Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve

Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room

Message

largo -> Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/19/2008 12:18:41 PM)
Hi, I do not see too well the meaning of “Tactical Reserve and Local Reserve”.How can you use them?Only on defence? Are they using to stop enemy attacking? Than how? Thanks for your answers! [;)]

a white rabbit -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/19/2008 4:46:22 PM)
..tactical reserve, other than artillery, only react to enemy actions in the adjacent hexes.. ..tac res for artillery means it will defensive fire in suppport of friendly troops within it's range, assuming co-operation.. ..Local reserve will move to counter enemy actions within it's movement range, does not apply to ranged artillery fire, but does apply to an artillery unit..

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/19/2008 10:39:53 PM)
I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot. I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself.

rhinobones -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/19/2008 11:43:15 PM)
On occasion I use the tactical reserve setting to shore up critical defensive lines that I expect to be assaulted. Seems to fit the WW I mentality. Regards, RhinoBones

L`zard -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/20/2008 4:27:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot. I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself. Colin, may I ask in what sort of games? W2, moderns, etc etc?

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/20/2008 11:28:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: L`zard quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot. I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself. Colin, may I ask in what sort of games? W2, moderns, etc etc? World War Two, generally. The most historically recent scenario I've ever played was the disc Korea.

L`zard -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/21/2008 6:27:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: L`zard quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot. I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself. Colin, may I ask in what sort of games? W2, moderns, etc etc? World War Two, generally. The most historically recent scenario I've ever played was the disc Korea. Well, that says lots, eh? Like Rhino, I like these settings, but then I spend most of my time in WW1, lol, where they work nicely (assuming you don't mind getting hurt on a regular basis, lol!, which if your into ww1, you'd better be..) and seem to me to do what the advertisements portray.... Something about 'scale', do ya suppose? or will it be 'all about the equipments..? Anyway, Largo.... I'd suggest you play vs the PO in several different period games and make your own value judgements on this issue... I will admit that the 'local reserve' setting can really get you into something you had not planned on, LOL!

golden delicious -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/21/2008 6:52:35 PM)
At the most basic level, using this feature allows your opponent to move your units- albeit not very freely. If the hex isn't vital, then use your reserve units as the bones of a defence in depth. If the hex is vital (though if such a hex is on the frontline you've probably already lost it) and the density penalty isn't a problem, stick those reserve units up front. If the density penalty is a problem, then I suppose tactical reserve can add to the defence of that vital hex. Local reserve is too random. Don't use it.

brucekg -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/22/2008 6:16:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot. I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself. May I ask, how do you use these settings to influence your artillery support of attacks. Thank you.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/22/2008 11:50:50 PM)
Artillery supports cooperative units within range on defense . Don't use Tactical or Local settings as the units will then move around willy-nilly and either run into a ground attack or move in a silly direction.

JAMiAM -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 1:34:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 Artillery supports cooperative units within range on defense . Don't use Tactical or Local settings as the units will then move around willy-nilly and either run into a ground attack or move in a silly direction. Artillery on Tactical Reserve no longer does this. It will support without moving. This change was in the last patch, or the one before. Forget which.

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 10:08:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brucekg quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot. I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself. May I ask, how do you use these settings to influence your artillery support of attacks. Thank you. When you're attacking, sometimes a given artillery unit has used up more of it's MP's than the other units one is assigning to the attack. Actually assigning the unit would burn up a lot of turn -- but if one sets the artillery to 'reserve' it'll fire half it's strength in support of the attack without burning up your turn. Example: Attacking infantry unit A has 100% of its turn left. Artillery unit A has 100% of its turn left. Artillery unit B has 30% of its turn left. Assign Artillery unit A to the attack. Set Artillery unit B to 'tactical reserve' but don't assign it to the attack.

rhinobones -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 2:05:21 PM)
Would like to see a change where units that are moved due to being in the reserve status have the ability to entrench after movement. This, of course, is provided that they have at least one movement point remaining. Also, it seems that a unit should have the capacity to have both an entrenchment and reserve status. I do not think that entrenched and reserve statuses are mutually exclusive. There is plenty of room on the unit counter to display both the entrenchment and reserve status. Regards, RhinoBones

golden delicious -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 3:46:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones Would like to see a change where units that are moved due to being in the reserve status have the ability to entrench after movement. This, of course, is provided that they have at least one movement point remaining. Hm. The trouble is, if it's on local reserve, how does the unit know when it's finished moving? If it's on tactical reserve, the hex it will have moved into will be under attack at the time. I don't think this is really useful. If the unit is moving up from reserve, it probably won't be even remotely well-prepared to defend the new hex. quote: Also, it seems that a unit should have the capacity to have both an entrenchment and reserve status. I do not think that entrenched and reserve statuses are mutually exclusive. There is plenty of room on the unit counter to display both the entrenchment and reserve status. I dunno. If everyone's all set to move off when the call comes, they can't simultaneously be set up in an optimal defensive position, and they certainly can't be holed up in bunkers with their guns set up.

Karri -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 5:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious I dunno. If everyone's all set to move off when the call comes, they can't simultaneously be set up in an optimal defensive position, and they certainly can't be holed up in bunkers with their guns set up. They can be set up in a optimal defensive position, and be ready to move within a few hours. Depends on the scale aswell. A platoon can make a counter-attack pretty fast into a lost position in the company area. Etc. A division it would take some time to get on the move, but this doesn't mean they couldn't be in defensive positions before that.

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 9:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious I dunno. If everyone's all set to move off when the call comes, they can't simultaneously be set up in an optimal defensive position, and they certainly can't be holed up in bunkers with their guns set up. They can be set up in a optimal defensive position, and be ready to move within a few hours. Depends on the scale aswell. A platoon can make a counter-attack pretty fast into a lost position in the company area. Etc. A division it would take some time to get on the move, but this doesn't mean they couldn't be in defensive positions before that. Sorta like I can have my car all set up to put that new radiator in and be ready to run down to the grocery store. I'm sorry -- but I don't see it. A regiment that's got itself and its artillery all deployed and spread out through five miles of bunkers and firing positions is not the same as a regiment that's standing by ready to move.

rhinobones -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 10:43:18 PM)
We are talking Tactical Reserve, not Local Reserve. Regimental scale, time wise probably half week or one week turns . . . and you’re telling me that is not adequate time to move to a new position (a position that is already occupied and at least partially prepared by friendly forces). I'm sorry -- but I don't see it. Think this really displays the pundit’s lack of first hand experience. The ability of a combat unit to move, and to find cover while under fire, is being vastly understated. Regards, RhinoBones

el cid -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/23/2008 11:01:10 PM)
I sometimes use armor in "T" behind an infantry defense line. It comes as a surprise to the attacker when he thinks he is just going to hit infantry, and then faces armour. If he cannot kill the armour he will end up burning his turn.

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 12:03:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones We are talking Tactical Reserve, not Local Reserve. Regimental scale, time wise probably half week or one week turns . . . and you’re telling me that is not adequate time to move to a new position (a position that is already occupied and at least partially prepared by friendly forces). I'm sorry -- but I don't see it. Think this really displays the pundit’s lack of first hand experience. The ability of a combat unit to move, and to find cover while under fire, is being vastly understated. Regards, RhinoBones Really? What's your 'first hand experience' -- and what range of conditions and scales does it cover? Point being that OPART covers a wide range of scales, unit capabilities, etc. Obviously, a mechanized battalion deployed over a 2 km front might be able to pull up stakes pretty quick when it gets the word -- but whether the same applies to a 1916 Russian infantry corps dug in across 20 kilometers is another question. In general, though, it seems a tad odd to me that a unit could be simultaneously entrenched to hold a given sector and ready to move out at a moments' notice. Certainly, it's not a change I think would necessarily improve the game.

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 12:04:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid I sometimes use armor in "T" behind an infantry defense line. It comes as a surprise to the attacker when he thinks he is just going to hit infantry, and then faces armour. If he cannot kill the armour he will end up burning his turn. Yeah -- that could work well. In fact, I think that the rare times I've used tactical reserve would be as you describe. Also, fairly realistic. I'm reminded of the lead elements of the German armored division turning up towards the end of the festivities at Dieppe. As it turned out, they weren't needed -- but it would be a classic example of what 'reserve deployment' is supposed to simulate. Had the Canadians in fact been driving the static infantry back from the waterfront, they would have run into German tanks coming the other way -- all in the same 'turn.'

rhinobones -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 5:34:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Really? What's your 'first hand experience' -- and what range of conditions and scales does it cover? Yes, really. Nam, 70-71, Co/Bn. There were three of us called Rhino . . . I was the Bones. And no, I was not a medic. The Navy provided the medics. quote: Point being that OPART covers a wide range of scales, unit capabilities, etc. Obviously, a mechanized battalion deployed over a 2 km front might be able to pull up stakes pretty quick when it gets the word -- but whether the same applies to a 1916 Russian infantry corps dug in across 20 kilometers is another question. You’re making a problem where there isn’t any. A variable can be defined that calculates how any MPs a unit needs to both move and entrench based on the designer’s input. quote: In general, though, it seems a tad odd to me that a unit could be simultaneously entrenched to hold a given sector and ready to move out at a moments' notice. Besides you, who said it was at a moments notice? Moving takes time and that is all part of the usage of MPs by a unit in reserve. The number of movement points required is function of the unit’s readiness and experience. I don’t see a big difference between an entrenched unit moving out as opposed to a unit milling about in “reserve” status and moving out. Your position implies that units are either tasked 100% to move out or 100% to entrench and that switching from one mode to another take some kind of extraordinary effort. This is just not the case no matter how absurd you try to frame your argument. quote: Certainly, it's not a change I think would necessarily improve the game. As is, a unit will move from the back line to reinforce the front line and has absolutely no ability to defend itself by digging in (the current TOAW model). You evidently find this more realistic than a unit that moves up to the front line and, provided time is available, entrenches before the next assault. Regards, RhinoBones

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 7:57:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Really? What's your 'first hand experience' -- and what range of conditions and scales does it cover? Yes, really. Nam, 70-71, Co/Bn. There were three of us called Rhino . . . I was the Bones. And no, I was not a medic. The Navy provided the medics. quote: Point being that OPART covers a wide range of scales, unit capabilities, etc. Obviously, a mechanized battalion deployed over a 2 km front might be able to pull up stakes pretty quick when it gets the word -- but whether the same applies to a 1916 Russian infantry corps dug in across 20 kilometers is another question. You’re making a problem where there isn’t any. A variable can be defined that calculates how any MPs a unit needs to both move and entrench based on the designer’s input. quote: In general, though, it seems a tad odd to me that a unit could be simultaneously entrenched to hold a given sector and ready to move out at a moments' notice. Besides you, who said it was at a moments notice? Moving takes time and that is all part of the usage of MPs by a unit in reserve. The number of movement points required is function of the unit’s readiness and experience. I don’t see a big difference between an entrenched unit moving out as opposed to a unit milling about in “reserve” status and moving out. Your position implies that units are either tasked 100% to move out or 100% to entrench and that switching from one mode to another take some kind of extraordinary effort. This is just not the case no matter how absurd you try to frame your argument. quote: Certainly, it's not a change I think would necessarily improve the game. As is, a unit will move from the back line to reinforce the front line and has absolutely no ability to defend itself by digging in (the current TOAW model). You evidently find this more realistic than a unit that moves up to the front line and, provided time is available, entrenches before the next assault. Regards, RhinoBones A unit does take time to deploy, and if it is already deployed, it takes time to assemble in march order and move off. Unlike you, for example, Patton did not regard it as routine when his army was able to disengage, promptly move north, and go into the attack to relieve Bastogne. He actually thought it was quite a feat. You try to cavalierly dismiss my point that depending upon the scale and so on, it can indeed be impractical for a unit to be simultaneously deployed in a defensive posture and ready to serve as a rapid-reaction force -- but you should be able to see my point. If you choose not to, that's your affair.

Karri -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 2:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright A unit does take time to deploy, and if it is already deployed, it takes time to assemble in march order and move off. Unlike you, for example, Patton did not regard it as routine when his army was able to disengage, promptly move north, and go into the attack to relieve Bastogne. He actually thought it was quite a feat. Patton moved a whole army in 48 hours...It was quite a feat, but it is not what we are discussing. The point is that for example if I have a division with 3 regiments, I can hold 2 regiment in the frontline and 1 behind them in tactical reserve. What stops this third regiment from being in entrenched positions? Unless the time is something like 6 hours a turn then the unit moving to counter-attack is completely possible. And do remember that this is not in any way comparable to what Patton did, this is easy and there are plans for it. I do not have experience of battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions, but from company level down I do have. A company can get on the move pretty fast. If an immediate counter-attack is needed, then no more than an hour is needed. If everything needs to be moved then a few hours...but this doesn't mean the combat forces wouldn't still get on the move within an hour. Just leave the cooks etc. to strip down the tents etc. Platoons can get on the move within minutes. I know this because I have done this. From entrenched positions to counter-attack. Btw. deploying doesn't really take much time. Our liutenat made us run back and forth for a whole day back when I was conscript, we had 10 minutes to set up a tent(plus everything inside) and look up defensive positions. 5 minutes to strip down the tent, pack up everything, and be ready to move. That's with a 7 men squad.

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 9:11:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones We are talking Tactical Reserve, not Local Reserve. Regimental scale, time wise probably half week or one week turns . . . and you’re telling me that is not adequate time to move to a new position (a position that is already occupied and at least partially prepared by friendly forces). I'm sorry -- but I don't see it. Think this really displays the pundit’s lack of first hand experience. The ability of a combat unit to move, and to find cover while under fire, is being vastly understated. Regards, RhinoBones Now how'd we decide it was 'regimental scale, time wise probably half week or one week turns'? Could be one day turns and regiments. Or it could be half-week turns but corps. Finally, it could be some military period your twelve-month tour in Viet Nam gives you no knowledge of whatsoever. Like, did you get a lot of experience with the need to feed and water stock before hitching them up to that field gun?

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 9:18:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright A unit does take time to deploy, and if it is already deployed, it takes time to assemble in march order and move off. Unlike you, for example, Patton did not regard it as routine when his army was able to disengage, promptly move north, and go into the attack to relieve Bastogne. He actually thought it was quite a feat. Patton moved a whole army in 48 hours...It was quite a feat, but it is not what we are discussing. The point is that for example if I have a division with 3 regiments, I can hold 2 regiment in the frontline and 1 behind them in tactical reserve. What stops this third regiment from being in entrenched positions? Unless the time is something like 6 hours a turn then the unit moving to counter-attack is completely possible. And do remember that this is not in any way comparable to what Patton did, this is easy and there are plans for it. I do not have experience of battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions, but from company level down I do have. A company can get on the move pretty fast. If an immediate counter-attack is needed, then no more than an hour is needed. If everything needs to be moved then a few hours...but this doesn't mean the combat forces wouldn't still get on the move within an hour. Just leave the cooks etc. to strip down the tents etc. Platoons can get on the move within minutes. I know this because I have done this. From entrenched positions to counter-attack. Btw. deploying doesn't really take much time. Our liutenat made us run back and forth for a whole day back when I was conscript, we had 10 minutes to set up a tent(plus everything inside) and look up defensive positions. 5 minutes to strip down the tent, pack up everything, and be ready to move. That's with a 7 men squad. Sure -- but as you say, this is for certain time scales, and with a particular army using particular equipment. What a modern US rifle company with extensive training and lavish communications can do is one thing -- what some Russian Civil War corps with not even one field telephone to its name can do is another. My point -- Rhinobones' attempts to sneer notwithstanding -- is that allowing units to be both entrenched and standing by on reserve may not be especially realistic across the whole range of situations. As far as TOAW goes, I actually could care less about what a modern US unit can or can't do. My interest in warfare ends at about 1960 -- and look at the scenario list on the disc. How many of the units involved have anything like the capabilities of the military unit you served in?

Karri -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/24/2008 10:10:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Sure -- but as you say, this is for certain time scales, and with a particular army using particular equipment. What a modern US rifle company with extensive training and lavish communications can do is one thing -- what some Russian Civil War corps with not even one field telephone to its name can do is another. My point -- Rhinobones' attempts to sneer notwithstanding -- is that allowing units to be both entrenched and standing by on reserve may not be especially realistic across the whole range of situations. As far as TOAW goes, I actually could care less about what a modern US unit can or can't do. My interest in warfare ends at about 1960 -- and look at the scenario list on the disc. How many of the units involved have anything like the capabilities of the military unit you served in? I would argue that in most situations the units would be able to do this. WWI onwards.

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/25/2008 12:02:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Sure -- but as you say, this is for certain time scales, and with a particular army using particular equipment. What a modern US rifle company with extensive training and lavish communications can do is one thing -- what some Russian Civil War corps with not even one field telephone to its name can do is another. My point -- Rhinobones' attempts to sneer notwithstanding -- is that allowing units to be both entrenched and standing by on reserve may not be especially realistic across the whole range of situations. As far as TOAW goes, I actually could care less about what a modern US unit can or can't do. My interest in warfare ends at about 1960 -- and look at the scenario list on the disc. How many of the units involved have anything like the capabilities of the military unit you served in? I would argue that in most situations the units would be able to do this. WWI onwards. You could argue that...but I would argue otherwise. Of course, it all depends what situation you take as typical -- so I'll cheerfully take the one I'm familiar with. Day long turns, 5 km hexes, leg infantry, varying levels of training, varying levels of communications. Okay, they're either dispersed along a 10 km (the hex they're in and one of the two hexes they can exert a zone of control over) front, or they're concentrated at some road junction pending an order to move. In the latter case, they probably can be on the road in an hour. That leaves them fifteen hours of a sixteen hour day to get to where they are wanted. In the former case, add an hour to get the word out and three hours to physically assemble -- plus the hour to do whatever they did to get ready when they were already assembled. So it's eleven hours of actual movement and fighting or whatever in the new position versus fifteen hours. ... I'll grant that in this particular case the difference wouldn't suffice to justify ruling out entrenching and being in reserve status. However, if 'Rhinobones' wants to claim it, I'll cheerfully reverse my position again. There are cases where his position doesn't hold up -- and he does little to make me inclined to agree with him. ...I'll put it down as #357 on the list of things I would like to see changed in TOAW. Not especially relevant to my play style, not terribly important, and not invariably constituting an improvement. If it pops up on the next list of proposed changes, it'd elicit mild unenthusiasm from me. So what -- and when are we going to get meaningful improvements in naval warfare?

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/25/2008 6:43:22 PM)
Isn't this why units in 'mobile' deployment get a defensive benefit over those that are 'moving'?

ColinWright -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/25/2008 11:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 Isn't this why units in 'mobile' deployment get a defensive benefit over those that are 'moving'? First I've heard of that. Anyway, couldn't you just select any unit that was 'moving' and change it to 'mobile' just by clicking on 'mobile'?

golden delicious -> RE: Tactical Reserve & Local Reserve (1/28/2008 12:47:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Okay, they're either dispersed along a 10 km (the hex they're in and one of the two hexes they can exert a zone of control over) front, or they're concentrated at some road junction pending an order to move. In the latter case, they probably can be on the road in an hour. That leaves them fifteen hours of a sixteen hour day to get to where they are wanted. In the former case, add an hour to get the word out and three hours to physically assemble -- plus the hour to do whatever they did to get ready when they were already assembled. So it's eleven hours of actual movement and fighting or whatever in the new position versus fifteen hours. This isn't right- this movement takes place in just one round. So 2.4 hours. In other words, your former case can do it, your latter case can't.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.736328