Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

IMO it's generally out of scope of a typical miniatures wargame because your games will fall into one of two categories:

Both sides have roughly equal supply status. You go through a bunch of complicated bookkeeping to track food, ammunition, rest, etc, and in the end none of it really matters. Maybe there's a bonus to both sides, maybe there's a penalty to both sides, but the relative status of each side is the same and neither side benefits. The logistics stuff in this case is rules bloat that can be cut without any meaningful loss of depth.

One side has a logistics advantage. In this case the result of all your bookkeeping clearly matters but it very often produces non-games where it's not worth playing. The side with well-supplied troops easily mops up the fatigued and poorly armed enemy and after going through the motions of making it official your only conclusion to the game is yep, sure does suck to not have enough bullets for your troops to fire every turn. So why bother playing the game at all? It's far more enjoyable to focus on the first case, where you get meaningful games between well-matched forces.

The exception to this would be in linked campaign games where the outcome of a game has an effect beyond an individual win or loss but even then a logistics system is highly prone to snowball effects where once your supply lines are damaged you lose more and more. In this context logistics becomes more of a victory condition than an in-game mechanic. Most of the time you're in the "equal supply" case on the table but once attacks on supply lines become effective there should be maybe a game or two at most of a desperate last stand by troops that are running out of supplies before campaign victory is declared. But this is definitely a niche system because linked campaigns are extremely hard to manage compared to one-time pickup games and a system that relies on keeping players organized for an extended campaign is unlikely to have much of a market.

(I leave out war-scale games where things like supply convoys are part of the on-table action because those are not miniatures games. Logistics mechanics are clearly appropriate there but the genre is out of scope here.)

I would argue most games represent logistics in some capacity, just not directly or in an obvious manner, because tracking fuel and ammo consumption is tedious and not really appropriate to the scale of conflict represented by typical miniatures games. Any good miniature wargame has systems in place within it that essentially simulate some aspect of logistical management - command points in 40k for example are a finite resource that needs to marshaled and allocated in order to be successful. Orders in Infinity likewise are a resource that needs to be marshaled, managed, and allocated effectively in order to succeed. Focus/Fury, etc. in Warmachine/Hordes likewise. Command cards in various other games, etc. Any time a game gives a player limited resources they need to manage as an additional layer to the direct interaction between models on the tabletop, they have introduced an element of logistical management into the game, however light and abstract it might be. This is still true even though for the most part those systems tend to be oriented around the concept of command and leadership as opposed to supply.

chaos0xomega wrote:
command points in 40k for example are a finite resource that needs to marshaled and allocated in order to be successful

I wouldn't count CP or stratagems as an example of logistics at all. Aside from the fact that most of the things they represent have nothing to do with logistics they're missing a defining element of logistics: getting stuff where it needs to be. Logistics isn't just having enough food/ammunition/etc, it's also the difficult work of getting all those things where and when they need to go. 40k's stratagem system has none of that, as the player you just pick whatever buffs you want at any point in the game and play your stratagem card on the target unit. It's a finite pool of resources to allocate but so is the point system and I don't think anyone would argue that 40k incorporates logistics because each player has 2000 points to build their army.

Disagree. "Getting stuff where it needs to be" is simply out of context for a game at this scale, you're talking about moving stuff a few hundred feet, rather than supply lines which extend hundreds or even thousands of miles. An engagement at this scale basically boils down to whatever it is the guys in the field carry with them.

Even still, there are still "logistics" involved in the use of CP, certain strategems only trigger if you have the right combination of units in proximity to one another, then theres the whole Battleshock preventing use of a strategem on a unit, effects that block further CP generation, effects that allow CP generation, etc. It is not as simple an economy as you make it out to be.

Interesting thoughts Chaos.

I would have put that more into Command and Control rather than Logistics. Meanwhile, the humble Ammo Check in Necromunda seems to check the box of logistics to me.

However, the idea of Resource Management in gameplay as a sort of "proxy decision" that simulates logistics decisions only within the scope of the game we are playing is interesting and intriguing take to me. Clever.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Disagree. "Getting stuff where it needs to be" is simply out of context for a game at this scale, you're talking about moving stuff a few hundred feet, rather than supply lines which extend hundreds or even thousands of miles. An engagement at this scale basically boils down to whatever it is the guys in the field carry with them.

Sure, but all you're saying here is that logistics is outside the scope of a conventional wargame. The fact that supply lines are out of scope for a game doesn't mean that any random mechanic can be called "logistics" just because it has a decision to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
However, the idea of Resource Management in gameplay as a sort of "proxy decision" that simulates logistics decisions only within the scope of the game we are playing is interesting and intriguing take to me. Clever.

That may be true in some very general theoretical way but it certainly isn't true of the 40k mechanic. The CP/stratagem mechanic is completely detached from anything that can be described as logistics in anything but the most superficial sense. It's like saying that the Hazardous trait on plasma weapons is simulating a morale system because a bad thing happens and your unit suffers losses.

Its not about "having a decision to make" its about having to manage and allocate resources (in the case of this example, CP) which is fundamentally what logistics actually *is*.

You are overly concerned with the superficial trappings of logistics in the form of trucks, beans, and bullets - as opposed to the actual *practice* of logistics management, which is what is actually important and interesting to people in terms of designing and playing games.

Logistics management is something I deal with professionally, fwiw.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its not about "having a decision to make" its about having to manage and allocate resources (in the case of this example, CP) which is fundamentally what logistics actually *is*.

Except, again, you aren't managing the distribution of resources. You have to decide which unit gets +1 to hit this turn but you don't have to put any thought into how you're going to get the +1 hit from your warehouse of hit bonuses to the unit in the field, you just declare "+1 to hit this turn" and roll better dice. You've completely ignored the hardest and most interesting aspect of logistics and the few decisions you do make are almost always obvious.

By the standard you're using here nearly any mechanic could count as "logistics". Deciding whether to use your RDBT's once-per-game ability to cancel an attack is "logistics". Deciding which unit you should attach a character to is "logistics". Deciding whether to take objective 3 or objective 4 is "logistics". Deciding where to place terrain is "logistics". You've reduced the concept to a meaningless term that includes everything and says nothing.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Except, again, you aren't managing the distribution of resources. You have to decide which unit gets +1 to hit this turn but you don't have to put any thought into how you're going to get the +1 hit from your warehouse of hit bonuses to the unit in the field, you just declare "+1 to hit this turn" and roll better dice. You've completely ignored the hardest and most interesting aspect of logistics and the few decisions you do make are almost always obvious.

This is correct.

Command points represent the use of command, control and communications. It's giving orders, which can include logistics, but does not fall within it.

About the only logistics suitable on a 40k-ish board would be casevac and vehicle recovery. Most troops would be presumed to have come with adequate ammo loads and the combats don't last long enough for food or fuel to be an issue.

And that is once again a perspective based on superficial trappings. Theres *way* more to logistics than "how do I get this item from point A to point B". In fact, thats a myopic, overly narrow, unnecessarily specific definition of what logistics actually entails. Logistics is just as much about resource acquisition, storage, and rationing as it is about transportation. In fact - transportation is its own sub-field within logistics, referred to as (you guessed it!) transportation. As far as military logistics are concerrned, often the thing that matters more than actually getting stuff where you need it is managing and forecasting consumption and future demand - both of which are key to effective use of CP.

chaos0xomega wrote:
And that is once again a perspective based on superficial trappings. Theres *way* more to logistics than "how do I get this item from point A to point B". In fact, thats a myopic, overly narrow, unnecessarily specific definition of what logistics actually entails. Logistics is just as much about resource acquisition, storage, and rationing as it is about transportation. In fact - transportation is its own sub-field within logistics, referred to as (you guessed it!) transportation. As far as military logistics are concerrned, often the thing that matters more than actually getting stuff where you need it is managing and forecasting consumption and future demand - both of which are key to effective use of CP.

There is no future demand. When the game ends, it's over. Unless there are campaign rules, all the vehicles repair themselves and the dead return to life, ready for the next game.

Most miniatures games are about the actual engagement. The supply situation is part of the scenario. You could try to graft them on, but it's just not appropriate to this scale.

And in the actual engagement, transportation becomes the key factor. You're at the end of the supply chain, so getting it over the last hundred yards is all that matters. A front-line commander has nothing to do with acquisition, storage or rationing.

At the operational level, you can have command points also include the provision of supply, but unless you're keeping a running tally on everyone's individual ammo, it's not appropriate to fighting below the company level.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Except, again, you aren't managing the distribution of resources. You have to decide which unit gets +1 to hit this turn but you don't have to put any thought into how you're going to get the +1 hit from your warehouse of hit bonuses to the unit in the field, you just declare "+1 to hit this turn" and roll better dice. You've completely ignored the hardest and most interesting aspect of logistics and the few decisions you do make are almost always obvious.

Command points represent the use of command, control and communications. It's giving orders, which can include logistics, but does not fall within it.

Directly yes. But you as the player are engaging in a form of logistics management by way of the mechanics and resource economy associated with the system. You can also abstract a lot of CP into a form of logistical concern as well - Storm of Fire could represent you allocating additional ammunition supplies to a unit, Hellfire/Kraken/Dragonfire Rounds literally is you allocating special issue ammunition to your forces, Teleportarium, Rapid Ingress and Reinforcements! are very directly based on transportation logistics (yes, moving personnel to and from the field of battle and deploying manpower is very much part of the practice of military logistics), presumably some faction has a strat or a model with an ability that allows them to repair vehicles - maintenance, repair, and overhaul is literally a key function of military logistics networks, etc.

We can stretch the definition of logistics to cover all sorts of things if we want. What is force selection other than an exercise in logistics?

You, the commander, made the provision for the following units to be on the battlefield at this specific time with full stocks of fuel and ammo. In many games, list creation is the most important factor in determining the outcome, so one could argue it's already out there.

Of course, if you play more collaborative games with agreed-upon scenarios and balanced force mixes, that largely goes away.

By this measure, 40k is all about logistics!

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


There is no future demand. When the game ends, it's over. Unless there are campaign rules, all the vehicles repair themselves and the dead return to life, ready for the next game.

There is future demand. You gain 1 CP per turn + whatever else you can squeeze out of other abilities. Your demand curve for those CP is non-linear and typically in excess of your CP gain. Forecasting how many CP you may need to utilize in a future turn based on the present board state is essential to understanding the best allocation of your CP in the present turn, as well as maximizing your potential later in the game. Spending a CP on a command re-roll in turn 1 could make the difference in the outcome of a key inflection point in turn 5 which is critical to the games outcome. If you've ever said "I'm not going to use a CP here, I'd rather bank it for next turn because I think I might need it" - congratulations, you forcecasted future demand for your CP.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

And in the actual engagement, transportation becomes the key factor. You're at the end of the supply chain, so getting it over the last hundred yards is all that matters. A front-line commander has nothing to do with acquisition, storage or rationing.

A front-line commander has nothing to do with getting the gear over the last hundred yards either. Thats the concept of Forward Impetus - supply is driven from the rear, a combat commander should not be concerned with it, it falls to sustainment forces at the rear to supply the forces at the front, because the combat commander is kind of busy managing a whole lot of other factors that directly impact life or death of themselves and their troop. Thats a core principal of US Army logistics doctrine.

chaos0xomega wrote:
And that is once again a perspective based on superficial trappings. Theres *way* more to logistics than "how do I get this item from point A to point B". In fact, thats a myopic, overly narrow, unnecessarily specific definition of what logistics actually entails. Logistics is just as much about resource acquisition, storage, and rationing as it is about transportation. In fact - transportation is its own sub-field within logistics, referred to as (you guessed it!) transportation. As far as military logistics are concerrned, often the thing that matters more than actually getting stuff where you need it is managing and forecasting consumption and future demand - both of which are key to effective use of CP.

But you aren't doing any of that stuff in the CP/stratagem system. Each player gets the same CP (+2 automatic, +1 easily) and can freely spend their pool on anything they want without any worries about how to gain it, store it, etc. Nor can you forecast demand and adjust your CP generation, you're getting the same +3 per round regardless of what you think you need and there's nothing you can do to add more or turn unwanted CP into some other resource. And most of the things you spend it on are pretty obvious choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You can also abstract a lot of CP into a form of logistical concern as well - Storm of Fire could represent you allocating additional ammunition supplies to a unit

No, because as you pointed out the scale of a battle is too short for distribution of supplies to be relevant. Units go into battle with what they have and that's it. And it's absurd to suggest that you're representing logistics by getting a unit into position for a good shot and then declaring retroactively that you totally knew that unit was going to need +1 to hit and therefore gave it extra ammunition before the battle started.

The only way you'd have any real argument here would be if you had to allocate stratagems before the game begins and commit your scarce resources before you know which unit will want a particular buff.

presumably some faction has a strat or a model with an ability that allows them to repair vehicles - maintenance, repair, and overhaul is literally a key function of military logistics networks, etc.

And this is just comically absurd. A 40k battle is way too short for maintenance and overhaul to be happening, any "repair" effect in 40k is just hitting a vehicle with a magic wrench and making the HP bar go up. You aren't simulating logistics just because you decide to magically heal a vehicle in the middle of the battlefield with no maintenance support nearby instead of having your infantry squad throw some grenades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you've ever said "I'm not going to use a CP here, I'd rather bank it for next turn because I think I might need it" - congratulations, you forcecasted future demand for your CP.

And if you've ever said "I should keep this unit behind cover so I can score an objective next turn" you've forecasted demand for your infantry squad. That doesn't make it logistics.

chaos0xomega wrote:
A front-line commander has nothing to do with getting the gear over the last hundred yards either. Thats the concept of Forward Impetus - supply is driven from the rear, a combat commander should not be concerned with it, it falls to sustainment forces at the rear to supply the forces at the front, because the combat commander is kind of busy managing a whole lot of other factors that directly impact life or death of themselves and their troop. Thats a core principal of US Army logistics doctrine.

In that case, the player also has nothing to do with it, because that is who he is playing.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
IMO it's generally out of scope of a typical miniatures wargame because your games will fall into one of two categories:

Both sides have roughly equal supply status. You go through a bunch of complicated bookkeeping to track food, ammunition, rest, etc, and in the end none of it really matters. Maybe there's a bonus to both sides, maybe there's a penalty to both sides, but the relative status of each side is the same and neither side benefits. The logistics stuff in this case is rules bloat that can be cut without any meaningful loss of depth.

One side has a logistics advantage. In this case the result of all your bookkeeping clearly matters but it very often produces non-games where it's not worth playing. The side with well-supplied troops easily mops up the fatigued and poorly armed enemy and after going through the motions of making it official your only conclusion to the game is yep, sure does suck to not have enough bullets for your troops to fire every turn. So why bother playing the game at all? It's far more enjoyable to focus on the first case, where you get meaningful games between well-matched forces.

One solution to this would be to backload it: At the end of your game you count up salvaged/lost resources and manpower: it directly affect your victory points.

So you may win a game but because you spent all your ammunition, half your men are wounded, the other are dead, and all your vehicles are on fire it was only a partial victory instead of a grand victory.

In this way logistics become part of your victory conditions. Drawback you need to track supplies along with causalities.

The other way to solve this is to make a strategy focused miniature game based around a much larger scale. Optionally you can hook this into a larger campaign as you mentioned.

StaevinTheAeldari wrote:
One solution to this would be to backload it: At the end of your game you count up salvaged/lost resources and manpower: it directly affect your victory points.

So you may win a game but because you spent all your ammunition, half your men are wounded, the other are dead, and all your vehicles are on fire it was only a partial victory instead of a grand victory.

In this way logistics become part of your victory conditions. Drawback you need to track supplies along with causalities.

The other way to solve this is to make a strategy focused miniature game based around a much larger scale. Optionally you can hook this into a larger campaign as you mentioned.

That is exactly how our gaming group does it. We place the skirmishes on context with larger events, and this causes players to behave more realistically about casualties. Is it really worth a "win" if your terminators are completely wiped out? If the objective is beyond reach, why keep fighting? Better to inflict losses while retreating in good order.

Indeed, in one of our more recent games the Chaos player threw his tactical marines in a line to buy time for the terminators to get away - if that squad had been eliminated, no terminators for a while. Similarly, vehicles lost when you don't retain control of their area mean less available for future games.

But that's a bit different than having it baked into the rules.