Morale In Battlefield/World War 2 Evolution

[LaranosTZ]

Now, this has been kind of a topic that I've seen hopped over and mentioned a little in some of the threads I've been reading, but perhaps we should bring that to the fore.

In Starship Troopers, the only morale was the 'command' radius, an effect that once you were out, restricted you to doing nothing but 'reacting' to an enemy action. In SST this is explained that the communications are good enough, and troops disciplined enough that a trooper with no immediate command is disciplined enough to wait for orders and simply deal with threats.

I'm not sure as a concept this necessarily works for a setting such as Battlefield Evolution, or a World War 2 Setting (or even for some armies in SST,) as there are plenty of examples of troops fleeing during the heat of battle. Not everyone has rock-hard discipline after all.

I'm kind of curious/worried about this being reflected in the Evolutions system, as I'm also sure many others are, since this could be a signifigant game mechanic that adds an element of realism to the game.

 

[Hiromoon]

This is handled by the Supression system in BF-Ev...

 

[weasel_fierce]

I think the concern is more, will there be different levels of morale ? This seems like a potential weak point

 

[Hiromoon]

Why would it be a potential weak point? Seriously, are you going to want to play a game where, if you're MEA for example with the civilian mobs, portions of your army deciding that "I don't like being shot at, so I'm going home" and then buggering off?


Besides, they have rules for:
- Army breaking
- Supression
- Flinching

 

[weasel_fierce]

Is that any different from a game where your guys die like flies, because they dont wear armour, and are outgunned ?

Morale and willingness to fight is propably the only thing that actually matters, when troops are compared. To a certain point, a rifle is just a rifle. A veteran with an AK47 will outdo the recruit with a whatever new gadget they gave him. If the rules dont even make an attempt to cover it, that seems a curious omission. I mean, even 40K (propably the weakest set of rules available), has a rudimentary morale rule.

If your troops has poor morale, you likely have more of them (since its a points driven game), and you plan around it. Once a squad begins to waver, you bring up the reinforcements, shell the enemy with mortars or whatever, to take the heat off, so they can fall back and recoup. More interesting, in my opinion, than "oh look, another 20 militia men charged a tank and got mown down. I hope these 20 will do better"

EDIT: Suppression is a good step, at least if it can be scaled to different troop types.

 

[Hiromoon]

You're trying to hang a system on something that really should be common sense, Weasel. You're not going to send 20 militamen against a tank unless they have something that can potentially hurt it. It'd be a waste of a perfectly good unit. If we're going to do a morale system beyond the bare bones we have in place, might as well put in a heroics system letting squads operate on their own because of "equipment failure".

 

[weasel_fierce]

If the victory objective of the scenario being played involves hanging on to a particular hill, or its just a suicide rush to see if one of the guys with an RPG manages to get a lucky hit, while his comrades get mowed down, then it happens.

If we're going to do a morale system beyond the bare bones we have in place, might as well put in a heroics system letting squads operate on their own because of "equipment failure".

Im not sure I follow this at all.


Overall though, its not like the game wont work as written. But it seems a very curious, deliberate omission, given the subject matter, as well as reducing the number of ways to meaningfully distinguish troops on the table

 

[Hiromoon]

That's the trick...effectively modern armies, especially since we're being balanced out with points, will typically quit the field if reduced below effective strength. Not before hand unless under orders.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I doubt you can find any modern force that will accept 75% casualties before bugging out. For a platoon to company level fight, that would result in the unit effectively ceasing to exist as a combat formation.
History and reality simply doesnt carry this out.


This sounds more like modern day warhammer 40K, than anything

Ah well. Regardless of how it all comes out, I'll still be buying the miniatures. They look sweet

 

[Hiromoon]

Weasel, the breaking point / army shattered rules solve this. And that's models on the table. Say you have two or so units of Marines on the field, and are holding an EFV with another squad of Marines sitting off the table as reserves. Now, say you're running with the full squads for the Marines, giving you 18 models on the field. You'll break after you loose what? 13 or 14 of those models? Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Effectively, you'd want to retreat before taking even ten casualties... but this represents the bond between soldiers, not wanting to leave their comrades behind. Sure, MEA might not perscribe to that... and I doubt you'd mention it to the PLA, but for the Europeans and the Americans?


Edit: Also, it doesn't descriminate between Dead and Wounded. If you'll remember back to the Black Hawk Down incident, where US Army Rangers fought to a stand still a numerically superior force while sustaining 'Not Combat Ready Status' casualties, where a good number of soldiers had at least one injury.

 

[weasel_fierce]

yeah, like I mentioned in another thread, the break points is something that can easily be used to differentiate armies on the table.

I guess in the end we'll see once the real book gets here

 

[Hiromoon]

For the initial releases it's easier to go with the 75% casualty figure than army specific breaking points.


As for the Heroic's bit:

Start of Game, roll 1d6 per unit:
1 - Heroic: The unit operates semi-autonomously
2 - 5 - Normal, plain old unit
6 - "We ARE Delta Force": The unit operates autonomously.

Semi-Autonomous Chart: Roll a 1d6 for the Heroic unit each time you try to give it a command. If you choose not to, the default command is 'Engage the Enemy'.
1 - - Refer to the Commander for more orders
2 - 3 - "Hold for Further Instructions" - Unit holds position unless under fire previous turn. If under fire, the unit makes a bee-line to nearest cover.
4 - 5 - "We're going in!!" - Unit moves towards another point futher in chosen by the player. This isn't the charge of the Light Brigade though, and the unit will pick the safest/easiest route to follow.
6 - - "I'm sorry sir, you're cutting out." - The unit continues what it was doing the previous turn.

Autonomous Chart: -To Be Announced-

 

[xeoran]

Edit: Also, it doesn't descriminate between Dead and Wounded. If you'll remember back to the Black Hawk Down incident, where US Army Rangers fought to a stand still a numerically superior force while sustaining 'Not Combat Ready Status' casualties, where a good number of soldiers had at least one injury.

That also had to do with the fact that they were trapped. Its not like they could have surrendered. A better example would be the Russians in WW2.

 

[Hiromoon]

Or how about the Korean War?

 

[TabletopWarrior]

From my viewpoint, the BF:Evo system handles morale in the background. But it is still there. In addition to effects of suppression, I think of removed models as wounded, killed, or folks who have simply lost the will to fight. They have run away, hunkered down, whatever. But you are not going to get them back into the fight in the limited time frame of this engagement.

Since this is up close fighting, there is no time for units to run away, rally and return to the fight. If we were fighting a battalion level WWII engagement over the course of a day, yes there have been examples of companies that broke, ran, and were brought back into the fight.

But as a platoon leader, I have read WWII accounts where your command just sort of melts away. But that night they manage to collect up the stragglers and the folks who went to the battalion aid station with minor injuries and realize that their casualties were not nearly as high as it seemed during the middle of the engagement.

I think this game does a good job of portraying platoon level combat. I don't think there is a need to add an additional morale system.

TW

 

[weasel_fierce]

Or how about the Korean War?

korea (and any other conflict we can think of) gives us plenty of examples of both sides.

Troops fighting to the death (there were quite a few last stands, as well as the much-fabled "human wave" ), as well as GI's bugging out at the sound of a T34.

Heck, look at accounts in Iraq where we find wildly different accounts for the same basic "army". Some insurgents fight to the bitter end, and has to be rooted out with rockets and gunships, others run away from a group of crazy scotsmen fixing bayonets (admittedly, this was a rogue accident but definately a wargame moment )


I really like the tables you posted, btw. Great stuff for reducing the level of direct control you have, which I think is important. They add a lot of fun too, since you cant be entirely sure whats going to happen, once the shooting starts

 

[Darkghost]

I think the Breaking/Shattering rules could be adjusted. Maybe after the army is below 50% strength each unit takes a morale-type check and if it fails, flees. It shouldn't be too hard to pass though. Then once its below 25% strength, the check becomes almost impossible, and re-occurs every turn. The game ends when no units are left. The check would of course be different for each army.

 

[Voracioustigger]

Seriously think about this guys. These games represent small skirmishes. Even if you are absolutely terrified, are you just going to run away? No, you'll duck into cover and hide until it's safe to run.

Now consider how long these battles last... 6 turns. Considering that a MI trooper walks 8" a turn, and that's what? About 60feet (20m)? Let's say that's a slow walk (moving from cover to cover, ducking down from incoming fire), so they're moving about 2mph (that's REALLY slow). So over the course of a battle, your troops could move a max of 360ft. If my math is right, that puts the average skirmish at 2 minutes. Sure, we can maybe add a little time for giving and receiving orders, but this is really just a small skirmish, so by the time anyone is terrified enough to run, and then gets their wits about them to actually do so, the battle is probably already over.

 

[weasel_fierce]

That applies if we assume that the game will only run at 2-3 squads per side (and depending on the table setup, a firefight between two platoons can easily take a while, in real life time).

However, its been mentioned that the rules will support far larger battles.


Like I've mentioned before, if there's provisions for different levels of "resistance" to suppression or suppression effects, then Im fine. Its the notion that every soldier reacts the same that I find unappealing.

 

[LaranosTZ]

I don't understand why Hiromoon seems to be so offended by even the suggestion of 'morale' in this wargame. (Or if you're not, I do think you may wish to take a second look at the 'tone' of your posts hiro.)

I am not trying to make some warhammer knockoff rule, but in practically every game out there that tries to simulate a battle scenario, there are rules for units to become ineffective, and to run off the board.

The mechanic makes sense, and also closely resembles what can happen in real life. There are situations where morale breaks, and people run. The russians during WW2 are a very good example of this. You've said 'no one would send 20 infantry guys against a tank with no chance of winning' but the russians did that many times over during that conflict. There are even records of conscripts being ordered to jump into the tracks to try to jam the mechanism.

I'm not looking for some esoteric leadership system, I'm even willing to propose a system that can reflect a morale system that I think makes sense.

A. This rule applies only to units that are currently 'out of command'.

B. You roll a certain die at the beginning of the turn (and this can be changed for the different armies to reflect greater levels of discipline, or even different units depending on the unit cards; for example, 1D6 for disciplined units, or as much as 2d6 or 2d10 for untrained militia,) if you roll equal or less then the number of models left in the unit, the unit functions normally out of command, they stand in place and can only react as they wait for orders.

C. If you roll more then the number of models present in the unit, the unit must use both of it's actions as move actions to retreat to their deployment zone.

D. If the unit ends an action in range of a unit that can command them (ie, a lieutenant or other independent leader) then the unit regains command as normal.

Also please note, this is not a knee jerk post without any playing experience, I have been playing SST for a while, and this was always something that sort of made me scratch my head. In many ways this is reflected in SST, the Cap Troopers were well trained, disciplined, and never ran from a fight, but the light armored troopers were not nearly as disciplined, and even in mongoose's own sourcebooks they describe scenes and reports where some of them broke and attempted to run. (They never got very far, but it did happen.)