"Logistics and Atttrition" Topic

What have been the best systems that you have come across for dealing with logistics and attrition in campaigns, particularly in the pre-railway era?

Dear Whirlwind.

After thirty years of designing campaign games and campaign systems the best is to

1.Ignore it as not worth the candle.

But if there is not enough misery in the world for you and you must do this then over the years I've boiled it down to this.

2. I use a an area- and point campaign map. The areas represent broad provinces, the "points" are things like fortress' or strategic towns which lie on the borders between areas. Thus a strategic point/fortress could "front" on two, up to about five areas. If you control the fortress then it can provide "supply" to each area it fronts on. Think of a clover, the three leaves (four if you're Irish) are the provinces. The point where they come together is the fortress. The fortress at the center provides supply to the four areas.

If you control a fortress fronting on the area, you are in supply. No effect.

If you do not have a fortress fronting on the area you must have a wagon brigade with your army for supply.

That gets us into the organization of strategic forces. In the above system forces in the field are composed of strategic units. A strategic unit is an Army, or a brigade. Armies are always equal from country to country (well almost) and have the identical table top units, usually 25. In my 18th century game this works out to 5 line infantry, 2 Elite (Light Infantry or Grenadiers) 1 Dragoon Regiment, 4 heavy and 4 light cavalry regiments, 2 light and 2 heavy guns and five Wagons.

Brigades differ by type. These contain one wagon, one light gun, one regiment of dragoons and four of "type" thus four infantry regiments, four cavalry guns, militia, engineers etc. and of cour wagons.

in any strategic force you can have only a certain number of combinations. which are

one brigade
two brigades
one army
one army and one brigade.

No more.

NOTE, BRIGADES ARE NOT CONSTITUENT PARTS OF ARMIES!

So now we can deal with the effects of not being in supply,.

If a strategic force is not in supply (has no fortress fronting on the area, or does not have a wagon brigade with it, then you roll one die. If the result is a 5 or a 6

Then the force loses one brigade of troops eliminated or if it only has an army, it breaks down to two brigades, BUT CANNOT BE RECOMBINED again by bringing in additional brigades.

There you go, simple, direct, without any bookkeeping.

I have to partly agree with Otto. I have to partly disagree with him too.

Logistics are important in a campaign but they are best, IMHO, dealt with in an abstract manner. In campaigns, especially long ones, it is best to obey the law of KISS (keep it simple, stupid) as it keeps the campaign bundling along without boring the players to death with endless book keeping, order writing, etc.

Attrition is best left out (IMHO) unless it is due to very severe conditions – like crossing a desert without water – because very gradual attrition is pointless to track, given that most war game casualty systems amalgamate physical casualties and morale effect into one 'number'.

Campaign rules, where they exist at all, are very much a matter of taste. I've often found board games best for dealing with 'strategic' issues, and they come with a map.

Perhaps, that might be the better question. "What board game would you use for a 'X period' war game campaign?

I agree with the point-to-point campaign map, even more than area movement as it can't provide the road net constrictions that were the real issue in campaign movement.

I think the issue of campaign attrition has been well handled by board games like For The People. In the ACW, half of all 'casualties' were through attrition, mostly illness. The way it is handled is simple. At some point on a regular basis, end of the season, any concentration of troops at a point over 'X' takes attrition, accounting for desertion, illness, etc. If out of supply, the attrition is doubled or tripled. In supply simply means there is road net to a supply source. This does a good job of forcing the player to make decisions about when to dispurse and when to concentrate.

Logistics on the other hand, can be messy, keeping track o f supplies and depots and all the rules associated with it. If there is a real interest in that kind of game, Napoleonic armies regularly sent men ahead of the army [even invading armies] to buy food from a particular town or area. The enemy would use this kind of intelligence to determine where their opponents were heading. During the Jena campaign, both sides used this kind of intelligence and Napoleon actually had supplies purchased in areas ahead of his army that were not on his march route to fool the Prussians.

For a campaign, attrition can be important, but logistical considerations other than simple supply lines, need some serious rules to handle them, so only if you are interested…

I did run across a board game created by a French officer in 1786 that focused on just the logical aspects of a campaign with the exciting title of "Logistics".

To pick up and run with McLaddies idea- this is very off the top of my head. Supply towns provide 'x' points – dependent on town etc. Count the number of points from supply point to army, divide x by that distance, that's the number of game table units in supply.

It depends how complicated you want it to be.

If it is a solo campaign, and you enjoy the detailed administration, you can run the whole campaign around supply and attrition. The Russian campaign would be very suitable for this.

If you want to fight a short campaign, then you want to keep it simple. The Waterloo campaign would be suitable for this.

I designed my campaign to be very administration light. It is designed to be a series of Waterloo type campaigns. So the supply and attrition is simple.

Each campaign phase lasts about 10 to 15 days. Each army has four corps, and each corps starts the campaign with four days supplies, and a further four days in the depot. Each depot collects one days supplies each campaign day, so each army needs four depots to keep the supplies at the maximum level.

To resupply a corps must halt for the day, not be involved in fighting and within 15 miles of the depot.

The aim of this is to make the army commander consider his supply state. If he does not he runs out of supplies. If he runs out he loses 5% casualties each day until resupplied. He also has to detach a full strength brigade to garrison each depot. So he has to juggle his fighting strength against his supply needs.

Attrition is even easier. Each day a corps receives a maximum of 5% reinforcements to replace battle casualties. Again they have to be halted and not in combat.

Its simple, easy to administer and works surprisingly well

Ask yourself the question: Will it influence decisions made by the players?

If no, there's probably no use in incorporating it in your game.
If yes, then focus only on those effects and mechanics that players can influence and might drive their decision-process.

If it's just a random effect to add some colour and fun, then treat it as such – as a random effect. Draw a card, roll on a table, something like that.

The worst systems are those that have complicated mechanics to resolve, but result in each side losing e.g. 10% of manpower, with absolutely no influence on how the campaign is unfolding.

There's another dimension.

If it affects both sides more or less equally or with a small range- why bother? Just assume that the bunch of minis you call a regiment, or battalion, or division, or whatever represents fewer men and bash on. If one said has a definite supply advantage, then build it into the powers of that one side and bash on.

It's like one of those holidays that obligates you to buy someone a card and you always forget to do it because the obligation is just an obligation and has no real connection to the sentiments you may feel toward that powerson

Much the same, in IWG's (International War Games where a player represents the king of a country) I have come to the conclusion that "economic systems" are worse than worthless. First of all every one of them I have ever seen over the past 40 years of gaming is completely unrealistic as to how economies really work and operate exactly like a gamer browsing through a catalog of minis.

My advice to people is that if you must have these things. Give each state a pile of "monopoly money" (whatever the game currency you have is) which represents not just money, but resources, reserves, will to fight, etc., and not one itty bit more. When they run out, they lose. It's far more simple and realistic.

Give each state a pile of "monopoly money" (whatever the game currency you have is) which represents not just money, but resources, reserves, will to fight, etc., and not one itty bit more. When they run out, they lose. It's far more simple and realistic.

Clever use of a clock mechanism…

Thanks for all of the very interesting comments.

We used an Econpoint system for Supreme Warlord back in 1981. Econpoints were raised by cities, trade and resource centers (horses or iron mines).
They could be spent on new ships, repairs, replacements or reinforcements. Another option was to use them on politics.