6" away not
be
>close enough? <Make ALL combats under 6" close assaults???>

Okay, I checked the rules. A combat move must be sufficient to allow "at
least
some" of the figures to come within base-to-base contact with the other
squad.
If you look at all the other rules, distance is measured from the centre
of a
squad to the centre of a squad. In close combat, it's essentially from
some
undisclosed number of lead elements to another undisclosed number of
lead
elements. 

It was intended as a 25mm game, so technically (on a 1" diameter base)
each
figure in Close Assault is essentially 10 m apart or closer. But, more
importantly, the squad centres can be as much as about 6" apart (3"
radius for
both squad centres, if you assume an evenly spread out squad spread out
the
full 6" integrity range). So... if you look at regular ranged fire
measurement
of centre of squad to centre of squad, you can actually have a close
assault
at about a range of 60 metres. You certainly do NOT have to have your
squad's
centre actually run right up onto the centre location of the other
squad.

>4) Why do you find your Nike's when fleeing? Or when advancing against
>opposition? You move far faster than you might in an unopposed advance. 

Well, while fleeing is easy. You tell troops to pull back and they will,
often
with uncontrolled results. No one wants to be left behind. Now, why
faster
than an unopposed advance? Well, first off, an unopposed advance is
rarely
known to be unopposed. Second, I think this may be a throw back to
charging
into melee. Certainly troops in the 19th and earlier centuries rushed
forward
very fast for a charge, but they always ended up disorganized at best. 

This is just a possible idea based on a guess at Jon's thinking.

>5) Why can you pull up short and shoot the crap out of your pursuers
without
>any sort of leadership test to rally your routing troops?

Well, that's a very good point.

>6) Why is the retreat 6" and the follow through a combat move?

Probably to put a random factor into the rushing and retreating system.
Attackers may be able to catch up to fleeing troops or not. I prefer my
suggestion of both sides making combat moves.

>7) Why are odds not accounted for in the close assault combat? <I mean
the
>actual fighting, not the die roll to stand>. One elite trooper can
pretty
>much slaughter 20 untrained soldiers.... or 2000... if he rolls a 5 or
>better...

I think we all have some issue with this. It was probably to make things
easy
to calculate, but it bothers me too.

Another weirdness is that the side that loses the most casualties, not
the
greater percent, tests for withdrawing first. If you have a squad of 10
figures attacking a squad of 5, and the attacker loses 5 figures (50%
casualties) and the defender loses 4 (80% casualties) the attacker still
tests
first to see if they pull out of the assault. 

>8) Does anyone else notice that CA rules seem to have been written for
>assaults on fixed positions/points of tactical significance? 

I usually find, instead of assaulting units out in the open, that CA is
used
to push figures out of covered positions. CA is often used to push
troops out
from behind a wall than out in the open.

But the way the rules work (point 7 above) tied with cover, it is easier
to
succeed out in the open. I just don't usually do it, for whatever
reason. 

>9) Why are units running from close combat still combat effective? I'd
think
>a re-org might be necessary as a first action after a retreat from CA.
Heck,
>if the retreat was involuntary, many times in history, soldiers have
>discarded weapons, armour, ammo, packs, webgear, etc. when trying to
beat
>feet from an onrushing enemy. 

I was thinking that a Confidence Test is needed during a retreat
(voluntary or
otherwise) and if failed the unit should lose a CL AND panic (or
possibly just
panic). This was the great fear of retreating a unit during the American
Civil
War. They feared that "retrograde movements" would demoralize the men
and lead
to panic. It was, in fact, a primary factor for why Burnside continued
his mad
assault on Fredericksburg in 1862 (and partly why Lee assaulted Cemetary
Ridge
in 1863). We're talking corps level actions, but the thinking is the
same.
Soldiers who retreat are not easily reigned in. 

I haven't tried it, but the possibility of a panic (can't do any actions
unless removed, possibility of CL loss during removal) might work well
to
simulate disorder.

>Anyway, I can see areas to work on here. 

Yep.

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
 you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
 brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan,