"Supply Question??" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
gamer1  | 11 Jun 2025 9:44 a.m. PST |
As some of you know, my board game is coming along, slow but steady. One of several things I am doing game mechanics wise to bring something new to the table is unlike other games that cover an entire war I am making a distinction between an army that is able to forage for food vs being in supply. I feel this is not only realistic but would be something new and fun to add in the game.
Based on my research there is a difference but as you all know most games you are either in supply 100% okay or out of supply….no inbetween, something I think is worth bringing to the table, not just from an historical perspective but to add to the level of fun and challenge for the players. So, in my game it will be possible for an army to forage and feed itself but still be out of supply, which obviously would effect its ability to fight battles….you know when you would need bullets, gunpowder, cannon balls etc….not just a full belly.
All that being said this is my question I would like some feedback on. As a gamer, how much would you expect the combat effectiveness of a ACW army on either side to be affected if feed, but out of regular supply? Would you expect a 10% drop, 20%???? I am trying to decide on the "sweet spot" that is both historic and feels right playing the game. I am also keeping in mind that as all of you know that many times melee combat still happen alot in those battles and sometimes determined the out come so…..an army low on bullets so to speak would still be able to fight….just obviously not as effective. Yes I know alot of other factors would go into this like terrain, etc but I am thinking of an over all average. I am also having to keep game balance in mind as well. I hope I am explaining my question.
So…..what level of penalty would you, as a gamer expect an out of supply ACW army to suffer in the game. Thanks all and happy gaming!!!! |
| Shagnasty | 11 Jun 2025 11:52 a.m. PST |
Serious for material, and ammo. Serious for food, if standing still. Less so if moving forward. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania and Grant's movement around Vicksburg were serious foraging efforts but not the vicious depredations and destruction of Sherman in Georgia and Sheridan in the Shenandoah. |
| TimePortal | 11 Jun 2025 11:57 a.m. PST |
I regard supply and logistics more of a strategic rather than tactical issue in gaming.
More for boardgames. |
GildasFacit  | 11 Jun 2025 12:06 p.m. PST |
Which is what he is creating TP – in the first sentence. |
| Eumelus | 11 Jun 2025 1:34 p.m. PST |
I must respectfully disagree with Shagnasty. My studies in the subject convince me that the limiting factor for ACW armies, as with all armies previously, is forage for the tens of thousands of horses pulling the guns and wagons. ALL other logistics issues are a magnitude of order smaller. Forage being largely a factor of how intensely farmed a region is, there were very few areas that were fought over that could sustain armies larger than perhaps 20-30k. The Shenandoah valley (briefly) and western Maryland/Pennsylvania in the east – I'm not sure if any region in the "west" would be similarly capable. But for any other region, lack of a secure rail- or river connection with the rear would generally prevent any concentration, never mind movement, of any mid- to larger army. Now if "out of supply" is a matter of days rather than weeks, the condition would be less serious. Men can go for a few days on reduced rations, and horses can be driven until they drop. The primary immediate effect of being "cut off" would be on the commander's focus and available courses of action. Ammunition resupply is a tactical, not a strategic consideration in the ACW, again as was true of other 18th- and 19th-century armies. Armies generally carried all the ammunition they would use in an entire campaign with them. Only extended siege operation could force them to send back for more. |
| robert piepenbrink | 11 Jun 2025 2:48 p.m. PST |
With due respect, Eumelus, I understood that part of Lee's calculation at Gettysburg was that he didn't have enough artillery ammunition for two battles, and there's a fair bit of post-Gettysburg fuss with linking up with a supply train in the Shenandoah Valley. The ANV is then the examplar of an army fed, but not "in supply." Presumably Sherman was in a similar position in his March through Georgia and again after Savannah, but the Confederates were unable to take advantage. Reduce the army march rate and increase the desertion rate for not being fed. I can invent numbers, but those can probably be calculated from surviving records. Out of supply doesn't count for one battle, but takes severe penalties for a second. I might go as high as 25-40%, which is why commanders didn't let it happen. |
| Grelber | 11 Jun 2025 3:16 p.m. PST |
Chattanooga is one of battles where supply shortages had a direct effect on the armies. So far as I can tell, the Army of the Cumberland's cavalry and mounted infantry, and a lot of the artillery horses pulled out of town, so they would not have to be provided with forage. Sherman's and Hooker's men were not thrown directly into Chattanooga and were probably drawing on their own lines of supply since, even with the Cracker Line, food was barely adequate for the troops in the city. So, not always an X % decrease in the army's efficiency, but a matter of "How do we carry out our objectives with limited supplies?" Grelber |
| gamer1 | 12 Jun 2025 4:45 a.m. PST |
Thanks guys for all the input, very helpful as always!!! As mentioned I want to bring this distinction as just one of several ways to create a board game that actually has a few fresh twist and turns on a war that has been covered on the strategic level any number of times BUT still try and keep the rules as simple as possible while leaving in the important historical factors that made the ACW what it was and brings the challenges the players would expect to have to deal with.
Yes, as I mentioned to help distinguish between "feed/healthy" vs "supplied with bullets" I have different forage values for each area and the size of the force does effect IF you lose troops and how many while in it. But, also as mentioned I have separate rule/mechanic's to represent setting up supply lines and show what they can and can't do based on where and how the supply line is set up because in my research the infrastructure of an area also effected supply, something else alot of games of this level seem to overlook. To put it another way….if there is only one main supply road to use for 50 miles, it doesn't matter how many hoarse and wagons you "throw" at the problem, one road can only handle so many wagons per day regardless of how many you have.
Sounds like in the spirit of not making the rules more complicated for the players then needed but being fair to history I am thinking out of supply should reduce an armies combat ability in a major fight by 20%????? |
| ScottWashburn | 12 Jun 2025 4:42 p.m. PST |
I recommend Martin Van Creveld's book "Supplying War". It deals with all of that. But one thing to keep in mind, I'm not aware of any major battle that was lost, for lack of supplies. (sieges not included, of course). |
| donlowry | 13 Jun 2025 9:18 a.m. PST |
No, but there were probably quite a few that were never fought because of an inability to supply an advance, or a defender's inability to maintain his position. |
 Dye4minis | 13 Jun 2025 10:54 a.m. PST |
Many may not understand the positive effects of something as simple as clean water. Without that, men will get sick; food cannot be properly prepared; hygene cannot be properly maintained; all contributing to non-combat casualties depleting the combat efficiency of a force. Water is a heavy commodity to transport. Sufficient quantity and means to transport and store comes into play. Water and feed for horses also requires logistical concerns. To some degree, locally obtained feed/fodder can be obtained but water remains a co-need to have on hand in quantity to maintain the quality of mounted combat units, chain of resupply as well. Rather than to force gamers (who probably do not have firsthand knowledge of how important something as simple as "potable water" can have on operations) to track issues so far "down in the weeds") would be a game killer. Instead, scenario designers should impose the effects of lack of such on the capabilities of the forces involved. I feel that can influence the outcome of battles, campaigns and create concerns for the gamers that their real life counterparts had to make decisions upon- NO "bean counting" needed- only model the effects. Of course, most gamers just want to ignore such real life concerns and just push lead on the table and play as though everyone has full bellies, full ammo pouches, full canteens with easily refilled and there is always a plentiful supply of drinking water! Just because the toys on the table are in period does not make the game "historical"- only just a game (and nothing really wrong with that!) But call it for what it is: A GAME using well painted, period specific model soldiers, but is NOT necessarily historic beyond that. |
|
adds artillery to his soft-plastic Union forces.