For me, it may be the realisation that I'm looking at the reason why I should have kept a second-line reserve, however small.
Yours?
Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 July 2020, 01:12:30 AM
For me, it may be the realisation that I'm looking at the reason why I should have kept a second-line reserve, however small.
Yours?
It is when I realise that the dice Goddess has decided they fancy my opponent.
Realising I have kept a reserve for a future my army didn't have.
When, having got thinking about ACTUALLY DOING a, (solo), fight...I realise that I have only painted and finished less than 10% of the figures bought... with no artillery or cavalry assets and with a ratio of 3:1 in one sides favour! :( Probably a good 'real world' scenario, really! ;D
Sadly, ain't got time at the present. :(
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 06 July 2020, 01:34:04 AM
It is when I realise that the dice Goddess has decided they fancy my opponent.
I thought everyone knew that even before the declaration of war!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 06 July 2020, 01:35:24 AM
Realising I have kept a reserve for a future my army didn't have.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
When you realise those options you thought you had have all slipped beyond your grasp ~X(
Or the moment you realise what you should have done two or three turns ago #-o
When you realise that your inital deployment is poor/wrong and it's highly likely you won't be able to rectify things before you're comprehensively defeated :(.
Or as above, but the opposition have made a critical blunder which you realise is probably going to win the battle for them!
Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 July 2020, 01:12:30 AM
For me, it may be the realisation that I'm looking at the reason why I should have kept a second-line reserve, however small.
Yours?
Serious question: Are reserves worthwhile?
My own experience shows that many games have mechanisms that blunt the value of a reserve.
* Reaction checks when friends break.
* Brigade morale, meaning the rearmost half / third of the force push off when the going gets tough (It never comes to the Triarii).
* Lack of (or heavily restricted) march movement rules meaning the reserve can't get to the gap.
* Unwieldy interpenetration rules reducing any "passage of lines" to a shambolic mess.
Which rules defy these popular conventions and allow a traditional reserve (Usually Veteran infantry) to behave as they did in the battle reports.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 06 July 2020, 07:28:13 AM
Serious question: Are reserves worthwhile?
My own experience shows that many games have mechanisms that blunt the value of a reserve.
* Reaction checks when friends break.
* Brigade morale, meaning the rearmost half / third of the force push off when the going gets tough (It never comes to the Triarii).
* Lack of (or heavily restricted) march movement rules meaning the reserve can't get to the gap.
* Unwieldy interpenetration rules reducing any "passage of lines" to a shambolic mess.
Which rules defy these popular conventions and allow a traditional reserve (Usually Veteran infantry) to behave as they did in the battle reports?
In my innocent little way, I prefer to trust reality. Friends should be less likely to break if supported (even in DBx, you can nibble at a flank attacker and extend the lifespan of the front line); morale for being supported should be steadier; mobile light units are a clear choice for such jobs; and rules, whether for interpenetration or for other functions, are written by people and can be rewritten by people.
You do point a useful finger at the value of being ready to negotiate with literate friends and work out house rules that give results resembling reality, as far as we can determine it.
When playing Honors of War, having a reserve is valuable and a must, to help plug gaps that appear etc. We ignore Brigade morale etc and go with what seems logical at any given point. It makes for, dare I say it, more fun and realistic games.
For me it's pressing send on the email to the PBEM Umpire with orders for the next set of moves.
QuoteFor me it's pressing send on the email to the PBEM Umpire with orders for the next set of moves.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 06 July 2020, 07:28:13 AM
Serious question: Are reserves worthwhile?
My own experience shows that many games have mechanisms that blunt the value of a reserve.
* Reaction checks when friends break.
* Brigade morale, meaning the rearmost half / third of the force push off when the going gets tough (It never comes to the Triarii).
* Lack of (or heavily restricted) march movement rules meaning the reserve can't get to the gap.
* Unwieldy interpenetration rules reducing any "passage of lines" to a shambolic mess.
Which rules defy these popular conventions and allow a traditional reserve (Usually Veteran infantry) to behave as they did in the battle reports.
Spearhead, If The Lord Spares Us, Volley & Bayonet, For King & Parliament, DBA (to some extent), the homegrown Napoleonic & WWII sets all allow reserves to be effective i.e. all the ground rule sets we use :)
Note that our reserves tend to be separate brigades/battalions so avoiding the "Brigade morale" problem described above
Reserves have to be deployed carefully so they are close enough to be of assistance but not close enough to be impacted by morale failures of the front line, particularly for Volley & Bayonet and For King & Parliament
Or Black Powder...
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 July 2020, 09:58:54 PM
Or Black Powder...
I'd have thought the rule about all your brigades becoming demoralised when (forgotten fraction) are would mean that the reserves never get a go.
Unless you're wining...
Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 July 2020, 08:04:56 AM
In my innocent little way, I prefer to trust reality. Friends should be less likely to break if supported (even in DBx, you can nibble at a flank attacker and extend the lifespan of the front line); morale for being supported should be steadier; mobile light units are a clear choice for such jobs; and rules, whether for interpenetration or for other functions, are written by people and can be rewritten by people.
You do point a useful finger at the value of being ready to negotiate with literate friends and work out house rules that give results resembling reality, as far as we can determine it.
I'm one of those odd folks who read a chunk of history, then read mostly wargame rules, and have recent;y returned to reading history.
I have a somewhat unique opinion.
A large proportion of the rules I have read do a better job of simulating the previous decade's wargame rules than they do the battle reports.
I still play a number of these rules, and quite enjoy the games.
I find them far more enjoyable since abandoming hope that I'll one-day see Friedland on my dining table.
One of the things I like about Blucher is the fact that on their first move in a game a unit might be able to move 3/4 of the table width in the right circumstance (6x normal speed). It means you can actually have reserves and not have to worry about them being too slow to be any use.
I've said it before, but it's relevant; for me the headache with reserves is that they contract the line and expose the flanks. :(
Quote from: FierceKitty on 07 July 2020, 01:48:44 AM
I've said it before, but it's relevant; for me the headache with reserves is that they contract the line and expose the flanks. :(
If you have flanks, you need more figures.
Hi
Really good question about reserves.
For me regarding keeping a reserve (and I do not mean simply supports for the front line), the point is did it tend to happen in reality, and if it did then hopefully good rule sets will reflect this. In particular I think this applies to keeping artillery batteries in reserve, which to me at least seems normal practice in the later horse and musket periods.
That said, actual playing time available (which effects what we do with our troops on the battlefield) and the issue of having ammunition rules (or not) has a major part to play in the issue.
Just my tuppence worth.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 July 2020, 09:58:54 PM
Or Black Powder...
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 06 July 2020, 11:18:08 PM
I'd have thought the rule about all your brigades becoming demoralised when (forgotten fraction) are would mean that the reserves never get a go.
Unless you're wining...
I don't like the half or more breakpoint rule for Brigade Morale ("half or more"). It seems to me that brigades with an odd number of units definitely have an advantage over 'even numbered' brigades (e.g., both 3 unit strong brigades and 4 unit strong ones break after 2 unit losses - that 4th unit would be better off added to another even unit brigade). Similarly with the Army Morale rule - best to have an odd number of brigades in your army.
Whilst wining when playing can add to the fun (or drinking any form of booze, for that matter), I would caution against that as this can lead to extra casualties on the table (squished guns, broken lances, etc.). ;) :P
On reserves (particularly thinking of the Napoleonic era, here), I think there should be a rule to stop 'super troops' (i.e., elite veterans like the Old Guard) being used early in a game (yes, I have been known to do this to help me win Waterloo) - perhaps by forcing them to be placed in reserve and only activatable (did I invent a new word, there? - how American, if I did) after a certain amount of turns or making it extremely difficult for them to do so. Another solution may be to incorporate a 'warming up' period during which, if activated, the reserve unit's quality is downgraded - thus making the player more likely to hold them back until their true quality level is reached but also simulating to some degree, the benefits, when they are used, of committing fresh troops in the later stages of a battle against a fatigued enemy.
To T13A and Westmarcher.
I believe both cases (artillery reserve and shock troops held back) relate to the same cause.
Artillery batteries gradually lost effect, this appears to happen in the great grinding match battles of 1809 onwards.
Casualties - particularly to the skilled gunners would obviously cause problems.
I believe that the guns lost effect even without this.
* The crew relaying ammunition grew fatigued.
* A constant curtain of smoke in front of the battery.
* All that noise in the vicinity is liable to strain a chap's nerves.
* After the first caisson is emptied, it's a longer trim to the second.
I've no supporting figures from the Prussian staff college, but this would explain why armies ceased to pack their guns into the front line.
It would also explain why holding the chaps in bearskins back for a few hours was a smart move.
The cannonball, as we know makes little distinction between a grenadier and a militiaman, so save your "high points" units for a time when there'll be fewer balls flying.
Now... How do we simulate the very gradual attrition of artillery effectiveness - good luck with that..
Yes, in HC and BP having a brigade with an odd number of units was a key part of force building.
I think what most rules miss is a concept of fatigue - with this a reserve becomes much more important, as if units doing stuff, whether that is moving or firing or fighting gather fatigue, which is hard to get rid of, then a fresh unit is very valuable. But in most games what is more useful is to have the most combat dice possible as early as possible. This is probably compounded by most rules not tracking ammunition usage either.
One of the few rule sets that seems to make reserves very valuable is Rommel. As combat is very attritional (as befits such high level game) you tend to end up with a lot of weakened units fighting each other. Having a fresh formation available to commit late game can then be very effective. Rommel doesn't have any overt mechanisms to force this, but I think it is a combination of limiting the number of units in a square, so you can't pile everything in one place, and the nature of the combat results which favour gradual chipping away at units, which reduces their subsequent fighting effectiveness too.
Quote from: T13A on 07 July 2020, 07:06:09 AM
For me regarding keeping a reserve (and I do not mean simply supports for the front line), the point is did it tend to happen in reality, and if it did then hopefully good rule sets will reflect this. In particular I think this applies to keeping artillery batteries in reserve, which to me at least seems normal practice in the later horse and musket periods.
As far as artillery is concerned, yes but then no, I think?
My view: up to the late 18th century, artillery was generally too short-ranged and too slow-moving for it to make sense to have an artillery reserve. But by the 1790s, better casting technology and Gribeauval carriages meant more mobile guns with linger range and more punch. That made it feasible for Napoleon to hold an artillery reserve until he'd identified where he wanted to commit it. That concentrated punch then had much more effect than the traditional set-up with them lined up all along the front. It became common practice.
But in 1866, the Prussians regularly found that their corps or army artillery reserve was coming into action late or (eg at Trautenau) not at all. Their conclusion seems to have been that guns not firing are guns wasted. This contributes in part to their victory in 1870, where their emphasis on getting a big gun line into action asap is superior to the traditional doctrine the French are still following, of holding a large artillery reserve.
Earlier than that, in 1849, we see the Hungarian army parcelling out its corps reserve 12-pounders and attaching a pair of 12-pounders to each of the divisional field batteries. Not to say they never kept a battery back during a battle, but it does indicate a focus on getting the guns to the front.
I guess there's a difference between holding a reserve until you've identified where the battle is going to be, and holding that reserve during the battle.
I am typing from the hip rather than looking up references, so I may have mis-characterised these shifts in doctrine, in which case I would be happy to be corrected.
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/
Quote from: fred. on 07 July 2020, 09:39:46 PM
Yes, in HC and BP having a brigade with an odd number of units was a key part of force building.
I think what most rules miss is a concept of fatigue - with this a reserve becomes much more important, as if units doing stuff, whether that is moving or firing or fighting gather fatigue, which is hard to get rid of, then a fresh unit is very valuable. But in most games what is more useful is to have the most combat dice possible as early as possible. This is probably compounded by most rules not tracking ammunition usage either.
One of the few rule sets that seems to make reserves very valuable is Rommel. As combat is very attritional (as befits such high level game) you tend to end up with a lot of weakened units fighting each other. Having a fresh formation available to commit late game can then be very effective. Rommel doesn't have any overt mechanisms to force this, but I think it is a combination of limiting the number of units in a square, so you can't pile everything in one place, and the nature of the combat results which favour gradual chipping away at units, which reduces their subsequent fighting effectiveness too.
After reading this I was struck by one factor.
"Winner takes all" close combat.
Modern games tend to feature decisive melees.
Often one side is run off and the other suffers little from the fight.
It's not universal, but a battle where each side wears the other's front line down would increase the value of that fresh reserve.