The CWB's Status rule is a much maligned creature. Many a player has had a hard time with it, as the assessment of the relative 'goodness' of a turn is left in the eye of the beholder. I tried to limit the teeth gnashing in that decision by the table which converts status change viewpoint into status change (in an effort to water down the effect of the player's decision.) while heavily reliant on the player's maturity and honesty, it is workable for most.

In a review the entire status system was attacked on its unhistorical or just plain dumb" grounds. This, I believe, is an improper attack on the rule. We do not suggest that the enemy commander casts a "spell of impending gloom" on his opponent or in some way orders his opposite to run away. In an avoidance of a "gamey" point based army morale system with more rules than I'd like to think about, I opted to let the enemy player enforce Murphy's Law for the game system.

Thus, when a player sees his opponent on the ropes and verge of defeat, he inflicts a panic demand on him. With no rules at all, we have created a spotting mechanism for when it is the worst possible time to make a panic check -- the enemy player. As for unhistorical, I can point out the rout of three Union armies as examples of failed panic checks.

The alternative would be to create some sort of point based army morale which accumulates during the game (and the players would have to keep trac of), followed with some sort of triggering mechanism for army morale checks. The problem would be the trigger. The correct time for the morale check would have to be at the worst possible instant This instant would have to be defined in better terms than the one dimension of losses.

Such things as relative position of units, success or failure of operations, and the player's own attitude or mood would have to be evaluated. Army morale is a slippery thing as it is generally a feeling about the future, tends to be transmitted as rumor, and is a catastrophic failure or nothing result. Armies don't get "shaken" results.

Not for Everyone

The status rule is not for everyone. Certain players simply cannot admit the reality of their game situation. Others would rather lie than lose. If game victory is a very important subject to either yourself or your opponent then it would be best to leave army status alone. Certainly, the rule is not designed with the solitaire player in mind and would be very difficult to implement in such a situation (I usually drop it when playing solitaire.)

As with any of our rules, if you feel we are all wet, go ahead and change it. We won't mind and, after all, it is your game. It is my considered opinion that the rule is a correct one and reflects the historical situation with a limited number of rules. Feel free to disagree.