Reinforcements Arriving Mid-Battle for Mass Combat

[TGLS]

OK, I might be dumb here but I can't seem to find rules for what happens in Mass Combat if another force comes to the aid of another force mid-battle. It's fairly obvious what happens if another force comes in between battles (i.e. they form into a larger force), but mid-battle reinforcements seem more troublesome. Should I just apply any casualties to both sides and immediately start another battle? Should the side receiving reinforcements suffer some kind of penalty reflecting the need to integrate new forces?

[mlangsdorf]

It's not covered.

My solution would be predictably complicated, but if you can do this:
* Keep track of the original force roster and the reinforcement force roster, as well as the original force's casualties.
* Fight subsequent rounds of battle with the TS and class superiorities of the combined force, but keep the casualty penalties and position bonuses from the original force.
* The combined force can choose to perform the Rally strategy on any subsequent round. If it does so, apply the original force's casualty percentage to the original force roster, and then remove that casualty penalty from the combined force's casualty penalty. If the original force was ambushed and had not Rallied, it has to perform two separate Rally strategies.
* If the battle ends without the force choosing the Rally strategy, apply the total casualty penalty to the combined force normally.

A large force reinforcing a small force in a bad position might choose to Rally, taking a permanent penalty to a small amount of its total TS, in order to get rid of a large penalty. But in general, it's simple to combine the two forces and keep the existing penalties.

[TGLS]

Cool thanks

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by TGLS

OK, I might be dumb here but I can't seem to find rules for what happens in Mass Combat if another force comes to the aid of another force mid-battle. It's fairly obvious what happens if another force comes in between battles (i.e. they form into a larger force), but mid-battle reinforcements seem more troublesome. Should I just apply any casualties to both sides and immediately start another battle? Should the side receiving reinforcements suffer some kind of penalty reflecting the need to integrate new forces?

Starting a new battle with the new balance of forces is the simplest approach.

[Pursuivant]

You could also hand-wave reinforcements arriving in mid-battle as the reason why the side the won the battle was victorious and then just assign casualties and other results of the battle to the larger, combined force. That reduces casualties per unit.

It would be very difficult to model a large battle like Gettysburg which started off as a meeting engagement and then grew into a full-blown battle, with scattered units arriving piecemeal over several days. In such cases, you'd have to model separated battles as different fights and model the main battle area as a series of battles which represent a half day or day of fighting.

[mlangsdorf]

It seems unfair for the losing side to undo all their casualties and position penalties by getting some reinforcements. I'm all for recalculating the TS ratios, but just restarting the battle seems like it would cause problems.

[Rolando]

I believe that if reinforcements are to arrive they should be calculated in the original battle plans and totals.

Maybe add some penalty or reduce the effective reinforcements because they are not at the start of the battle, also there may be a chance the enemies may disturb the reinforcements or stop them from arriving, but that seems like part of the narative that the die roll tell.

It may also be played as two ro more consecutive or simultaneous battles.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Rolando

IMaybe add some penalty or reduce the effective reinforcements because they are not at the start of the battle, also there may be a chance the enemies may disturb the reinforcements or stop them from arriving, but that seems like part of the narative that the die roll tell.

In most cases I would disagree with penalizing the side being reinforced for being reinforced.

Penalties for them not being 'organized' fails to recognize the about 5 mins after the start of 90+% of battles both sides organization is scrambled. While reinforcements coming onto the field will scramble a little bit more as long as communications are still working it would be managable.

To offset that there usually are larger positive bonuses to:

Morale - It gives a serious lift to soldiers to be fighting hard and have X thousand more of YOUR GUYS come over the ridge and plow into the enemy.

Tactics - If the two leaders (the reinforcements and the reinforced) are in communication then the new troops can often be sent into action against a flank or weak point. Quite a number of times new troops skillfully applied can break the opposition or at least win the battle.

Indeed I might give the Senior commander of the reinforced side a Tactics roll. If he did well enough (in addition to the new TS numbers) I probably would give him a new roll (mid-battle) on the prebattle unpleasant surprise for the enemy table.

The enemy getting reinforced in any kind of close battle is one of the more unpleasant 'changes of fortune' to be had in war.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Rolando

I believe that if reinforcements are to arrive they should be calculated in the original battle plans and totals.

Maybe add some penalty or reduce the effective reinforcements because they are not at the start of the battle, also there may be a chance the enemies may disturb the reinforcements or stop them from arriving, but that seems like part of the narative that the die roll tell.

It may also be played as two ro more consecutive or simultaneous battles.

You can't always predict when or if the reinforcements are going to show up. Historical examples include the Battle of Waterloo and the run to the north during the Battle of Jutland. In play, I could see an invading army besieging defenders in a castle, while a reinforcement column fights its way through a guerilla infested countryside. How do you count the reinforcements into the total at the beginning of the battle if you're not even sure they'll show up?

I do think Witchking's suggestion of two forces in tactical communication, with the reinforcements arriving on a flank, is better handled as an Indirect Attack with the combined strength. But I think that's something of a special case.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I do think Witchking's suggestion of two forces in tactical communication, with the reinforcements arriving on a flank, is better handled as an Indirect Attack with the combined strength. But I think that's something of a special case.

Well a formation receiving reinforcements during a battle is fairly rare. A formation receiving reinforcements during a campaign (and I would class a siege as such since it is 80+% camping and digging with much less actual shooting and assaulting) is more common.

But a good commander who is (more or less) holding his position will use fresh troops to gain a victory (or at least attempt to). Conversely if he is losing his position he will use them to stabilize it.

One example I remembered off the top of my head was A.P. Hill force marching his men into the Battle of Antietam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam

Those reinforcements meant that Gen McClellan even having his opponent's battle orders only managed a draw, arguably a strategic victory.

Considering the dispersion of Lee and his smaller numbers IMHO it shows the outsize effects even relatively small numbers of reinforcements can have at the right time and place.

Again mid-battle it is a rare scenario but if it does come up, handled correctly, it can be decisive. Since it is what the OP is considering here I just wish him to keep that in mind.

P.S. Also since a Battle usually lasts days whereas a siege can last months (with individual battles scattered in that time) I would tend to consider a siege a campaign in itself.