[suggestion] Making logistics meaningful

[uran21]

Every now and then on various forums about various war games question of logistics pops up. What all this discussions have in common is schism about decision should more elaborated logistics be included in the game or not. This kind of attitude is also an indicator to developers how the issue contains certain popularity risk.

While attitudes can be extreme in ranges from saying how any kind of supply lines overcomplicates the game to those who want to micromanage resource delivery, right answer can only come if one decides what he actually wants to achieve.

There is a huge difference between strategy and tactics although people very often use this terms interchangeably for the same thing. I would describe strategy as a process and tactics as an act. Strategy is a process of achieving positions that can grant you your goal while tactics is a method you use by doing so. Strategy requires greater level of pre planning while tactics makes you deal with situations in the moment when they are presented in front of you.
The reason why people like tactics more is because it provides for more dynamic.

What makes complexity of certain system is the number of parameters one needs to think about that are mutually interconnected so they require balancing. Adding detail does not necessarily mean adding complexity. People like detail when it enhances immersion but they do not like detail that adds too much micromanagement.

So let us examine logistics system. We have:

Resource capacity
Resource consumption
Resource delivery

This is if we look it from operational level which is scaled down strategy, grand strategy would include resource production when applicable.

This concept is not overly complex to understand but the problem with it comes with management. Decision making process, actual movement of units and at the end its purpose. What are benefits of the system and what are trade offs by including it, is it all worth it ?!

The concept you described is not complex and has good visual indicator of current situation but its flaws are hidden elsewhere.

Take a look at decision making process.
Player is presented with the map and only objective is on the other side of it. Designer has allocated enough logistic points to reach that objective along one axis of attack. What if player decides to advance along two axis of attack and upon reaching middle of the map realizes he needs to relocate logistic assets on a different way but has no time to do it anymore?
Some could say “But that is the whole point of it, you suffer consequences by making wrong decisions”. This is not a valid argument because you need to leave the player with tools to help him make the right decision. This would usually be done on a drawing board with some calculations involved. So far so good but would this process of longer pre planning be liked by majority of players?

Second aspect of decision making process would be altering of already made plan. If you have several trucks in a chain and you decide to move one of them game needs to provide you with at the glance information about consequences of such an act. Also after you have made several alterations maybe you would realize how this is not an optimal composition so this brings us again to the drawing board, calculations and recalculations. One way to handle this would be to introduce planning phase where assets relating to logistics could be moved and removed until one is satisfied with the result and then confirming it before proceeding to combat phase. But than again how much pre planning people want?

Then there is a problem of actual combat and destruction. If logistics transportation and warehouses are on the map they would present priority target and that could degrade actual playing experience if those are easily spotted. All firepower would be directed there and scenario could be resolved with couple of critical hits. If logistics assets are hidden unless you stumble upon them risk of prematurely resolving scenario would be lower and this opens new opportunity and that is destruction of terrain. Bombardment of roads, railroads and bridges, communication lines in general would bring new dimension to the game and make for better use of light level bombers.

Even in games that do not feature elaborated logistics units are performing movement and combat. Combat is what people want to see and dependency on movement without combat is not considered fun. This means that movement should be used to facilitate combat but micromanaging movement is completely against this principle. After some time moving delivery trucks would simply become boring.

Digression on the question of war in North Africa. Harbours were hundreds of miles away from each other (Tripoli - Benghazi - Tobruk - Alexandria) and they had relatively small unloading capacity (it differed among harbours). Supplies were delivered at very long ranges by trucks and trucks by themselves are consuming fuel which means fuel could not be delivered at infinite ranges. This was the real logistical problem of North Africa but if you ask people majority of them will say Malta because thinking about combat is more flashy than thinking about “beans counters”. British resolved this problem by building railroad close to the frontline. Alternative to this is building stock of supplies than performing limited offensive until one builds another stock of supplies. After breaching Gazala line Germans made use of undestroyed British stocks of supply to continue moving. After a standstill at El Alamein British build their supplies faster than Germans ever could. See-saw character of North African campaign happened because one side overextends its supply lines while the other got closer to its supply sources. Such situation could be resolved only with methodical approach that would be followed with long time lulls between steps. Situation evolving around Malta and Mediterranean could make this situation worse for either side but it would not resolve main problem. Main problem was lack of transportation infrastructure.

Adding element where time is needed to build up supplies would be realistic and not too complex but it has potential to undermine game dynamic.

Question of adding logistics to war games is question that requires balancing of its own.
My recommendation on the subject with look on high level principles would be the following:

Add realism for immersion.
Do not sacrifice gameplay for realism.
Logistics with capacity-consumption-distance system is not overly complex.
Add warehouses as units.
Manage delivery on autopilot.
Include visual indicators.
Provide for planning but reduce time needed for it.

Benefit of this system would be paying closer attention to terrain configuration, terrain destruction as added tactical element that could put level bombers to right perspective and new objectives with added immersion. Supply lines give movement of troops more purpose even if there is no direct combat but playing low on supply is not fun. It can be used as a drama factor if it has prospect to be changed in short time by players actions.

Actual details and corrections would depend on experimenting. But then again, decision to include it or not depends on game audience for every particular game.

[kondi754]

I believe the war in North Africa was exceptional when it comes to the problem of logistics and Developers could i.e. create a few scenarios where the goal is to get or destroy the supply depots.
No need to immediately add any additional risk elements. We will not give a particularly great realism because it will be only a substitute of logistics.
The use of partial, simplified solutions are spoiling a good product (does not make sense for me).