figuresales | 02 Jul 2018 3:03 p.m. PST |
Any recommendations on rule sets that deal well with holding and using on table reserves. At worst game rules actively discourage holding reserves by making combat effectiveness more about numbers of dice rolled than the tactical situation of the encounter. Generally they seem to be of the "a reserve is an uncommitted unit currently with no order" or " reserve unit behind +1 to morale" types. But where are the "best" reserve troop rules to be found? Do any rules cover the use of reserves in the "2 up 2 back" brigade deployment or the "rally behind the Virginians" reserve/support line. If so how do they do it? Or has anyone found a way of incorporating it into existing rules as a houserule or amendment? |
Doug MSC | 02 Jul 2018 3:10 p.m. PST |
We allow each commander to hold back a certain amount of troops, as a reserve, to bring on when and where they need to. |
altfritz | 02 Jul 2018 3:32 p.m. PST |
Using reserves is surely more a player thing than rules thing. |
figuresales | 02 Jul 2018 3:44 p.m. PST |
"Using reserves is surely more a player thing than rules thing." Ideally yes, if the rules are well done a player keeping battlefield reserves should be in a stronger position than one who does not. However not all rules reflect that. |
haywire | 02 Jul 2018 3:57 p.m. PST |
AT-43 had an interesting reserves rule in that you had to capture objectives to gain resource points. RPs can then be spent on bringing in reserve units. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 02 Jul 2018 3:58 p.m. PST |
|
robert piepenbrink | 02 Jul 2018 5:01 p.m. PST |
Scale matters, I think. When pretty much the entire board is within artillery range, the reserve location has to be abstracted to "off-board somewhere" or "in Reserve Box A." I've seen tiered reserve boxes in scenarios for tactical sets: the close reserve boxes let you bring on the troops next turn--but only in a 3' section of board edge. From the far reserve boxes, you move to the close reserve boxes. So you can march them anywhere, but it takes at least two turns. |
Yellow Admiral | 02 Jul 2018 5:16 p.m. PST |
I think the question needs more context. What period? What level of command? In the air, on the ground, on the sea? In a general sense, I utilize reserves in most rules I play – horse & musket, WWII, ancients, Medievals, certain naval eras, certain aerial dogfight contexts, etc. All that means is that I'm keeping some units out of action in a position where they can move into line to help plug a hole or exploit one, so the decision cycle really is a player thing, not a rules thing. I do find that the more rules randomize the movement decision cycle (e.g. dice or card activation), the more difficult it is to manage reserves. - Ix |
John Leahy | 02 Jul 2018 5:19 p.m. PST |
Field of battle and the other related rule sets. You will be skewered by your opponent if you do not maintain a reserve when using the rules. Both players should use one. Many rule sets have each side move about the same distance each turn. So Reserves make little sense. It makes more sense to get everyone in the firing line and inflict damage. Field of Battle is our holy grail set! I love the Ancient version Pulse of Battle too. Best set of Ancient rules we have ever played! FoB WWI and FoB WWII continue the same concepts. Thanks. John |
Extra Crispy | 02 Jul 2018 6:08 p.m. PST |
I think use (or not) of reserves is far more a gamer issue than a rules issue. If I start at 7 and want to be done by 10, it is unlikely having substantial reserves will make sense. It will just prolong the game past the time allotted. Better to make one push, throw everything in and hope for the best. But either way there's time for a quick chat and head off home. |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 02 Jul 2018 6:29 p.m. PST |
I think it's a gamer issue more than a rules issue. If the rules don't mention reserves, you can still keep a reserve. --Glenn |
Tony S | 02 Jul 2018 7:09 p.m. PST |
Blucher. By far. Your reserves unknown to the enemy since they are still under blinds, which is fog of war you rarely see in miniature gaming. Combat in Blucher is rather attritional, so units in the front lines get ground down. At the right moment you release your reserves, which move, in one turn, very rapidly from the rear to the point of rupture. If you've timed it right, those fresh troops can shatter the enemy line and win the battle. Or, conversely, throwing the reserves in to stabilize a critically bad situation is also an option. Either way, it feels rather Napoleonic. I've played a lot of rules, in a lot of periods, and many of them reward the use of reserves (which alone is a really good indicator of a decent ruleset), but Blucher but only does that in spades, but as per the original post, has some simple but highly effective rules that model the use of Napoleonic reserves quite well. |
Rudysnelson | 02 Jul 2018 8:21 p.m. PST |
The management of reserves is a skill that shows a player's ability. Designing rule mechanics to control reserves will reduce the Command aspect of testing player's ability. Not every aspect of Command should be regulated. This would help poor player's and hinder strong players. |
figuresales | 03 Jul 2018 2:28 a.m. PST |
My question was left generic to cover as wide a range of eras and rule options as possible. But in context it is Horse and (rifled) Musket era, grand tactical scale with each base a single regiment. Initiative driven at brigade level. I don't want to control or mandate the use of reserves but to make sure that if a player does use them (which at this level of battle is a consideration), the rules do not penalise it. I like the "grand tactical move" and ZoC approach used in Dan Abbotts "Fields of Blue and Grey" which seems similar to the Blucher mechanic without using blinds. I am not surprised to see Sam Mustafa and Bob Jones designed systems featuring in the recommendations, both great game designers. How about mechanics for interchanging or replacing units under fire with reserves at a more localised level. Is that well treated anywhere? |
Andy ONeill | 03 Jul 2018 4:11 a.m. PST |
Ambush alley has spawn points. Dbf also, for hordes. |
etotheipi | 03 Jul 2018 5:17 a.m. PST |
Completely agree that this is not a rules thing. A well structured set of rules (QILS, mayhaps) will manage tactical engagement and be insensitive to strategic and operational approaches. Rather than the above comments about reserves being a player issue, I would say that they are a scenario issue. Some scenarios will obviously benefit or penalize the use of reserves. Others will make their use a strategic trade-off with other concerns. Occasionally, a scenario will force the time-delayed utilization of forces. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 03 Jul 2018 7:46 a.m. PST |
Reserves are most important in games where there is some fog of war, and variability in the ability to get units moving/and the distance they can move. Games that have none of this, will thus have only a third of the real reasons military commanders keep a reserve (gamers only need replacing losses in combat and filling the hole in the line. And maybe not even that). In games, the principle of mass, will outweigh the principles ofsurprise and economy of force, because all the forces and what they can threaten are visible in this situation. This is why gamers will almost always commit their Imperial Guard on turn one. Even tactically (never mind strategic or operational concerns, such as losing a battle, might bring that keeping the reserve can allay ), they don't require it, indeed they often can't afford not to. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 03 Jul 2018 9:12 a.m. PST |
Few rules I have played give incentive to have reserves just standing around in rear area. Blucher, being a miniatures game with as a board game look (large mat counters game with miniatures on top), has some rules for reserves and incentives to have and use, which I nod approval. Most other games just pile forward miniatures for the quick win; with limited or no fog of war, hidden placement unseen, rare flanking attacks, too expensive point guards or other elites cannot be held back (they consumed too many points), player desire to play with the fancy uniformed reserves, and typically caused by the short allotted time players have to actual push the miniatures on game day. For my rules, having reserve commands in the near rear area increases the army's combative ability and lower's battlefield fatigue factors, thus forcing players to have reserves if they think the process of command (and control). Otherwise their army "runs out of gas" effect comes into play quickly unless their starting strength is overwhelming. |
UshCha | 03 Jul 2018 9:28 a.m. PST |
Two games I seem to think allow use of reserves DBM Ancients (not ours) and our own rules. Maneouver Group (ww2 and Modern). The reason both work is they have a system that allows reserves to get to the point required much faster than simply taking a unit out of the line and moving it somewhere else. Also they allow the units in reserve to get where they are needed in time to be effective. To do so the reserves need to move several times faster than a deployed unit. That is definitely a rules issue. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 03 Jul 2018 10:41 a.m. PST |
Extremely Sticky zones of control really helps. Once committed being pulled back should be nearly impossible for most units. Having a second line in support might be the only way to achieve this, and increases the relative mobility of uncommitted units. Fatigue for even successful combats also amplifies the value of reserves. |
mckrok | 03 Jul 2018 1:03 p.m. PST |
Run a game double-blind with a referee, and players will quickly learn to form reserves. pjm |
etotheipi | 03 Jul 2018 1:36 p.m. PST |
To do so the reserves need to move several times faster than a deployed unit. That is definitely a rules issue. I'm not a fan of magic transportation for game play's sake. Part of using reserves is being able to get them to the battle. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 03 Jul 2018 3:14 p.m. PST |
I don't know, I think even a triple/quadruple move rate would not be "Magic". Most rules prevent moves that can even closely approximate actual marching capabilities at the chosen distance and time scale. This is usually to abstract in command control issues/engagement friction and to give fire a chance to be brought to bear on targets before overrun. Sometimes it's just tradition and lack of concern for the distortion. Variable length bounds have a rich and honored place in rules design in order to compensate for this problem of time and space distortion and the confines of granular time increments for decisions and movment. If the reserves are poised and ready, they should be allowed a bit of speed that makes up for the command indecision and friction that slows normal units' moves. |
Tony S | 03 Jul 2018 3:48 p.m. PST |
+1 Aethelflaeda. Your posts echo my own rules prejudices! |
UshCha | 04 Jul 2018 1:34 a.m. PST |
etotheipi, Most certainly I do not have MAGIC or the infinite improability drive in my modern rules. I leave that to buckets of die rule writers. In games that you will play normaly with our rules (not the authors own massively complex games) high speed is for vehicles that can do an average 20mph minimum. Combat speed for infantry taken as an average is not far off 1mph which is not unreasonable for being in combat. The sublty of our rules is that they better reflect reality. Reserves need to be placed with good access to the areas they are supporting, preferably roads without hairpin bends for example which drasticly sloww down a coloumn. Aethelflaeda was Framed has got it correct, generally it is poor game desigh. Phil Barker as usual lead the way with DBA with regular armys. It was he that proved it could be done. Its not how you do it that is difficult but to concieve that it can be done. Again its not for the one-off gamer who changes rules more often than my wife changes clothes, tactics of even simple games like chess take much time to master so do reserves. |
Decebalus | 04 Jul 2018 3:32 a.m. PST |
Spearhead. Your bataillons are comitted to orders and fight at a defined place and time. Your reserves are the only troops that can be used without problems to react to the changing situation. |
etotheipi | 04 Jul 2018 5:32 a.m. PST |
Reserves need to be placed with good access to the areas they are supporting, If they are placed in areas with easy access to their deployment area, then why do then need to need to move several times faster than a deployed unit to get to the same place? |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 04 Jul 2018 7:54 a.m. PST |
Spurious argument, E. , It ignores the time granularity space distortion and the undistracted nature of reserves to react immediately (or at least with faster than the point in time the turn allows it to commit. Of course if your reserves are ideally placed the won't need the speed, but a turn structure doesn't model well the "when" the troops in reserve actually start or don't start to move. Does the game use 10 minute or minute turns or is it an hour or more? It is the same problem as for some games that do not allow reactions in terms of formation or facing changes or even counter charges in the opponent's phases. We are talking about decision cycles. Some forces are quicker. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 04 Jul 2018 8:08 a.m. PST |
TonyS, as for extremely local use of reserves, my own battalion level rules convert routs in disorder, to fallbacks in good order and stop pursuits if a battalion/sqdrn has a supporting unit behind it at about 200-400 paces. Infantry skirmishers without a formed unit behind them to fall back behind are dead meat for lt cavalry. If proper checkerboard deployments of a second line are used, or intervals in the front line to move through, it is very easy to see the value of the second line to sustain an attack. Being unengages gives double movement, and orders to a ban/sqdn are more difficult to change when engaged. Artillery has very finite ammunition supply, thus the extremely rare artillery reserve has a reason to exist. Reserve and divisions, and supporting divisions are much quicker to be able to convert to assault or maneuver commands. |
UshCha | 04 Jul 2018 8:23 a.m. PST |
E a unit directly behind I would not call a reserve. In a attack the Russians for instance would have tanks in @waves@ for want of a better term 400m spaced. That is an attack formation, the reserves could be central and need to move say 1.5 km to covers one of perhaps 3 companies so anywhere on say a 1.5km front. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 04 Jul 2018 9:19 a.m. PST |
I am discussing horse and musket ranges. Still tactical reserves and operational reserves can both exist. Even a platoon can keep a reserve of a fire team or squad. |
etotheipi | 04 Jul 2018 1:08 p.m. PST |
It ignores the time granularity space distortion No it doesn't. If you have variable length turns, everything should still move a relatively proportional amount. The nature of being a "reserve", which is a philosophical concept, not a physical state, should not affect the movement rate for a given turn. and the undistracted nature of reserves to react immediately Which is a completely different thing than turn granularity. When is the last time you moved into an active conflict and just ignored the firefight you were walking in to? Real people don't do that. We are talking about decision cycles. Some forces are quicker. Generally, your forces of one type don't vary speed by 3 to 4 times. And being a reserve does not change the physics of forces. but a turn structure doesn't model well the "when" the troops in reserve actually start or don't start to move. If you don't model time duration of movement, they why do things even have a speed? That is an attack formation, the reserves could be central and need to move say 1.5 km to covers one of perhaps 3 companies so anywhere on say a 1.5km front. So they are magic, because their speed is a function of whether or not the player needs them to move fast, not the abilities of the units. |
PJ ONeill | 04 Jul 2018 1:35 p.m. PST |
"How about mechanics for interchanging or replacing units under fire with reserves at a more localised level. Is that well treated anywhere?" For the Horse & Musket era, at Regimental unit size and above, I think that rules that do NOT penalize unit inter-penetration, go a long way towards encouraging reserves. If you can pull a unit from the front line without risking disorder, (or whatever term is used) you are more likely to have units ready to replace them. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 04 Jul 2018 3:04 p.m. PST |
E, you are probably too much the literalist for my tastes in game design. I don't understand where your objections lie? Do you object to a unit losing movement ability if it starts engaged, or delays for a unit that is out of command? A fast reserve move is no different being free from the charging movement points to leave or enter a zone of control, and delays in communications. If you are prepared to move, you are going to get to your position more quickly than the unit already committed. How much faster you can argue, but certainly faster, and it isn't magic. There will be some places that a reserve cannot reach in say one or two turn increments. |
UshCha | 04 Jul 2018 11:14 p.m. PST |
E, While travelling at speed the driver is concentrating on keeping coloumn spacing (its rare in northern Europe you can move any distance at high speed in battle formation). Moving in coloumn you are not able to move and fire, the gun needs to be locked down forward or aft as you need to avoid hitting obstructions. There is no stopping for observation so you will not spot as you cover too much terrain to scan it in the time. Nor is there time driving cautiously across potentially vulnerable spots. Under these non combat situations your travel across the ground as average time is very different. Under these conditions being shot at is VERY bad news. Thus it is not just the physical speed of the item but its mode that determines average speed. On the basis that players are allowed to be stupid, there are no restrictions on players traveling at high speed like this in a combat zone its just they won't survive. |
etotheipi | 05 Jul 2018 3:57 a.m. PST |
Do you object to a unit losing movement ability if it starts engaged, or delays for a unit that is out of command? Thus it is not just the physical speed of the item but its mode that determines average speed.</a>Absolutely no problem with conditions affecting movement. What was said was that reserve units move faster than other units. Magic. It was not said that certain conditions under which movement occurs could slow some unit. That is perfectly acceptable. Assuming that just because someone identifies a unit as a reserve (a philosophical concept, not a material state) they are free from restrictions on movement is just bad game design. On the basis that players are allowed to be stupid, there are no restrictions on players traveling at high speed like this in a combat zone its just they won't survive. So if you are doing this, then you are not doing what you said. Reserve units do not move faster than other units. They move the same speed under the same conditions, and being a reserve has nothing to do with it. So getting back to what I said about the OP, the rules should not care whether or not a unit is a reserve. The rules should not let reserves move faster. They should address the conditions under which action is taken. In fact, if you allow reserves to move faster, you are artificially allowing the players to ignore those conditions and letting them get away with it, i.s., they are covering more ground during a turn and being exposed to less risk. |
figuresales | 05 Jul 2018 6:00 a.m. PST |
#TMPWargamerabbit "having reserve commands in the near rear area increases the army's combative ability and lower's battlefield fatigue factors" #UshCha "they allow the units in reserve to get where they are needed in time to be effective" #Aethelflaeda was framed "Extremely Sticky zones of control really helps. Once committed being pulled back should be nearly impossible for most units. Having a second line in support might be the only way to achieve this, and increases the relative mobility of uncommitted units. Fatigue for even successful combats also amplifies the value of reserves" #Decebalus "Your battalions are committed to orders and fight at a defined place and time. Your reserves are the only troops that can be used without problems to react to the changing situation" #PJ Oneill "For the Horse & Musket era, at Regimental unit size and above, I think that rules that do NOT penalize unit inter-penetration, go a long way towards encouraging reserves. If you can pull a unit from the front line without risking disorder, (or whatever term is used) you are more likely to have units ready to replace them" All good points and much appreciated. A good game design should not have rules that dictate the use (or not) of reserves, but should make it viable to do so if a player decides that is the best option for the given scenario or battle. I can see situations where "every gun counts" may be the most beneficial battlefield tactic. But likewise there are situations where the availability of a local (or a tactical) reserve force would be decisive. This decision should be driven by the player, not forced on him by the rulebook (as either rules or poor mechanics) |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 05 Jul 2018 7:52 a.m. PST |
E, you are far too hung up on the semantics of the lable for the mechanic rather than the actual mechanic and what it represents and simulates, and most importantly affects. I suspect you are a mathematician. |
UshCha | 05 Jul 2018 10:20 a.m. PST |
E you seem to be under the impression that the speed of, lets say a vehicle, is set soley by its engine power and nothing else. While this is correct it is not generally useful. The speed down a road of a vehicle is set by the driver who is conscious of the requirement situational awareness (at least if the IDIOT is not on the PHONE). Driving fast down a road that is unsafe to do so, because of the need to slow down or turn sharply when not aware quickly enough, sets the vehicle speed. We it does for me as I don't want to die this week. Therefore in combat speeds are kept lower to maintain situational awareness. Now its true that I could generate a sophisticated algorithm relating speed, surface roughness, rate of change of angular momentum, maneuverability and situational awareness such that the mechanisms I proposed become un-necessary, you simply decide the risk benefit analysis and set speed accordingly. However I consider this as a long way from ideal so allow a number of movement modes. Stationary (not technically a movement mode but included for completeness), Slow high levels of maneuverability and excellent spotting, Fast the ability to maneuver is now more limited, hairpin bends are not negociatable at this speed, and stopping in the event of the unexpected is more difficult. Finally Transit, Here the route is tightly defined before movement is commenced, the vehicle has no firing capability as the gun is locked to prevent accidental damage and the speed is such that unplanned turns or stopping is going to be risky. Even transit is for most modern tanks well below its at least theoretical maximum speed. Now as to letting somebody use Transit mode inappropriately that is acceptable to me, stupid but acceptable. Unfortunately too many UK youth do so and die, far worse a result than on a table top. As an example I believe my car is capable of well over 100 mph. I have never considered it safe on UK roads to do such a speed. I have been down roads at 70mph and had to slow to 5mph to move round some bends. Hence a wide variation of speed depending on situational awareness and terrain is NOT MAGIC. QED. |
etotheipi | 06 Jul 2018 3:44 a.m. PST |
you are far too hung up on the semantics of the lable for the mechanic rather than the actual mechanic and what it represents So I am too hung up on what a rule means and don't focus enough on what it means? and most importantly affects. I suspect you are a mathematician. No, I am an engineer who only does effects. Used to be a test engineer for military systems. Before and after that, a user of military systems in combat. you seem to be under the impression that the speed of, lets say a vehicle, is set soley by its engine power and nothing else. No, and I explicitly said the exact opposite above. I am under the impression that being a reserve unit, which is simply a name, has no effect on mobility. Hence a wide variation of speed depending on situational awareness and terrain is NOT MAGIC. QED. This … . To do so the reserves need to move several times faster than a deployed unit. That is definitely a rules issue … doesn't say, based on player decision on how to employ the unit, the speed will vary. It says reserves need to move faster than other units. The rationale you gave was not bassed in the way the player choses to use the unit … The reason both work is they have a system that allows reserves to get to the point required much faster than simply taking a unit out of the line and moving it somewhere else. Also they allow the units in reserve to get where they are needed in time to be effective … it was based on desire to have them effective in the game. My argument was that the players' decisions should dictate whether reserves are effective in the game. If you want to represent effects, you must have explicit cause. For a game, that cause should be directly linked to player decision.
|
Aethelflaeda was framed | 06 Jul 2018 6:55 a.m. PST |
E. Time to just agree to disagree. You aren'tgoing to be convinced, that a reserve mechanic that gives a unit double or more movement has nothing to do with the actual marching distance covered within a span of time.but has more to do with enhanced coup d'oeil and response ability coming from its set posture over that of an committed unit. Blame my lack of language skills in presenting my case Iirc, you don't like limits to hobble in a game a historically "weak" leader on the battlefield in an attempt to simulate poor staffs or subordinate response as well. Your style of play is all fine and good for making a game more cheslike, but for those who are more into the idea of simulating friction and fog of war, and the various historical doctrines adopted to address those problems your literalism is more hampering. We can play a fictional scenario but many of us wish to ascertain the hows and whys certain historical armies defeated their opponents. Recreating flexibility in their tactical systems and more efficient response decision loops in a playable game requires these mechanics. Your denigrating the mechanic as just being magic is counter productive. |
UshCha | 07 Jul 2018 2:25 a.m. PST |
One last Try E, perhaps its not clear the move is not called a reserve move not is it restricted to a moving reserves it can be done at any time but may not be sensible, it is a fast move without much awareness. Perhaps you are not aware of the limitations in many places where AFV's deployed may have had to cross roads, ditches and the like to get into combat positions. This takes a lot of time. A Reserve unit therefore is deployed in a position that it can rapidly move to its assigned position. It will probably take longer to deploy than the actual move. Our rules are as much as we can do based on modeling crudely the real world. hence how you use them is up to the player. What is interesting is that generally real world tactics are optimum. This leads to us considering it is a tolerable simulation. |
etotheipi | 07 Jul 2018 4:50 a.m. PST |
the move is not called a reserve move not is it restricted to a moving reserves it can be done at any time but may not be sensible, it is a fast move without much awareness. This is not what you said. Perhaps you are not aware You aren'tgoing to be convinced, that a reserve mechanic that gives a unit double or more movement has nothing to do with the actual marching distance covered within a span of time.but has more to do with enhanced coup d'oeil and response ability coming from its set posture over that of an committed unit. I would appreciate if the two of you would actually read my responses before criticizing them. I said multiple times that there are physical and C&C things that affect movement rate. I understand how this works and I have modeled it for the US Military, NATO, the UN and have done and still do similar modeling of HADR and civilian response across the international community. What both of you said was that reserves get a 3-4 times faster movement rate because they are reserves. Wrong reason to change capabilities, way too much change (using the above numbers 1 mph reasonable cautious move becomes a 4 mph jog), and bad approach. If you want to represent these effects, do not directly manipulate the capabilities of the units like a simplified analytical model. Instead tie risk to the players' decisions. That is, apply military effects, not mathematical adjustments. |
UshCha | 07 Jul 2018 6:12 a.m. PST |
I give up. The whole point is its at the players risk, moveing fast limits situational awareness. Move slow and be aware. Player does the risk assessment prior to adoppting the mode. |
etotheipi | 08 Jul 2018 6:36 a.m. PST |
The whole point is its at the players risk, moveing fast limits situational awareness. Then what are the players risking? The only thing you have said is that the reserves move faster. |
UshCha | 09 Jul 2018 4:41 a.m. PST |
E READ the posts 5 July post covers this at lest in part. |
etotheipi | 09 Jul 2018 11:33 a.m. PST |
No, it talks about concerns a commander might have to make them decide to go slow. What are the players risking? What effects are being imposed? |