From: Third rock from the Sun.
Well, Napoleon wrote something like, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one".
A couple of suggestions:
1. Any morale / commitment rating should be subject to influence by the introduction of leaders you intend to make to the game.
2. Morale / commitment ratings should be subject to change by the use of events (Berlin has fallen. All German units take a 50% hit to commitment ratings.)
I think a 1:1 ratio between proficiency and commitment would be better, -but- the commitment rating would take hits because of lackluster leaders, poor supply, and the ratio of available equipment to assigned equipment (commitment hurt by heavy losses).
Proficiency is the skill with which something is used. It's training. It has nothing to do with commitment. That is something entirely different. Leaders, morale, bravery, losses, poor supply, none of it has anything to do with how bad or good training is. I can become an expert rifleman and who my leader is, what country I was born in, what my supply level is will make zero difference in that. I will still be expert with a rifle until I'm unable to use it. ie, dead or incapacitated.
Instead of splitting something that does not need splitting just add in morale. 1x1 as suggested and scenario designer adjustable would be best.
How will this play out regarding the way morale is arrived at now? Personally I prefer the way it's handled in the Panzer Campaign series where morale is a known value and isn't some value hidden behind a vague definition. So I know what the morale is and then it's affected by all the magicary of the game. Currently:
This is a weighted average of a unit’s Proficiency,
Supply Level, and Readiness.
< Message edited by Lobster -- 2/4/2021 1:15:58 PM >
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Wearing blinders and earplugs everything you do is correct.