Jump to content


Photo

Force Morale


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 07 December 2008 - 10:10 AM

Played the Wake Island Sweep scenario to try to get everyone back up to speed with GQ3, and as the GM, I decreed we would play with the TSC Force Morale rule, to see how it worked.The CA Aoba is the IJN force flagship. She sank without ever failing morale.What happens then?

#2 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 07 December 2008 - 12:59 PM

Good question. I would have a morale check for the division based on their best current morale to see whether they fail. This may seem harsh, but losing one's leader does have a negative effect on the whole division. Alternatively, you can check vs the overall flagship to see if the commander can control the ships which have just become leaderless.For the ultimate in realism you should have one ship stop to pick up survivors and roll a chance to see if the division commander is amongst them.

#3 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 08 December 2008 - 05:37 AM

Based on "Alternatively, you can check vs the overall flagship to see if the commander can control the ships which have just become leaderless", I don't think you understood what I was asking about.Aoba was the overall flagship. She happened to be one of the first IJN ships to be sunk (maybe 1 Mutsuki DD first, but that was it).So, my question was with regards to the entire task force, not just the CA squadron Aoba was also the leader of.If you lose the overall force flag, is it an automatic withdrawal of the whole force?In this case, I believe the only other flag officer on the IJN side would have been on Yubari, commanding DESRON 6. So I could see where he could take over (or make a morale roll to do so). However, in our game, Yubari went down a couple of turns after Aoba.It just seems to me the Force Morale rule (which I think is a good concept) still has a couple of holes in it.

#4 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:11 PM

With three ships slagged and two admirals swimming at best (blowing bubbles and feeding crabs at worst) ... I think they would have withdrawn in some confusion. You don't describe what has happened to the Blue side that might make them feel like they had an advantage, so I assume they were blind sided ... thus confusion and a general withdrawal, especially if they know they admiral's went down.My 2

#5 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 08 December 2008 - 05:06 PM

It was reasonable to have the second ship take over as overall commander, but with that ship going under, the formation would have likely dissolved into general confusion, as Bravo6 pointed out. I would say that in a circumstance where two flagships went down, with three ships having been sunk, a general withdrawal would be called for.Admittedly, a situation like the one you describe was not addressed in the Force Morale rules. I think that, as an official ruling, the next in line flagship for a formation would roll morale to take over as flag. If that ship went down, and there were no other ships operating as flagships of a division, then the side would retire.

#6 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 09 December 2008 - 04:19 AM

I don't disagree, and perhaps in a campaign setting, even a wargamer pushing little toy pewter/lead ships around on a table might disengage. In a one-off scenario, they'll want to just fght on.In particular, naval wargamers seem to hate when the rules impose limitations on them to simulate the confusion of battle. It seems really difficult to enforce the Night fratricide rules, for instance. There were also numerous cases where, particularly on the USN side in the early Solomons battles, the overall commander would just order a cease fire for a time.I like the idea of defining how many, and where embarked, the flag officers are (the overwhelming majority of the time the individual ship captains having their hands full just with their own ships), defining the chain of command, and as mentioned, if the overall force flag is incapacitated, the next in line makes a morale check to take over. Fail and it's a general disengagement. Also a general disengagement when you run out of flag officers.I mentioned when we were playing the idea of having a DD run over to pick up the CinC, and thus possibly (another morale roll) allow him to transfer his flag.I also wonder if individual ship morale checks shouldn't have something added, specifically any ship with an un-repaired Fire or Bulkhead hit? Just a thought...

#7 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 09 December 2008 - 01:01 PM

Just a Bulkhead hit or fire should not be enough, but when the ship is obviously in danger of sinking pr unable to defend itself, then it is appropriate. When the number of fires/hull boxes remaining equal the remaining chances to put them out/repair the hull, then it's time to devote 100% to saving the ship. I could even see the ship departing the turn before this moment arrived, in order to slow and do everything possible to save the ship. i could also see some sort of bonus to success be given for doing the right thing.

#8 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 10 December 2008 - 04:53 AM

There are two reasons I suggested what I did regarding Bulkhead and Fires:1. A morale check is just that, a check. It's far from automatic. Take a look at the Morale Table for all the nationalities. For Regular morale, only the French and Italians are less than 50% to pass.2. It's been my experience that many times, by the time a ship "fails morale" in the game, it's too late.I based my suggestion on the fact that, if you follow the turn sequence precisely, the point at which you would check if you still had an un-repaired Bulkhead hit, you're going to be down at least two hull boxes just from that (one from the initial hit, one for failing to repair). Odds are the same would be true with a Fire (most of them being due to the FP + Fire, with FPs on board).Perhaps make it consistent with the morale check required for a torpedo hit, when the torpedo hit does more than two hull boxes damage (which also makes the ship go DIW): If a ship has lost more than two hull boxes, and has an un-repaired Bulkhead or Fire, the ship must make a morale check.

#9 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 04:07 PM

Agreed, but then again, there is no reason a captain cannot move to save his ship, IF he is truely in peril of losing her.

#10 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 12 December 2008 - 04:56 AM

True. However, I see the role of the player as a division or squadron leader. I don't think a little un-predictability by the individual ships is a bad thing.

#11 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 31 December 2008 - 10:50 AM

co_diver wrote:

True. However, I see the role of the player as a division or squadron leader. I don't think a little un-predictability by the individual ships is a bad thing.

Nor do I. The Morale rules in GQIII are unique amongst the major naval rule sets, and certainly have a place. I can tell you in the new module being designed for the game, we have your question covered by the following: [ul][li]If the task group commander is sunk, the next highest flagship commander will take over as overall flagship commander. Should this commander be sunk, and no ship has managed to fish the original commander out of the water (see rescuing rules in GQIII), the leaderless formation will withdraw.[/li][/ul]Also, fyi, an optional rule will be included that changes the damage inflicted by a fire to one-half a hull box, to better model fire's effect on the watertight integrity of a ship.

#12 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 31 December 2008 - 02:55 PM

Try it and tell us how it plays out...

#13 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 14 January 2009 - 04:00 AM

Interesting. I like the idea that if you can move a ship over so your commanders can transfer their flags, you can potentially keep fighting.The wording implies you can transfer command once. Is that intended? Or is the intention, if you have say a third division flagship etc., that you can continue to transfer command down the chain?Also interesting is the proposed rule change regarding 1/2 hull box for a fire. What made you decide 1/2 a hull box is better than a whole hull box? Is there a move afoot to make this an "official" GQ3 change (e.g. like in an Ammendment 2)?Finally, can you tell us what the new module is about?

#14 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:06 PM

co_diver wrote:

Interesting. I like the idea that if you can move a ship over so your commanders can transfer their flags, you can potentially keep fighting.The wording implies you can transfer command once. Is that intended? Or is the intention, if you have say a third division flagship etc., that you can continue to transfer command down the chain?

Theoretically, that might be possible, but I would cap it at two, since it is unlikely that the flag for a flotilla of destroyers, for example, will have the communications capability to act as commander of the entire task group.

Also interesting is the proposed rule change regarding 1/2 hull box for a fire. What made you decide 1/2 a hull box is better than a whole hull box? Is there a move afoot to make this an "official" GQ3 change (e.g. like in an Ammendment 2)?

You will have to wait for the amendment to see, but we are trying it out as optional. The effect of fire on the watertight integrity of the ship is very significant given the relatively small number of hull boxes per ship in GQ. Ships did generally take longer to burn out than to sink via flooding. Often, they did not sink at all, such as Hornet. Give it a try and tell us what you think.

Finally, can you tell us what the new module is about?

Sorry, not yet, but I think you will like it. We are in alpha testing, the very first stage, and have no scheduled release date. We will certainly let everyone know as we get closer to publication.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users