In real battles, commanders lived and died by how they handled their reserves. Keeping fresh troops back for the right moment could turn defeat into victory. But on the tabletop? That art of patience seems to vanish. Most wargamers throw everything into the fight from the very first turn — every battalion advancing, every gun firing, and every cavalry squadron charging. So why do we rarely see players holding reserves in historical wargames?
In this video, I take a conversational look at the many reasons behind this curious phenomenon. From the way rule systems are designed to the psychology of the players and even the structure of a typical gaming evening, there are lots of small pressures that all push us toward full commitment. Many rules reward aggression, not restraint. Time constraints mean we’re trying to compress a full day’s battle into just a few hours. And most scenarios start with both armies already facing each other across a narrow table, leaving little room for strategic depth or delay.
There’s also something cultural at play. Over time, wargamers have developed habits and conventions about what a “normal” game looks like — and that often means everything gets used right away. After all, if you’ve spent hours painting your miniatures, why leave them sitting at the back while the rest of your force is fighting?
The video explores whether this tendency is a flaw or simply part of the hobby’s fun. Maybe we lose a touch of realism when we ignore reserves, but we gain fast-paced action, cinematic spectacle, and lots of dice rolling. Still, for those who enjoy experimenting with tactics, deliberately holding something back can add a new layer of strategy — and maybe even give you a taste of what real commanders faced on the battlefield.
Holding and using reserves in a game is a very interesting topic. A topic too varied to cover everything in a comment. In the battle you will be participating in on Monday, the Muslim Army won the historical battle by holding back much of the army for a vicious counterattack after the Christians had spent their heavy cavalry in initial charges against the Muslim front line. Can reserves be useful in our games? Of course! Again, the rules in use for tomorrow's game encourage and reward holding back fresh units for either counterattacks or delivering the coup de grace once the enemy is worn down. With impetuous players, the temptation to push everything in is often too powerful. Still, many rules will allow these tactics to materialize on the table given proper player discipline.
ReplyDeleteInteresting topic. I find that most rules allow for the use of reserves. It's the players who choose not to, for the various reasons you mention. However, there are some rules that penalise holding reserves. Especially, when they may be disorganised by a front line retiring through or past them. I suppose that's why I like VnB, which rewards having and making good use of reserves.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot more to say but this will do.
Couldn't agree more - game allow Reserves, but generally don't reward their use (plus as Lee said, players WANT to use their shiny toys!). However, I do recall one set of rules (cant remember the name) that required a reserve to be allocated, and once they are committed the whole Army's morale dipped as the lads know there is nobody to help them if they get into trouble.
DeleteAs others have said, an interesting topic. It feels like a major aspect behind the 'throw everything forward' approach is the lack of ongoing consequences in single wargame battles, both for the commanders and the troops. This can result in considering a reserve as an unnecessary waste of front line troops rather than ensuring a protected exit from the field of battle in the case of 'unexpected misfortune'.
ReplyDeleteFor the human commanders this can be encouraged through linking individual battles in a campaign; where units that retire in good order can return to the next battle pretty much intact, while those routed off the table may never return. Encouraging the players to think beyond the short term might help them appreciate the multiple uses of a reserve force.
For the individual units, the lack of a reserve makes them the 'last line of defence'', a more perilous situation that would be likely to dampen their enthusiasm to engage with nobody to cover their backs if the worst happens. One way round this could be for the commanders to nominate a 'reserve' force (say 10%+ of the total army) that would then grant a morale bonus to all other units in the army but if the 'reserve' force is engaged with the enemy then the bonus is lost. This would not prevent the players from using their reserves but it might make them consider the cost of doing so.
Anyway, just some thoughts that might inspire something worthwhile. :-)