Logistics in Miniature Wargames

[Easy E]

Greetings Designers,

They say that amateurs talk tactics, while professionals talk Logistics.  However, when you look at most tabletop miniature games logistics is rarely mentioned.  In a basic sense, the logistics is making sure your units have ammo, food, fuel, etc. that keeps them in fighting trim.  Forces with poor logistics tend to have a tougher time fighting against a better logistical prepared foe.  Many times, strategy is about creating those logistical mis-matches. 

On the blog, we take a deeper dive into this little utilized aspect of Miniature Wargaming.  Why the topic is avoided, some games that take advantage of it, and why it could be useful as a designer. 

On a high level it is avoided because:
1. Thing that go boom! is the focus
2. Cognitive Load
3. Tactical focus
4. Not balanced
5. Game first!

Why they should not be disregarded:
1. Adds friction
2. Realism
3. Logistics wins wars
4. Great for Chrome

Some of the games discussed in the blog are:
- Last Days: Seasons
- Battlegroup
- A Billion Suns

I look forward to your thoughts!

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/09/wargame-design-adding-logistics-to.html

[Michi]

Fatigue is a major factor in many tabletop games. I would consider that an aspect of logistics. SAGA is an example.
Certain logistic aspects affect options in other games as well. Perhaps they appear a little concealed behind strategic decisions. Here SW Armada can stand for example.

All in all I would say, that logistics are not forgotten, but involved in the circumstances and not the major focus, so that they may be shrouded by the designers and game mechanisms to a point where they're no longer recognizable.

[Belligerentparrot]

My 2 cents/pence:

If the game in question is representing a short slice in time (e.g. a couple of hours), I'm not sure I see much point in adding many logisitics considerations in. For example, in Confrontation (GW's original attempt at what became Necromunda) you had to keep track of how many bullets each ganger had. This was mostly just tedious book-keeping that didn't add to the actual battle at all. More fun was achieved by simply assuming everyone had brought enough rounds with them to cover the duration of the fighting.

Once you got to the campaign side of the game - now an indefinite time period rather than a slice of time - granular logistics had more point, though from a games design point of view I guess you don't want logistics rules that encourage very conservative play.

That said one aspect of logistics (I guess) I would be interested in hearing more about is a point Carlos made in another of these threads: the need for units to recover themselves after engaging in close and chaotic melee. I see that as partly a logistics question: the need to take a moment to check whether everyone is ready to keep fighting, and distributing available kit as needed. *That* would be an interesting effect even in one-off games covering a short slice of time, and could be handled quite abstractly (no need to keep track of who in the unit had or needs what).

[Easy E]

Interesting. 

I guess I never though of Fatigue as a logistics issue, bit more of a Morale/Command and Control issue.

That is a topic I have not hit on in a while..... thanks for the thought triggers.   

[fred]

I agree, logistics is missing in most wargames. I was surprised with the Rommel rules how little role logistics play in the game (given its a high level game, with bases as companies and a division plus on the table). There is a bit in one day games, about the need to trace supply lines, but with fairly low negatives if this fails. There is more in multi-day scenarios, but we haven’t got round to playing any of these!

I’d not really thought of the items in Battlegroup as logistics - but I agree with your take. Battlegroup is a very clever set of rules, as while you notionally field a few platoons it cleverly works in much higher level elements, but in a way that dosen’t fell out of place.

I am surprised that more games don’t include rules for the impact of differing levels of logistics, even if these are intended for use in scenarios, rather than in pick-up games. Having established rules for limited ammo, or low fuel, would be helpful in recreating many historical games.

I was going to write that I don’t want to track each units ammo status. But I realise that in For King and Parliament and To The Strongest, I am quite happy to do just this! In FKaP ammo is typically 1-3 for infantry units, and they can spend this in a few tactical ways, and can always fire at short range. We use labels on the units and tick off the ammo boxes as shots are fired. It all works great in the game and creates some tactical choice. Re-supply isn’t part of the standard game, but would feel easy to add if desired - IIRC you can resupply arrows in TTS.

[tikitang]

Keeping track of ammo and food is something that is more in the sphere of RPGs, I'd venture, though some skirmish games (depending on the detail level) may make use of ammo count, even if it's slightly abstracted (for example, rolling a 1 on your attack roll to run out of ammo for a given weapon).

Outside of RPGs, food is something I would restrict to the realm of narrative/objectives, rather than having to bookkeep. For example, making a raid on a food supply wagon would make a good and realistic objective for a skirmish scenario for almost any setting, without needing to keep track of each unit's individual hunger level and supplies. I know I certainly couldn't be bothered with that, as I want wargames to feel 'cinematic'.

More fun was achieved by simply assuming everyone had brought enough rounds with them to cover the duration of the fighting.

I think this is the key point, certainly for me.

[fred]

I agree within the scope / time frame of most games tracking food use seems unnecessary. But I think most rules miss the opportunity to set the starting level of overall logistics for a force, eg they are hungry and have been so for weeks, they are low on ammo, they are low on fuel (or the converse they have excess food, fuel or ammo). And then how these logistical elements feed into the table top stats.

Yes, as a player I can invent a system for this. But that it is missing from most games, suggests it is something that either rules writers don’t think about, or it is something players are against. Given that most games give you full strength units at the start of the game, when this is the least likely state for any unit, suggests that as gamers we do like things parade ground ready!

[Belligerentparrot]

Really interesting point Fred - it made me see how logistics (which I was thinking of rather narrowly, in terms ensuring good supply) might be represented in other ways, e.g. morale. One way to represent how one army is hungrier than the other at the outset is to give the hungry army a lower will to fight.

It also looks like a very scenario-specific consideration rather than a "general rules" consideration to me.

[Ran The Cid]

Logistics as a game is better represented as a board game.  Its much easier to "game" the impacts of choice X vs Y, while also managing resource scarcity, and hostile player interactions in a board game setting.  By the time the logistics phase of a miniature game is over, there should be little reason to actually play the game.  WW2 was over when the US and its industrial capacity entered the war.  Hannibal lost the Punic Wars when Carthage failed to support him in Italy.  In a world of perfect information, no need to play out either of those campaigns when the logistics war was already lost.

[Elbows]

I enjoy logistics in skirmish games as a way to control the power of certain units or weapons.  As the scales increase I prefer logistics to become more abstracted.  In short, I don't mind logistics if they're handled cleverly.

In Battlegroup I'm more or less onboard, with the exception of the ammo calculation which makes some units unusable in the game more or less, so we've changed them slightly.

When it comes to water/food/rest/medical supplies, etc. I'm all for scenario-based penalties, without having it matter in the game.  Even the largest "wargame" we do in most instances represents 15 minutes to perhaps an hour, fought over a few football piches.  Unless it's a scenario based pre-condition, I don't need to worry about water/food/medical supplies, etc.

[Easy E]

An interesting thought I ran across on another board.....

The thrust of the argument was that any "Resource Management" elements of the game such as managing Command Points could serve as a Proxy decision rather than actual logistics like supply, food, etc. 

It was not a 1:1 correlation of Command Points = Supply issues but more of an abstraction for a commander to have to manage a resource, even if it was not directly about food/water/ammo/fuel, etc.

[Elbows]

While it blurs the line between logistics and 'army' building...it's one reason I've designed some random unit tables for playing BG.

Everyone, even subconsciously, has biases toward what they choose when "building an army".  The less savory amongst us will show up to every game with the best units, the best tanks, and we never skimp on a Tiger Ace, etc.  While non-tournament games may not have a 'meta' per se, biases will creep in regardless.  This is probably the least realistic thing, particularly for historical games.

Even I, who prefers narrative over power, struggle to look at various units in a game like Battlegroup and not think "Well that makes no logical sense because it's the same cost, but worse in every way..."

Bringing this back to logistics - a lieutenant, major, colonel, etc...is often limited by what he has available to tackle a given task.  Throughout history commanders have been told to achieve a task with sub-optimal units/equipment at their disposal.  This is where I enjoy using my randomized tables.  It's providing a logistical limitation before the game even starts.  "Here is what you have available to accomplish your mission, good luck."

I joke with my buddies, "I want an excuse to take sub-par units...".  This provides me with just such a thing.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Twilight 2000 has a logistics side (you need to eat, sleep and brew enough fuel).

[jon_1066]

Logistics are outside the scope of most mini games other than setting a starting condition for units (eg low on ammo) or as an objective (capture that town and you are sat on the enemy’s line of supply)

The single most famous battle for logistics is surely Hattin in the crusades.  Not a good idea to run out of water in a battle!

[carlos marighela]

That said one aspect of logistics (I guess) I would be interested in hearing more about is a point Carlos made in another of these threads: the need for units to recover themselves after engaging in close and chaotic melee. I see that as partly a logistics question: the need to take a moment to check whether everyone is ready to keep fighting, and distributing available kit as needed. *That* would be an interesting effect even in one-off games covering a short slice of time, and could be handled quite abstractly (no need to keep track of who in the unit had or needs what).

For me that is the most pertinent issue of logistics in a tabletop battle, as opposed to a campaign. Any other matters would be dealt with as part of the specific scenario design, fed from the campaign logistics if part of such.

A reorg phase is for most contemporary armies a drill, something that will automatically take place after an action but in an informal sense it's almost certainly been an aspect of warfare since the get-go. It's the necessary pause in a battle to ensure that, you have all-round defence,  that everyone's ammo is replenished, wounded recovered and attended to and a sit rep provided to higher headquarters. More often than not if the fighting has been intense it will involve the sending of an Op Dem to a higher headquarters, requesting ammunition, water, casevac etc.

It's also a time to physically recover, catch your breath, slake your thirst and generally sort yourself out.

Until such time as your bodies are shaken out in all-round defence and have the necessary means to fight, the troops are at a sub-optimal level of battle readiness.   This is why immediate counter attacks are often successful, as the force that has just assaulted a position is in a degree of disorder as well as often as not being physically knackered.  Try a few hundred meters of fire and movement and /or fighting through the objective on your guts. Even without bullets whizzing about it's fucking tiring. Admittedly adrenaline kicks in but there's a price to be paid for that as well.

This really does need to be reflected in tactical games and so rarely is. It's also the primary reason to paint little lance corporal stripes on your figures.