[ACTA:SF] Discussion about Morale as it relates to combat

[billclo]

I've thinking, and wanted to bring up the issue of morale and how it relates to starship combat. This was brought on by a discussion elsewhere (http://www.star-ranger.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9626 ). I have also been playtesting a scenario that I submitted for publication.

The issue is basically at what point are ship captains liable to stop obeying orders and put self-preservation above continuing to fight? In the scenario I was playtesting, 7 of 10 Klingon ships died, with the remaining 3 ships had substantial damage. I had the Klingons break off of their attack runs when they took 50% casualties, and 2 more ships died during the pursuit phase. While I did include a provision in the victory conditions a rise in the victory level if they achieved 2 objectives, the game was winnable achieving only one. I was trying to figure a way to justify a 100% loss rate, ie, a suicide-mission vs ship self-preservation.

So at some point in the battle, what about the idea of each ship's captain having to roll to keep their morale high enough to obey orders vs breaking and running for it? I would think the dice roll should kick in at some percentage of the original force lost, but I don't where that number should be. Add a modifier if all ships with the Command Trait are lost? Also, there probably ought to be some modifier for each Empire; the Klingons might be willing to take higher losses to achieve the objective vs the Feds or Gorns, for example.

If we can come to some sort of concensus, would this be a worthy addition to a future rules edition? I suspect it will be moot, unless we can get ADB to agree to this (I have no idea what their opinion of this subject would be), but I thought it might make for some interesting discussion.

***edited to clarify it's ship captains who might stop obeying orders and run for it. ***

 

[storeylf]

Ships don't disobey orders or think of self preservation. That is a crew thing. But 99% of the crew have no choice in the matter - if the ship is in combat all they can do is do their best and hope that they survive. If the senior officers are commanding their ships to fight then that is what happens. Are those officers as likely to say 'sod this' as the lowly engineer who may not even have much idea as to how the battle is even going from his position down in engineering?


I can't really think of morale/routing as being something that is all that applicable to fleet engagemnts, in land battles where individual soldiers can act on their own thoughts it has a huge effect, but in fleet actions where you have little ability to do such a thing it is less relevant. At some point the commander of the fleet may give the order to disengage as best as possible given the hopleness of the battle, but it is extremly rare for individual ships/captains to just turn and run of their own volition.

 

[billclo]

Ships don't disobey orders or think of self preservation. That is a crew thing. But 99% of the crew have no choice in the matter - if the ship is in combat all they can do is do their best and hope that they survive. If the senior officers are commanding their ships to fight then that is what happens. Are those officers as likely to say 'sod this' as the lowly engineer who may not even have much idea as to how the battle is even going from his position down in engineering?

Sorry, to be 100% clear, I am referring to the captain of a ship saying "heck with this, break and run". I realize it ought to be fairly rare, but highly dependent on circumstances.

To be even more clear, in the scenario I was playtesting, it was clear that while the second objective was obtainable, it was pretty much a suicide mission, and that probably none of the ships would survive. This is especially relevant in that in this game, disengagement is more difficult than in other SFU games.

Just to see what would happen, I had the Klingons break and run when they had taken over 50% casualties. 3 of 5 ships trying to escape made it, and they were all nearly crippled. When you run for it, and your shields are weak/gone, it's a choice of All Power to Engines (if you can) and gain a mere 4" on your attackers (unless they go APE as well, and phaser you down), or Boost Shields and fire only phasers and still only move 12" towards the edge. Trying Max Warp now just ensures that every ship within 20" sidles up to you and phasers you down since you can only go 6" straight. I've only had a ship escape with Max Warp Now once, and the ship had only light damage at that...

I haven't been able to dredge up much information on how to quantify morale as it pertains to individual ships vs the morale of the commanding admiral (in this case it's the player(s)) for example.

 

[Ben2]

You could write this into scenario rules. Would make for some interesting scenarios.

 

[billclo]

You could write this into scenario rules. Would make for some interesting scenarios.

Oh it surely would, but if I intend to get them published, I believe such special rules would need both Steve Cole's approval as well as Matt's. I have already had one scenario turned down because I invented both too many special rules and used some units that have not yet been introduced into the game... won't make that error again.

 

[Ben2]

That's why all the scenarios I've submitted to Matt have been nicely generic. That way you can use them with any fleet. Even then only one's come out in something.

 

[billclo]

That's why all the scenarios I've submitted to Matt have been nicely generic. That way you can use them with any fleet. Even then only one's come out in something.

My scenario was setup as a "historic" scenario, but it also had several optional variations where one could change around the Empires involved, or change forces/points available to give it not only applicability to pretty much any combination of Empires, but more replay value. But we shall see if is published or not. It still makes a fun scenario to play at home or conventions.