Hypothetical situation...grogs welcome.

[noob]

A company of 150 men are tasked with maintaining the occupation of a hex on a hex map. They are being attacked by four times their number. To maintain their occupation of the hex, they have to fight a defensive CM battle on a map that represents the hex. The attackers have to force them to exit the CM map before the turns run out. There is an exit zone for the company to use if things start going south, however, their task is to hold at all costs. At the end of the battle, the company has sustained 20% casualties, but still occupies one third of CM map, thus allowing it to stay on the hex for another operational turn. Should the company take a morale drop for losing half its men, or a morale increase for successfully completing it's mission against overwhelming odds ?

[agusto]

Should the company take a morale drop for losing half its men, or a morale increase for successfully completing it's mission against overwhelming odds ?

How about both? The morale drop for losing half of its men could be evened out by the morale increase for successfully completing its mission.

[noob]

How about both? The morale drop for losing half of its men could be evened out by the morale increase for successfully completing its mission.

So then there is no immediate psychological benefit to winning a stunning victory ? Doesn't sound right to me.

[agusto]

Sure there is. But on the other hand, every second man of the company is now dead or mutilated, the screams of wounded friends and the smell of blood and burnt flesh fills the battlefield. Probably some HQ units suffered casualties too. The situation as you described it sounds to me like it was Pyrrhic victory, wich was described by Pyhrrus like that: "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone" or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."

I justed wanted to point out in my previous post that one option doesnt necessarily rule out the other.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I would say it would depend on training level, original morale level, fatigue, fitness, and commander's rating.

I can see it going both ways.. what you need noob is something that isn't so cut and dried one way or the other, you should create a table that takes into account all of these factors as modifiers one way or the other, and let a roll of the die determine the result, either a morale hit, or a morale increase, etc., with additional modifiers for casualties and accomplishing the mission.. I would say those two as described in your hypothetical situation would probably be a wash and other factor would have to be looked at.

Nothing in war is so certain that it can be said to react one way or another. You need to account for this fuzziness a little better in my opinion.

Bil

[noob]

Sure there is. But on the other hand, every second man of the company is now dead or mutilated, the screams of wounded friends and the smell of blood and burnt flesh fills the battlefield. Probably some HQ units suffered casualties too. The situation as you described it sounds to me like it was Pyrrhic victory, wich was described by Pyhrrus like that: "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone" or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."

I justed wanted to point out in my previous post that one option doesnt necessarily rule out the other.

I made a mistake with the casualty figures, it should of read 20% not 50%, as that is the threshold that Fizou is using to apply the first morale drop for his operational CM units.

However, it does bring up a good point, that of the difference between a units psychological state minutes after a battle, compared to that state two hours after the battle. For example, take Pickett's charge. Did the Union troops defending know how important it was to resist it, and if so, would that have tempered any feelings of losing their comrades once the fighting had stopped, and the soldiers had time to reflect on, or be told how well they had done. However, I will put the question in a better context. In the CMPzC operations Fizou and I are playing, I do not reduce a units morale based on losses they sustain on the CM battlefield, whereas Fizou drops the units morale level by one if the unit loses 20% of its men. I do not penalise a units morale based on casualties, as I regard morale to be affected by other factors, whereas Fizou believes that casualties are always a factor effecting morale in a negative way.

[Rocky Balboa]

my .02

Physiologically speaking, morale hits should be based on training/experience, fitness, casualties and fatigue. As these effects last much longer in the human mind.

Things like leadership and victory or defeat can effect morale but for a much shorter time frame which is usually determined by the other factors mentioned previously.

[noob]

I would say that the most accurate way to determine the state of CM units at the end of a CM battle, and one that definitely takes into consideration the points made by Bil and Rocky, is to look at, and note down, each CM units morale and fatigue levels after the CM battle using the "review map" function. Then, once noted, the morale and fatigue levels of individual squads and sections of a company, could be averaged out across the company, given that companies are the smallest level of foot unit organisation in PzC.

There would of course have to be some sort of rule to determine how long it takes units to recover their morale and fatigue, based on the attributes Bil and Rocky suggested.

I think I will adopt this method in my current operation, as it utilises CM more, and is accurate down to squad level.

[YankeeDog]

I made a mistake with the casualty figures, it should of read 20% not 50%, as that is the threshold that Fizou is using to apply the first morale drop for his operational CM units.

In that case, assuming it's clear to the unit that they "gave much better than they got", I'd say morale staying more or less than same, possibly even increasing a bit, is definitely plausible. 20% total casualties is not an overly high cost for a unit repulsing an intense assault. If the unit knows there are 3 or more enemy down on the battlefield for every one of their own, they may well be able to rationalize the loss of comrades as "worth it."

However, it does bring up a good point, that of the difference between a units psychological state minutes after a battle, compared to that state two hours after the battle.

Certainly. Units continuously engaged tend to lose cohesion and morale regardless of how successful they are in battle -- combat is an extremely fatiguing thing, both physically and mentally. But give soldiers a few hours to rest and recover, and they will usually improve both physically and mentally, especially if well trained and led.

For example, take Pickett's charge. Did the Union troops defending know how important it was to resist it, and if so, would that have tempered any feelings of losing comrades ?

Union troops standing on Cemetery Ridge most certainly knew that repulsing Pickett's charge was "mission critical"; they were occupying the center of the Union line, standing on ground that they had held for about three days. Even rank privates probably knew that if the Confederates breached the Union center, the battle was lost. Further, there was a large build-up to Pickett's charge; the Confederates did everything short of hiring a skywriter to advertise that the charge was their last, big attack of the battle.

And casualties amongst the Union defenders were not all that high as Civil War battle casualty counts go. In contrast, many of the Confederate units involved were nearly destroyed in detail, taking 50% or higher casualties. The overall casualty ratio for the Pickett's charge engagement estimated to be about 5:1 in favor of the Union. Even rank privates in the front of the Union line could probably see pretty clearly that they gave much better than they got.

So yes, in this specific instance, Union troops would have almost certainly known almost immediately that they had achieved a major victory once Pickett's men began to retreat, and I'm sure this had a strong (positive) effect on their morale state in the minutes and hours following the charge.

I will put the question in a better context.

In the CMPzC operations Fizou and I are playing, I do not reduce a units morale based on losses they sustain on the CM battlefield, whereas Fizou drops the units morale level by one if the unit losses 20% of its men.

I do not penalise a units morale based on casualties as I regard morale to be affected by other factors.

Generally speaking, I think this is reasonable. Morale state is a very difficult thing to quantify. Casualties sustained is definitely one variable, but certainly not the only variable. You can definitely find historical instances of units sustaining considerable casualties, and yet maintaining relatively good morale. You can also find examples of units taking only modest casualties, and falling apart. As BH notes, it's a "fuzzy" thing, and it's going to be very hard to establish hard rules on this sort of thing. Ultimately, it's a judgment call.

[womble]

Another factor that's important is how badly the attackers got mauled, in holding the ground. Seeing the other side die and break and run is balm to the man who just saw a squadmate fall. If there are 20 pillars of smoke from enemy AFVs, they'll know they done good.

[Broadsword56]

I'd go with the posts that say morale should stay about the same, or even go down.

That's because unit cohesion decreases as troops fight in continuous combat and take losses.

Think of it this way: What you, in your wargamer view, see as a thrilling victory, won't necessarily look that way to a small force that just suffered significant casualties in a short time and was outnumbered 4:1. On the ground, the soldiers might just as easily see how hopeless their situation is and feel they're doomed, having only gained a reprieve before the next wave comes at them and finishes them off.

My "fuzzy" (but historically based) rule on this for op-tac campaigns is that a unit defend-in-place mission can maintain cohesion in spite of losses longer than a unit with an attack mission.

I can also see special situations where you, as the umpire/God figure, can and should intervene to maybe give a unit that just made successful desperate repulse a morale boost despite its losses -- a la Pickett's Charge. I think you should consider the type of the troops (are they elite or crack troops?) and how much they would know about the situation around them (to take my example, if they're in C2 with HQ and/or can see how badly the enemy just routed, they'd be more likely to know they just won a huge victory and feel boosted. If they're isolated and out of command or lost their leader, or is their LOS is limited and they don't see much of the enemy, they're less likely to feel boosted and more likely to feel they're living on borrowed time.)

[noob]

I'd go with the posts that say morale should stay about the same, or even go down.

I've decided the easiest, and most accurate way, is to let CM decide. So, after the battle, the player activates the review map function, then makes a note of the headcount, morale and fatigue levels of all their sides units, then, after averaging the combat effects across the company, or platoon for vehicles, the new information is applied to the relevant PzC units using the PzC OOB editor.

I can also see special situations where you, as the umpire/God figure

There is no umpire in this operation, just me fighting a PzC scenario against another PzC player, and then farming out the CM battles to other players, thus allowing me to blame someone else if I lose

[Fizou]

I made a mistake with the casualty figures, it should of read 20% not 50%, as that is the threshold that Fizou is using to apply the first morale drop for his operational CM units.

However, it does bring up a good point, that of the difference between a units psychological state minutes after a battle, compared to that state two hours after the battle. For example, take Pickett's charge. Did the Union troops defending know how important it was to resist it, and if so, would that have tempered any feelings of losing their comrades once the fighting had stopped, and the soldiers had time to reflect on, or be told how well they had done. However, I will put the question in a better context. In the CMPzC operations Fizou and I are playing, I do not reduce a units morale based on losses they sustain on the CM battlefield, whereas Fizou drops the units morale level by one if the unit loses 20% of its men. I do not penalise a units morale based on casualties, as I regard morale to be affected by other factors, whereas Fizou believes that casualties are always a factor effecting morale in a negative way.

20% is the fist level used in our campaign, but that will only result in a one level drop. From A to B for example. The Unit would still have high morale.

A = High

B = High

C = Normal

D = Normal

E = Low

F = Poor

A that represents a very well trained and well lead unit would have to suffer 40% casualties to drop down to normal. Units of lesser quality will deteriate faster. As a unit is forced to keep fighting without rest or reinforcements, IMO, its natural that its morale will drop. In these game terms morale is linked to the units combat effectivenes so it shouldemt be thought of as only morale, but more as combat effectivenes. Morale is the only way to edit a unit in PzC. Fatigue cant be edited. Therfore morale has to be the way to track a units status after a CM battle if you ask me (when using PzC as the OP layer).

You current suggestion noob is a lot of administration. Some people have no problem with this, others have. I look forward to your suggestion for combining headcount, fatigue and motivation roled up into one for editing a PzC units morale.

[noob]

You current suggestion noob is a lot of administration.

You are right, I will just go back to my original plan to have the headcount be the only combat effect to be applied to PzC units as a result of a CM battle. I'm happy with setting up a bare bones system, then people can hang anything they want from it, like you are doing

[Lt Belenko]

In Normandy even though the Germans were getting the crap kicked out of them, one hedge row at a time, they continued to hold until they ran out of bocage country at St Lo and the breakout happened. So historically I'd say any morale loss was negligible until the Falasie time.

Additionally I'm not sure how you're doing this, but I think your using another computer game to play this operational scenario. Why not set up a battle with that game look for results similar to those obtained in the CM battle, and see what that game applies with regards to morale loss.

Either way a unit reduced by 50% is in dire need of R&R with replacements or their next operational area needs to be much smaller coverage due to greatly reduced combat effectiveness.