Re: Stargrunt 2 Morale Questions and Comments

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
>fresh troops.	Try mixing motivation levels and troop fatigue, they
really
>make a huge difference.

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
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.

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
to
>take reation rolls as everyone around her was blown away. 

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
not
>uncommon for a single unit to take several tests during the same turn.
>This obviosly has a radical effect on the faliure rate.

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
>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.

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.

Allan Goodall	       agoodall@sympatico.ca

"We come into the world and take our chances
 Fate is just the weight of circumstances
 That's the way that Lady Luck dances
 Roll the bones." - N. Peart