Logistics, logistics, logistics

[Imperial Dave]

And would those armoured men anyway largely be chieftains and select bodyguards if chieftains?  One remembers that at Argentoratum (AD 357) Chnodomar led a contingent of Alemannii nobility and their retinues and bodyguards against Julian's line, where the German elite came to grief via the swords of the Primani.

This might have been in effect the '5%' concentrated in a single unit, particularly as many if not all of the nobles had been mounted at the outset of the action.

If early Germanic armies (and those of sundry other barbarians) consisted of a core of chieftain's retinues of "professional" warriors bulked out by a more-or-less general levy of freemen, one might expect that the proportion of armour would be in rough inverse proportion to army size. A raiding force of 200 may be a retinue all in armour, while an army of 20k would be very largely of less well-equipped and less skilled fighters.

I would add that a centrally controlled 'state' would be able to equip troops with standardised (possibly) metal armour and that tribal forces would indeed follow the size vs inverse armour percentage worn rule

[aligern]

Do we get an extensively armoured barbarian army when the Goths defeat Decius or when they win at Adrianople? or when Alaric gets a position as Magister Milutum in Illyricum? or when Odoacer and Theoderic held Italy for 60 years? or, for that matter, when Clovis wins three major battles in a row and takes on the remnants of whatever arms and armour production is left in Gaul.
Perhaps we should see the Roman Empire as having a very efficient armour production system, but from Maurice onwards the manuals accept that in the infantry it was. often enough to get an armoured front rank.

i'll bet there was far more variation in equipment levels than a simple barbarian  versus civilised dichotomy.

Roy

[Duncan Head]

Do we get an extensively armoured barbarian army when the Goths defeat Decius or when they win at Adrianople?

Some years ago, Luke U-S wrote:

Retainers: I rate these as Wb (S), since despite frequent Roman  comments about the lack of armour amongst barbarians generally, the  situation may have been quite different amongst the retinues of the reiks (chiefs), and of the Goths in particular. For instance Olympiodoros talks of a force of 3000 men (hence the 24 elements allowed at half normal scale) all in mail fitting tightly around the waist. Such retinues were professional warriors, further buttressing their classification as Wb (S), and marked contrast to the commoners who normally only fought in defensive wars; accordingly allied contingents from this list may be composed entirely of such retainers.

I'm not sure exactly when the Olympiodoros citation refers to, though.

[Dangun]

Do we prefer to acknowledge the historical aspect of logistics and putting an army in the field and especially for a campaign but not necessarily want this to 'intrude' upon our wargaming?

Yes! Pushing lumps of iron and baggage around on the table top wouldn't be so engaging.

But from a historical perspective... its very interesting IMHO.
I personally think you can go one macro level higher and get a lot of explanatory power from looking at the economics (behind the logistics, behind the armies, behind the generals etc.) of adversaries.

[Imperial Dave]

For me, I wouldnt mind an element of logistical supply 'intruding' upon the game, depending on what and how applied

For instance it could be a game based factor (eg no water giving a morale or fighting negative factor) or could be round based (eg low missile availability giving only 'x' rounds of shooting) and would be a random (dice/card) event

Just enough to keep you on your toes

[Patrick Waterson]

The challenge with adding a 'logistical factor' is that with good players you may soon find yourself in a 'logistical game' as players seek to gather supply for themselves and, furthermore, deny it to their opponents.

Nothing particularly wrong with this, and one sees a lot of it in Caesar's campaigns, but it could mean a lot of extra work for the DM - I mean umpire - working out how much food of what nature is to be had at various locations and how well the locals have hidden it ...

[Duncan Head]

The challenge with adding a 'logistical factor' is that with good players you may soon find yourself in a 'logistical game' as players seek to gather supply for themselves and, furthermore, deny it to their opponents.

I have heard one or two people complaining, over the years, that they don't enjoy playing a campaign just to discover that all their troops have starved to death. In other words, not everyone likes the logistical game.

But then, "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics" - and we are amateurs, after all.

[Imperial Dave]

good points both

I would suggest that keeping track of logistical effects of dice/cards would be a case of writing it down or using unit markers. In terms of logistics in a game per se, it all depends on whether you want playability or historical accuracy (and thus a link back to the other thread! ) For me a little bit of logistics shouldnt unblance the game but it should be there to help avoid the '20 shot' 6-shooters used in many Holywood cowboy films 

[Erpingham]

Like many of these things, it is about all agreeing why we have logistics in the game and designing accordingly.  We also need to be clear how much effect the logistic issue will have and whether it is worth modelling.  Do I need in my Western game to count the shots of my shootists, or can I design a mechanism that allows for the fact that shooting behaviour will fit the rounds available (except maybe for green horns who misjudge the amount of ammunition to bring or blaze away regardless)?

For an in-period example, think longbow arrow supply.  Very few rules actually cover this yet it is an area where we have very clear evidence that it could be an issue.  WE could go bottom up and allow the player to determine rate of shooting and count the arrows expended.  We could limit the number of rounds of shooting a unit could undertake (maybe throwing in the option of the odd double-rate shoot).  We could abstract it so that our shooting model takes into account optimum arrow usage according to tactical circumstances.  Personally, the key is that limited arrow supply affects battlefield behaviour rather than we actually model the fate of each arrow and we could abstract that without explicitly covering the logistic element at all.

[Patrick Waterson]

For an in-period example, think longbow arrow supply.  Very few rules actually cover this yet it is an area where we have very clear evidence that it could be an issue.  WE could go bottom up and allow the player to determine rate of shooting and count the arrows expended.  We could limit the number of rounds of shooting a unit could undertake (maybe throwing in the option of the odd double-rate shoot).  We could abstract it so that our shooting model takes into account optimum arrow usage according to tactical circumstances.  Personally, the key is that limited arrow supply affects battlefield behaviour rather than we actually model the fate of each arrow and we could abstract that without explicitly covering the logistic element at all.

At Agincourt, it seems to focus on 1) the availability of a volley or six of flight arrows, which have increased range over and above the tabletop norm; 2) the ability to deliver a cloud of arrows which a) slowed and b) split the oncoming attackers and 3) the capacity to replenish from 'arrow bags' and battlefield recovery between French attacks.

One way to handle this might be to give a limited ammunition ration but allow specific effects by expending specific amounts of ammunition.  For example, shooting the flight arrows causes the French to start moving; delivering a double volley splits the attacking formation so that it funnels towards the men-at-arms and shooting a normal volley just slows attackers and inflicts casualties.  Ammunition is consumed each turn of shooting but can 'grow back' a volley or two towards an intermediate level of availability for each turn on non-combat (e.g. waiting for the next attack).

Hence the archers could start with 10 'shots'.  One is the flight arrow ration, which is gone when expended; nine are standard volleys, which can be delivered at one or two per turn.  If a turn is without combat, the current level of volleys can be increased by one, or by two if one expends arrow bags.  Arrow bags can also increase the current availability by one even if shooting (so if using arrow bags and shooting a volley in the same turn there is no change).  Hence, if four volleys suffice to beat off a first attack, and two turns intervene before the next attack comes in range, the volleys available can creep up from 6 to 8.  If the second attack comes in straight away, and four volleys are needed before it goes, then it may be an idea to bring out the arrow bags (of which there is a limited supply, say 2 or 3) if a third wave is in sight.

If that makes any sense ...

[Imperial Dave]

perfect sense Patrick

The alternative is to go for the more abstract way of accounting for arrow supply which is reduce the combat factor by one for each round of shooting down to a minimum or similar. Or go for a one off reduction in the factor for the second round of shooting onwards (a bit like the Lance factor under 6th Ed WRG)

[Patrick Waterson]

True.  I was thinking along the lines of Anthony's observation that we could relate ammunition expenditure to the actual effect on the enemy, on the basis that archery can affect opponent behaviour and it takes a certain weight and/or type of delivery to achieve that effect.  Hence we could just say that the archers have:

one 'force attack' card
two 'funnel attack' cards
three or four 'cause losses' cards

and can pick up a replacement card during each non-combat turn; also that their player has one spare 'funnel attack' and one 'cause losses' card up his sleeve (arrow bags).  This would handle their ammunition supply and its tactical employment in one convenient package.

Or something like that.

[Jim Webster]

Unless we're just looking at a tightly focussed ruleset (English v the world 1415 plus or minus 50 years  ) then how will you fit Persian archers in here. With them v Hoplites do the same cards work?
Can we assume that they have 'arrow bags'? I can see them having 'force attack' and 'cause losses' cards but did they 'funnel attack'

For Byzantines, one can see with, for example, Battle of Taginae, force attack, funnel attack and cause losses cards coming into play.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I think Achaemenid archers would have a different 'hand' of cards, which when matched against Greek hoplites would mostly be 'pin down' or 'provide shade'  ...

[Imperial Dave]

good idea re the cards and dare I say angling towards the 'accuracy' end of the wargaming spectrum 

re the different types of archers and their historical performance/MO then look up tables would work I think.

Also for Cretan archers there could be a card for 'shoot them heffalumps in the eye son'