Morale

[SurrenderMonkey]

According to the interviews at Wargamer, the idea - in the long run - is to enhance CS, as well as release small bug fixes and campaign packs, etc. IMHO, the single greatest enhancement that could be made to CS is a formation morale system.

I never really got hooked into Steel Panthers, but I always liked the morale system that would cause one side or the other to rout when they had taken too many losses as a unit. Do you think a similar system would be a good thing for CS?

[SGT Rice]

I agree ... the overall morale of a formation should be addressed in CS play. The way the game plays now (EFII/WFII/RS) a typical result is for both sides to fight to the point of mutual annihilation; certainly enjoyable, but verging on the ridiculous when 95% of your tanks and infantry are gone and your maneuvering a few surviving HQs and halftracks (empty of course) trying to contest the objective hexes against a similarly decimated enemy.

The Advanced Squad Leader board game had an excellent mechanism for correcting this problem - I believe it was called Battlefield Integrity - which could easily be programmed into CS. Have the morale of all units on your side reduce by one after certain casualty thresholds (20%, 30%, 40%) are reached. This would definitely promote conserving your forces over the course of a scenario, since your entire force would become combat ineffective if casualties reach 50% or thereabouts. The actual thresholds for morale loss would vary depending on the base morale of your force, e.g. 1942 German panzer units could take more punishment than their Russian opponents before they start to lose morale.

[SurrenderMonkey]

I like the Sergeant's idea.

[Hertston]

Likewise. A good point to raise, and a very promising potential solution.

[Capitaine]

Army/formation morale has always been a good concept.

[umbro]

Bear in mind that any change in the Morale system will invalidate the balance of ALL current scenarios.

[SurrenderMonkey]

ORIGINAL: umbro
Bear in mind that any change in the Morale system will invalidate the balance of ALL current scenarios.

I understand your point, and I sympathize with it to a degree. But it has been my experience that play 'balance' in these scenarios is so subjective as to be suspect. Different players have different ideas on whether the same scenario is balanced or not, and whom it favors. There really isn't a definitive criteria for balance, aside from the opinions of designers and/or players.

I recognize that a great deal of testing has been done to establish a modicum of balance in scenarios on PB#1, for example (which I have), but when I weigh these concerns against the potential benefits of a simplified morale system such as Sarge proposed, I am in favor of a morale system. The loss tolerances in CS scenarios are incredibly high - far beyond (IMO) historical reality in most cases.

Just my opinion. Perhaps I am out of touch with the mainstream.

[umbro]

Just my opinion. Perhaps I am out of touch with the mainstream.

Not at all, I am sure that at this stage the discussion should include all opinions. I just wanted to air out some of the consequences of some suggestions.

We, at theblitz, use two methods to determine balance of scenarios. The first is that Players rate scenarios after they play them on playability and balance. Also, we keep a database of results that allows members to search through the scenarios based on certain criteria. Thus, if I wanted to play a popular small scenario from WF that appeared balanced I might go to:
Scenario Search

and select one with a "First Side Win Ratio" of about 50%

[SGT Rice]

I totally agree that theblitz scenario statistics are an invaluable resource. I've consulted them quite a few times to pick scenarios I want to play. But those 'perfectly balanced' scenarios are the same ones most likely to to generate the kind of end game situation I referred to in my previous post ... with both sides ground down to virtually nothing, throwing HQs and halftracks at the objective hexes still up for grabs.

I thoroughly enjoyed those games, but a little voice in the back of my head was saying that the actual (German/Russian/American/British) commander in this battle did not face this situation ... his troops gave up the fight an hour ago when they looked around and realized that half their battalion were casualties.

For my money, I want a tactical wargame that takes it's best shot at realism, encouraging realistic tactics (like conserving your forces, which vintage CS does not do so well). Given a 'revised' set of scenarios, the community can generate new sets of gaming results ... just like theblitz membership has done for the old ones. I sincerely hope that gaming communities like theblitz take the lead in that regard, and that outstanding players like Umbro continue to demonstrate the state-of-the-art in gameplay to the rest of us mere mortals

[TAIL GUNNER]

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

According to the interviews at Wargamer, the idea - in the long run - is to enhance CS, as well as release small bug fixes and campaign packs, etc. IMHO, the single greatest enhancement that could be made to CS is a formation morale system.

I never really got hooked into Steel Panthers, but I always liked the morale system that would cause one side or the other to rout when they had taken too many losses as a unit. Do you think a similar system would be a good thing for CS?

Yeah, I like the idea of using Steel Panther's morale system for the CS games.
Units that are Suppressed, Disrupted, Routed, and Broken.....BRING IT!

As it stands, morale in CS is used for two things:
1. if a unit takes fire, will it retreat?
2. if a unit is disrupted, what are the chances for becoming un-disrupted?

Tw words describe the current morale system: TOTALLY WEAK![8|]

I like SGT Rice's idea of Battlefield Integrity, but I'd rather see it broken down to Battalion or even the Company level instead.

But I'm starting to have this sinking feeling any changes to the CS games structure is going to be very minor at best....

ChadG

[SGT Rice]

I agree with Juggalo; Battlefield integrity should be implemented all the way down to the company level. I would even take it a step further ... have a certain strength point within each formation (company, battalion, regiment, etc.) representing the command element. If that lone strength point gets taken out (randomly determined during combat resolution) then the formation takes a permanent morale hit (this was partially implemented in the Company CP optional rule).

Morale hits should further impair other unit functions, perhaps increasing the normal activity point cost of certain actions (not familiar with the Steel Panthers morale system, perhaps this has already been suggested). I don't believe we're suggesting anything terribly complex here, just a few more numbers to be crunched by the existing game engine (spoken like a true IT illiterate).

[TAIL GUNNER]

(not familiar with the Steel Panthers morale system, perhaps this has already been suggested)

I haven't played SP in years, but I can recall the basics of the brilliant morale system in that game...

Suppressed or Pinned meant the unit was taking fire, seeking cover or laying low.....higher morale units would shrug off suppression easier....
AFVs taking direct fire could be Buttoned....indirect artillery fire would also cause an AFV to Button-Up (would LOVE to see that in CS; arty fire on AFVs is pretty much useless as it is now)
All this basically meant the unit affected had less movement, and less firepower...

There was no Disrupted state for units in SP.....was there???
man, I'm getting old....[&:]

Retreating I can't quite remember....I believe the unit affected was not under player control, and would seek the nearest covering terrain until it Rallied...

Routed or Broken units were also not player controlled, and were busting ass to get off the battlefield...

Would this work in CS games? I think so...I'd definitely replace it with the ridiculous Endless Retreats that are in the game now...

Something like:
1. Unit takes fire
2. Losses calculated, morale loss calculated (modified by terrain and defensive improvements)
3. If losses, morale has a higher chance of being lost.
4. Suppression may occur without morale or strength point(SP) loss - unit suffers minus 25% offensive firepower and movement but gains +25% defense (signifies unit is taking cover) - unit cannot assault (This rule would only last one turn unless the unit took a morale point loss)
5. Disruption may only occur with SP OR morale point loss - rule as it currently stands; minus 50% offensive firepower and movement loss - unit cannot assault
6. Retreating would occur when a unit reaches '3' for morale - non-player controlled; unit seeks nearest covering terrain
7. Routed would occur when a unit reaches '1' for morale - non-player controlled; unit seeks to exit the battlefield at Double-Time; will Surrender if closer to enemy units than friendly units or if adjacent to an enemy unit.

Granted, if something like this were implemented, it would totally whack the play-balance of probably every scenario like umbro suggested......sure would like to test that theory though![:D]

I would think it would slow down the pace of the game, and make it less of a slaughter-fest.....

ChadG

[Nebfer]

I allways though it was strange that the AI would Still attack after half "combat group" was wiped out. I think after the battalion has sufferd ~30% losses it shuld fall back and regroup, and when it suffers 60% losses it shuld try to retreate.