An often recurring problem in miniature gaming is the failure of the battle to come to a definite resolution. Most often this is caused by too many troops for the ground scale and space available, but often as players become experienced they simply beat each other down to the last man. In some cases this is the fault of the referee or scenario designer, the tendency to balance the game leads to more even up battles than ever historically occurred. The whole idea of warfare is to be first with the most in order to bunch beat a numerically smaller force.
So in effect historical simulations run into two problems, density and decision. The only solution to density is more space, smaller scale, or restraint, the latter solution being the simplest but often most difficult to attain. It is generally through the use of a campaign game that troop ratios are best controlled, and even though there are many excellent campaign games already on the market, they suffer from a lack of definite resolution on the battle board.
Unit or force integrity is not a new concept by any means, but it has never been done well, or in a generic way that would apply to all situations. What is offered here is a universal force morale method that can be applied to all periods and weapons systems.
For this method we will consider training and elan to be two entities. This allows a separation of morale and training. Even though the two tend to follow parallel paths, they quite often diverge.
Training concerns the performance level of the unit and its subunits in battle evolutions, fire discipline and regimental pride. It is also a direct reflection of the performance of its CO and the officers under him.
Army or force morale is the psychological and physical condition of the officers and men. How strongly they believe that standing in a rain of steel and lead is necessary, and how much cohesion the control structure of the force has to hold up under extreme stress.
An army functions through a combination of staff and command structure, even when these may not be formal organizations. As armies grew in size a definite central point of command became a necessary component. This "Center of Operations" acts as the nervous system of a force. It is here that messages are processed and dispatched to the proper channels or locations, either by word of mouth, in writing or by radio/telegraph. As an example our concern will be with Napoleonic warfare when army staffs are just starting to become formalized organizations, and the dispatch of couriers occurs through these centers. Corps of the army and other independent forces have this non- combat administrative element as part and parcel of their organization, each linked in some manner to the major army COP.
Now that we see the COP as a central nervous system of a force, we can go on to assume that force conditions, elan, confusion, exhaustion, fear, etc. are received and redistributed involuntarily through this system. We are of course dealing with intangibles or fog of war, and will not attempt to exactly define all the elements.
Individual unit morale determines the performance of each battalion, regiment or battery, while force morale determines the effect of individual performance on the whole.
To assess the whole add up the total strength of a force in figures, strength points, or whatever the game system uses. Assess your artillery by type of gun (we use 2 pts for each light, 3 for each horse, and 4 for each heavy gun). Find 10%, 20%, and 30% of this total for each corps, and for the army as a whole. These numbers represent the force morale levels of hesitant, demoralized, and shattered (or defeated).
Each time that a unit of a force routs, is captured, high level commanders are hit, or guns are permanently lost, assess the total strength of the unit prior to casualties against the force morale at the end of the turn. Whenever a force reaches 10%, it is hesitant and all units in it drop one morale level (line becomes militia, etc.). Whenever a force reaches 20%, it becomes demoralized and all units in it drop 2 morale levels. Whenever a force reaches 30%, all units in it drop 3 morale levels, it is shattered and must retreat. If this force is the whole army, the battle is lost and a pursuit may be assessed against it.
This allows an opponent to strike one corps in hopes of breaking its force morale before the remainder may come to its support.
Oftentimes the game does not even go to the 30% point as one can read the writing on the wall and simply admits defeat in order to avoid battle casualties that are worse than any pursuit. In campaign games where a player is faced with troop limitations or expenditures, this situation creates a player commander morale. One tends not to commit more troopsjust to get them chewed up and is even more hesitant to throw in expensive guards when their morale is equal to line.
A Step Beyond
Now we can go one step beyond and set up variable force morales where units are affected at different percentages, by nationality, year, and combat arm. In this way, for example, a definite difference in infantry as compared with cavalry for a Saxon force would give the army more national flavor.
Here is a variable force morale based on our use.
| Type | HESITANT | DEMORALIZED | SHATTERED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irregulars, Freicorps, Guerrilla | 7% | 14% | 21% |
| Turkish feudal cav and inf | 8% | 16% | 24% |
| Other inf, French cav to 1800, Spanish and Turkish cav | 9% | 18% | 27% |
| Other cav, French inf after 1800, Saxon cav | 10% | 20% | 30% |
| British inf, French inf to 1800 | 11% | 22% | 33% |
| Guards | 12% | 24% | 36% |
In this way individual unit morale may be rated high but army morale quite low or vice versa.
This has great historical significance in reflecting how nations' forces acted and related to one another, the effects of unreliable allies and situations such as the "Saxon defection level". One could now simulate the French revolutionary armies' poor infantry training but high force morale, without making the national guards elite units.
We are currently using and applying these concepts to Empires in Arms, with each leader representing a corps organization, and the units as divisional organizations. Artillery is thrown in at each level and an additional light gun received for each strength point.
All that is needed for this game is to determine the round in which the battle ended (of which there are three), and the condition of the winning force in order to determine pursuit casualties.
We assume a 24 turn game with allowances for pre-battle maneuver, turn one begins whenever the attacker fires on or charges a defending unit in the original deployment zone, with each eight turns being equivalent to one battle round. We assess the victors five morale loss levels as none (no points against), 5% or less, hesitant, demoralized, and the fifth as shattered or not applicable.
Regardless of the game played, one can use this method to determine, when the battle was lost, and how badly, in order to translate it into campaign game terms and apply it in a fair, non-arbitrary manner.
This method allows for no argument or shilly shallying about who has won and who has lost, "there is no substitute for victory".
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. IX No. 6
Back to Courier List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1991 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com