Is 'Morale' ASL's decisive winner?

[Whizbang1963]

One thing that is missing is the ability for units to move and fire at the same time.
This was a common practice was it not?
call it marching fire and make it at 1/4 fp FRD since it is probably not all that accurate.
What do you all think?

 

[Treadhead]

The viewpoint has been prosecuted by others more competently ...

Oh, that was pretty good. Thank you for that.

Yes, a familiar criticism, that however doesn't matter at the game level. I didn't recognize the reference earlier.

Bruce

 

[Treadhead]

ASL has little in the way of command & control rules, but that lack is made for in the morale rules - which are in effect the same thing.

Well, I don't agree with this assertion, at least not in the way that I would understand and use C&C.

Task Checks certainly can be considered as an element of C&C; however there are not enough of them IMO to be considered an effective control feature within the game system. (E.g., SASL's use of the Command DR is a more direct implementation of C&C.)

For a wargame a morale rule is a very realistic and efficient way of introducing a 'lifelike' quality to the combat.
What do you think? Do you agree? It changes the face of ones soldiers from programmed robots into living breathing men. Its quite a stroke of genius in the games design.

Yes, I would have to agree that the whole 'morale' paradigm really does breath life into the cardboard.

Also; do you agree with the average level of the morale factor? Which is usually 7 for infantry and about 8 for leaders.

Those numbers make the game eminently playable; you can work the system around them from there.

What do you make of the morale rules in ASL?

I would have to say that I definitely approve!

Bruce

 

[Treadhead]

ASL's Decisive Winner Is Found Within

In my humble opinion, the winning concept in Advanced Squad Leader is expressed in this simple statement:

Broken squads of BOTH sides may attempt to RALLY during the Rally Phase of either player turn if an unbroken friendly leader unit is present in the same hex. [SL 14.1]

Notwithstanding some historical objections to the way SL/ASL handles leadership, as summarized nicely by Mr. Dorosh, this rally concept is what makes Advanced Squad Leader so awesome.

Regards,
Bruce

 

[JoeCleere]

Since 7 is supposed to be average morale, how should an above-average, but not elite, unit's morale be modelled? I reckon a morale of 8 would be appropriate, but with an ELR of three or four. Truly elite units are the ones with the underlined morale and the ELR of five.

And where do the Americans fit into this? They're just different I reckon.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

Since 7 is supposed to be average morale, how should an above-average, but not elite, unit's morale be modelled? I reckon a morale of 8 would be appropriate, but with an ELR of three or four. Truly elite units are the ones with the underlined morale and the ELR of five.

The other option would be to provide a mix of squads in the OB - say half 7 morale and half 8 morale (and you can tweek that mix to provide balance one way or the other). Overall I'd prefer that to ELR drop as especially with an ELR4 and 8 morale, it's a rare event to get any ELR failures. ELR 2 or maybe 3 may be a little different...

And yes the Americans are just different...

 

[Blackcloud6]

a game, rather than a serious simulation of military leadership.

I disagree with this notion to some extent. All the field leadership I experienced was dealing with one aspect of "the plan" going wrong after another. leadership in the moment was making things happen. i thin ASL replicates this to a real great and accurate extent. It is an aspect of ASL that makes it work well and a great game. The reason why "C&C" rules don't work for me in many games is that they are based on the hierarchy of military structure and the passing of orders. Tactical leadership is not necessarily given by those with rank but with those with balls.

ASL puts the player in the overall command of a tactical situation then throws problem after problem at him. The units don't always do what you want, the weapons don't always work and the enemy never participates the way you want him too. Seems very real to me. And the beauty is it is done elegantly without a lot of burdensome "C&C" rules.

 

[A Lost Canadian]

I definatly agree with this assuratoin concerning morale. It gives the game that ebb-and-flow of combat that makes it interesting and challenging. The see-saw of acting, breaking, then ralling, gives the game its flavor and tactical spice. I always prefer the "breaking" model then games in which units are outright killed, because not only do you get those units back, but to me it is a better adbstraction, as in the real conflicts whole sections where not clearly wiped out in x-amount of time or whatever.

Cheers!
A lost Canadian

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I definatly agree with this assuratoin concerning morale. It gives the game that ebb-and-flow of combat that makes it interesting and challenging. The see-saw of acting, breaking, then ralling, gives the game its flavor and tactical spice. I always prefer the "breaking" model then games in which units are outright killed, because not only do you get those units back, but to me it is a better adbstraction, as in the real conflicts whole sections where not clearly wiped out in x-amount of time or whatever.

Cheers!
A lost Canadian

It all depends on the scale of the game, of course. If you were to increase the turn length from 2 minutes (or "a module of time such that actions interact with each other", as some considered it...) to an hour, then the morale system would no longer work. That's the thing to consider too - the parts all mesh together nicely. No accident that a leader can use a -1 modifier for both morale AND fire attacks. Low rolls are good, high are bad is simple in concept, elegant in execution.

 

[serpico]

Yeah....but it's the uncertainty of the dice that makes it all happen.......

What would Tobruk be without dice rolls?

I personally think it's the Tactical Concept that makes ASL work.....Strategic wargames are mostly zone of control driven, some are chit driven, activation of units like Command and Control, but the Tactics of ASL are what makes it appeal to me.

Decision making at that level is like none other in wargames because you feel more "connected" to the battle and you can't influence elements not directly involved with your maneuvering...and you pay a higher price for your good or bad decisions.

Morale drives the game but Firepower/Maneuver is what makes you win or loose and how to use it and how often.

To me however, DRMs/TEMs are the biggest influence on how you apply those concepts since they are not controlled by the player, they are game mechanics.

:smoke:

 

[Honza]

I personally think it's the Tactical Concept that makes ASL work.....Strategic wargames are mostly zone of control driven, some are chit driven, activation of units like Command and Control, but the Tactics of ASL are what makes it appeal to me.

Decision making at that level is like none other in wargames because you feel more "connected" to the battle and you can't influence elements not directly involved with your maneuvering...and you pay a higher price for your good or bad decisions.

I did not know that was the main difference between Tactical and Strategic games! Thanks, thats interesting.
If you combine those tactical mechanics with 'morale' and DR's you get the life-like result of an ASL battle. Whereby the battle can "ebb & flow" and "friction" and "attrition" and "doubt" and "risk" all come into play. Which leads to suspense and excitement. With the addition of fragile units and DR and Fate to the system you get "uncertainties" which the player needs to use his skill to overcome.