Further Thoughts on Morale. . .

Another old Knoetel illustration from our period of focus.

Morale, as I understand the concept, is the psychological state of a body of troops.  Morale ratings in Call It Macaroni attempt to reflect the training, skill, and fortitude of units in the face of contact with the enemy.  Troops with a better morale rating -- guards, grenadier battalions, veterans -- last longer in battle, remain under control for longer, and are easier for officers and NCOs to sort out and rally.  Lower quality troops -- average, green, or militia formations for example -- less so.  A unit's morale is a fluid thing that can change as battle wears on, new and unforeseen situations arise, and casualties mount. 

That said, my thinking is that lower quality units would also be more brittle and more likely to succumb sooner to the effects of what is happening around and to them.  In addition, it seems that it would be harder for officers and NCOs to restore order (re-dress), rally, or exhort lower quality units to face the threat of possible close combat with an approaching enemy, either infantry at the run, or cavalry at a fast trot.  Higher quality units, by comparison,  should be able to take more punishment, function in accordance with orders longer, and pass morale checks more easily it seems to me based on what I've read by Christopher Duffy and Brent Nosworthy.  See the key quotes I pulled from various texts in an previous post.

The percentage of losses suggested below reflect the point(s) at which command, control, cohesion, order, and overall effectiveness as a fighting force -- due to mounting casualties among officers, NCOs, musicians, and men -- become critical and require a check to determine if a particular unit continues behaving as it has up to that point, or if it falters and starts acting in a way not in accordance with its original orders.   Will a unit keep fighting, withdraw, or disintegrate all together in the face of continued enemy fire or an enemy charge and the threat of close combat?  

[Keep in mind that we're talking about the gaming table here rather than claims of strict 'realism'.  I've been very careful not to use or make claims to the term.].

Now, before anyone tips over the figurative wargaming table mid-game in heated disagreement, as apparently once happened in the distant hobby past (Decorum prevents me from mentioning names, but some of you will, doubtless, have read of the episode). . .

All of this is very much a working draft, at best, and based on pretty limited reading on my part, if I'm honest, with no actual professional military education or military service, and no aspirations to publish whatever rule set emerges from the related machinations [as fascinating as the mental exercise is].  

I make no pretense of  coming at all of this from an informed kriegspiel approach, ala von Reisswitz et al, and have chosen to go in the direction of a [relatively simple] game like hobby doyens Don Featherstone, Stu Asquith, and more recently Howard Whitehouse with A Gentleman's War.  [A work that I find charming in its approach to playing games with toy soldiers].  

 As one regular reader pointed out a day or two ago in an email, rules are very personal things, and what works for one person may not necessarily work for another.  That individualized approach is, besides the reading, lovingly painted toy soldiers, collecting, and scratch-built scenery, one of the unmitigated joys of our hobby.  We aren't dealing with fixed rules like in Chess, Yahtzee, or Monopoly for example.  

I continue to tinker with everything shared based on further reading, thought, and discussions here, via email, and through a couple of online forums.  My aim is to develop a (hopefully fun) game that forces players to address some of the uncertainties and frustrations that commanders might face during battle, when things do not always go according to plan.  The whole activity is turning out to be a highly interesting exercise in its own right.  With that in mind, I am happy for further constructive feedback should any of you GD of S visitors feel like weighing in.  Please do.  I am all ears as they say.

-- Stokes   

5a) Morale Checks

Troop Quality	Check Morale When. . .	To Pass Morale Check	Also check morale for any crucial situations that might arise for example:
A – Guard/Elite/Grenadiers	-Reduced by 30%	2, 3, 4, 5, 6	* When a unit is surprised, shocked, or shaken (attacked in flank or rear) *To close w/enemy from halfway point of a charge OR meet a charge (without flight). *To pursue enemy after a close combat breaks off. *Any other situations players deem appropriate.
B – Veteran Line/Artillery/Jaeger	-Reduced by 25%	3, 4, 5, 6
C – Average Line of Major Powers/ Freibattalions/ Freicorps/ Croats	-Reduced by 20%	4, 5, 6
D – Smaller States’ Line (i.e. Reischsarmee)	-Reduced by 15%	5, 6
E – Miliz/Garnison/Burgerwehr/1740s Panduren	-Reduced by 10%	6

5b) Compulsory Moves

If unit(s) fail morale check, or fails to rally above, toss a D6 to determine what happens:
6	Advance. . .  A confused, spontaneous advance ½ move forward by unit center, right, or left flank (dice to decide which)
5	Halt. . .  Halt current activity for one turn.  Order and cohesion still intact.
4	Falters. . .  Retires ½ move to rear by unit center, right, or left flank (dice to decide which).  Order still intact.
3	Retire. . .  Retire one move to rear.  Order (cohesion and discipline) still intact.  Officers and NCOs sort unit out and return to fray next turn.
2	Retreat. . .  Retreat in disorder two moves to rear.  Cohesion and discipline temporarily limited.  Unit may attempt to rally in two turns.
1	Rout. . .  Rout in panic and disorder to nearest table edge.  Unit broken.  Cohesion and discipline lost.  No rallying.  Remove from game when it reaches table edge.