"How To Represent Procurement Differences In A Game" Topic

The following article from The Warzone summarizes an individual's concerns that the USA and Europe are not learning what they need to with regard to Ukrainian weapon production, especially drones:
link
Aside from hat the article has to say about current procurement methods, it occurred to me that we seldom (if ever) worry about procurement systems in our gaming. For the majority of gaming modern warfare, essentially what you have on the table is all you need to know. But I can see strategic gaming may need to consider this.
Many years ago Yaquinto had card games representing naval armament races and the development cycle between AFV armor versus ATG penetration. These were very abstract ways of dealing with some complex topics. Given the popularity of the Eurogame style in today's boardgame world, I wonder if there might not be a way of depicting what is discussed in the article.

I can't really wrap my head around procurement making a fun game. But, my idea of fun isn't everyone's, so…

Given that previous procurement cycles were measured in years and now it's months, this would probably only matter in either a campaign or a strategic game. Maybe each week (or other time slice) have each side roll for progress being made on a new weapon system. Once a target is reached, the new weapons are available for upcoming battles. Sort of a video game tech tree for the tabletop.

Randomize the amount(s) of particular supplies in play.
Then:
> Let the player know how much he has on hand before the game starts.
or
> Have the referee tell the player when he runs out of the item.

Adjust your strategy & tactics accordingly… ;-)

I can't see procurement being used in almost any minis gaming I do. Board games maybe but those that would have a long enough timeframe per turn usually aren't my thing.

I'm in agreement with the not likely within our games.

I recall some WWII rules that limit the number of more powerful antitank rounds, but that's about it. Another example is higher cost to deploy certain vehicles.

I have yet to see a miniature game where your objective was to hold your ground until a supply truck arrives.

Flames of War was a grand strategic game that did this. Each turn you spent money to buy reinforcements. Cavalry arrived next turn. Carriers – 2 years from now.

I don't play any games with miniatures where a game represents more than a day.

In a rare case I *might* play a two day battle but that would probably be pre-20th century, if ever.

It's a nice idea: procurement differences affecting performmance on the table top.

One side fields a full compliment of armour recovery and repair facilities. Damaged/worn-out-gear recovered, repaired and ready to go again. Crews back into the fray. Green bubblegum indicatyor. Allotted troops always turn up, equipment works properly, Stoppage drills perform perfectly.

The other doesn't bother, stuff breaks, remains broken. Crews take a holiday. Amber/red bubblegum. Dice for no-shows, hobbled manoeuvring, weapon jams, etc.

---

One side has airplane repair facilities up front, complete with authentic spare parts. Green bubblegum. Great reliability means pilots can fly within their expected parameters.

The other has sparse repair facilities poorly trained fitters and ropey parts provisioning. Amber/Red bubblegum. Shaky reliability means pilots are forced to fly well within expected parameters, missiles fizz on their mounts, radar equipment fails, comms pack up, or falls out of sky with engine/control surface failure.

---

One side has time tested and proven technology, troops are trained and familiar, reliability in operation assured.

The other side has unproven experimental fizz-bangs, troops are fed up of being treated like guinea pigs.

Soldiers have to fight with whatever kit their bureaucracy procured for them a year, years, decade, or decades ago.

pjm

Wings of the Baron is great game about competition between German aircraf manufacturers during The Great War. You try to advance the performance of your aircraft to win contracts. There's also an overall rating for Allied aircraft performance that increase by a variable amount every turn. If the Allied aircraft have superior performance, German collapse (and the end of the game) comes faster. If at least one German manufacturer is ahead of the Allies, German collapse is slowed.

Not sure that it would work at all as part of a strategic game, much less a tactical game, but it's excellent as a stand alone.

MCKROK makes a clear point -

Soldiers have to fight with whatever kit their bureaucracy procured for them a year, years, decade, or decades ago.

Games or scenarios based on real-time [current] judgements are often in need of revision, and/or early 'conclusions' being premature. (we have difficulty enough analyzing the past)

MCKROK's point is partially true.

As long as the kit you start with helps you avoid early defeat the procurement process will speed up massively. WW2 is te classic example but the UK re-learned some harsh lessons about procurement in Afghanistan which it's promptly forgotten again.