How best to represent holding back/committing reserves?

[Chris Pringle]

Most successful generals kept a reserve most of the time, until that critical moment when they committed it either to smash the enemy or to avert disaster for themselves.

This is something wargames rules don't always represent well, because we don't have as much fog of war on our tables as in the real world.

I've discussed this in a blog post here:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/12/on-rules-for-committing-reserves.html
I list a few different ways a game can handle reserves, but I'm sure there are many more. I'd be really interested in others' views on what rule mechanisms do this best.

[mollinary]

Interesting question. I think one problem is wargaming rules are generally not great in modelling the gradual exhaustion and disorder, and their effects on combat efficiency, that involvement in combat generates. Partly, this is because wargamers love to 'rally' troops to remove disorder and recover capability, and rules often cater to this. If troops that have been engaged suffered a permanent degradation in performance, there would be a much greater incentive to keep a fresh reserve, ready for the vital moment. Perhaps we need to try and model greater 'fragility' into troops that have already been involved in combat?  Thoughts?

[fred.]

Interesting article and focused mostly on scenario mechanisms around reinforcements. 

One of the games that seems to make on table reserves important is Rommel. I think it does this a couple of ways, firstly combat results are attentional with units gradually loosing strength which degrades their attacking capability too. So two opposing units will gradually become less effective turn by turn. Also units maintain the same footprint until they are finally destroyed so space isn't created as they are damaged. 

The gradual degradation of unit strength means that fresh full strength units are hugely effective at cutting through damaged enemy units. 

[steve_holmes_11]

I think it's worth looking at rules in wargames that deter the player from keeping a reserve.
Off the cuff, I can think of several.

1) Army morale rules - often mean your reserve will simply join the rout because you lost the key number of frontline units.

2) Mad arcs of fire - when your frontline units can swivel about to select targets at wild angles, you might as well pack the frontline.

3) Morale again - units being demoralised by nearby routing friends, many rules fail to allow for your reserve being made of sterner stuff.

4) Slooooow movement - unless there's a march move or similar allowance, your reserve will probably never arrive.

5) Daft interpenetration rules -your reserves almost arrived, but cannot now pass through your wavering frontline to join the battle.

Not every ruleset suffers these drawbacks.
When I made my start in "serious Napoleonics" around 1985, most suffered all these issues.
Reserves were a recipe for the mother of all traffic jams.

I'm glad to say things have improved somewhat.

[paulr]

An interesting blog post, I think the two key areas have been identified

1. The scenario
As discussed in the post a good scenario will encourage careful thought about reserves and their employment

2. The rules
Steve has identified some key issues with rules that can cause issues with reserves

It may be coincidence but none of the rulesets I play have the issues he's identified

[John Cook]

I don't really see this as an issue.  If the wargame general doesn't keep a reserve, that's their prerogative and if they suffer as a result, that is a reflection of their incompetence is it not?  If they choose to keep a reserve and prosper as a result, then good for them.  I don't see why rules should enforce tactical/operational decisions such as this.  I use computer moderated rules and if you keep a reserve the commander would probably have been given a 'hold' (position) order at the outset.  In order to use the reserve the army commander would need to send a specific order to change it to 'advance' or 'attack' to get it moving.  But it remains entirely up to the player which seem appropriate to me. 

[fred.]

As Steve points out, many rules encourage (perhaps indirectly) getting as many troops forward as possible. As it is often better to have as many units throwing attack dice per turn as possible. 

[Ithoriel]

I don't really see this as an issue.  If the wargame general doesn't keep a reserve, that's their prerogative and if they suffer as a result, that is a reflection of their incompetence is it not?  If they choose to keep a reserve and prosper as a result, then good for them.  I don't see why rules should enforce tactical/operational decisions such as this.  I use computer moderated rules and if you keep a reserve the commander would probably have been given a 'hold' (position) order at the outset.  In order to use the reserve the army commander would need to send a specific order to change it to 'advance' or 'attack' to get it moving.  But it remains entirely up to the player which seem appropriate to me.

The point here, John, is that most rules actively discourage the use of reserves.

If the rules reward the player who can pour most lead into the enemy, whether that's bullets or slingshots, then keeping a reserve is handing an advantage to the enemy.

If loss of  morale among the front ranks sweeps away the whole force then you are keeping a reserve for a future your army does not have.

I agree with you, to an extent, that I would not want a rule set to force me to keep a reserve but it would be good if it didn't actively work against those looking to make good, historical, decisions about  the need for such a reserve.

[John Cook]

The point here, John, is that most rules actively discourage the use of reserves.

If the rules reward the player who can pour most lead into the enemy, whether that's bullets or slingshots, then keeping a reserve is handing an advantage to the enemy.

If loss of  morale among the front ranks sweeps away the whole force then you are keeping a reserve for a future your army does not have.

I agree with you, to an extent, that I would not want a rule set to force me to keep a reserve but it would be good if it didn't actively work against those looking to make good, historical, decisions about  the need for such a reserve.

I see.  I'm really not familiar with any of the conventional rules in use today so I can't really comment very much, but from what you say it seems that the problem is, at least in part, with the rules.
 
At the same time, being able to bring as much destructive fire to bear as necessary, is as much a part of tactical employment troops in battle as any other, so I wouldn't expect rules to discourage that either.  On the other hand, like you, I wouldn't want rules that force me to make certain tacical decisions I don't want to.  I prefer to be able to make my own mistakes.

The trouble with most wargames is, perhaps, that they comprise battles fought in isolation, rather than part of a campaign.  They tend to be fought to destruction as a result, so that a clear decision is achieved on the night.  It is not much fun if one side decides after a couple of moves that it is better to 'live to fight another day'.  So, perhaps, the players are in part to blame too. 

[fred.]

I think it is probably a mix of all of the above. Games in isolation with set victory conditions, full player information and short turn limits tend to mean getting everything forward quickly tends to be the best tactic. 

Going back to Rommel it caps the effectiveness of the attacker, both by limiting units per unit area, but also from its combat results. Which does make you as a player want to hold back some troops. It also allows a good number of turns in a game, which makes you feel that your reserves will have a chance to get into the game (and it does have a strategic move layer that lets units move quickly when away from the enemy). 

But with the prevalence of skirmish games and large skirmish games - getting stuck in seems to be the best choice. 

[steve_holmes_11]

Fred's post got me thinking.

My typical land gaming experience has the game commence when the two forces are about to engage.
Naval players often zoom out a little and game the spotting and approach as well as the engagement.
The oceans are large, and part of competent admiraling involved locating your enemy and bringing them to battle.
We often regard that element of land warfare as inevitable, or a waste of time.

But perhaps zooming out a little provides the scope for all those nice things like reserves flank marches and pursuits that we read about; but find difficult in our normal land gaming.

[paulr]

As most of my land gaming is what you term 'zoomed out' I can attest that reserves, flank marches and pursuits are all obtainable.

I recall one AWI campaign game where an initial encounter went very badly for me. My opponent overextended his pursuit of my retreating forces. They were then roughly handled by the timely arrival, by rail, of some reserves and my reinvigorated initial force.

He wasn't expecting me to counterattack given I had a river at my back and there was a real risk of complete disaster.

[pierre the shy]

Should that purhaps be an ACW campaign if rail movement was involved Paul?

[Westmarcher]

Should that purhaps be an ACW campaign if rail movement was involved Paul?

Funny enough, I was thinking his games were not so much "zoomed out" but perhaps more ... "spaced out".....? 

(even I spotted that one and I'm just home from the pub ...) 

[paulr]

  ACW indeed, I  blame Clibs recent AWI previews