GrogHeads Forum

Game Forge => GameTalk => Topic started by: bayonetbrant on March 09, 2015, 01:08:07 PM

Title: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: bayonetbrant on March 09, 2015, 01:08:07 PM
We ask you about Logistics today (http://grogheads.com/?p=7621) on the  Mythical Front Page™

(http://grogheads.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/logCounters.jpg)
Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: mirth on March 09, 2015, 01:14:54 PM
I like games that model logistics, but maintaining supply lines gives me fits most of the time. Does an eZOC cut supply or does a friendly unit in the eZOC maintain supply? Which frakking game am I playing? How many hexes can I trace to a rail line? Do I have to trace to an in supply HQ first?  Aaarggh!  :crazy2:
Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: BanzaiCat on March 09, 2015, 01:37:11 PM
Keeping track of supply makes perfect sense, especially in most of the games we enjoy. However, I don't like having to micromanage it. Logistics are arguably the most important part of keeping a force in the field and keeping it potent, but on the game side of things, zzzzzzzz.
Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: republic on March 09, 2015, 02:49:32 PM
I think logistics is critical for a realistic representation of warfare and is often minimized for the sake of fun.  War in the Pacific is an excellent example of a game that shows the importance and difficulty of supply.  However, in that game it is TOO much of a hindrance due to the interface.  A better approach is the Distant Worlds civilian engine.

An example of the supply simulation I would like, would be if you could select a target in War in the Pacific, tell the AI what you want there, and it would go and find the supply source, create a convoy, etc.  You shouldn't need to create individual task forces for cargo ships manually.
Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: Martok on March 10, 2015, 11:11:14 AM
I always appreciate strategy games where logistics matter.  However, I don't want want to have to get a Masters degree just so I can understand a game's logistics model, and I definitely don't want to have to micromanage it.  republic's mention of Distant Worlds' logistics system is a pretty good example. 

Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: ArizonaTank on March 10, 2015, 07:04:46 PM
The US Army used to have a hex based wargame (30 years ago) called "Logwar".  Basically the idea was running the "backend" of a NATO v SOVIET campaign in Europe.  The game had a great deal of tension with players trying to maintain supply through-put in the face of Soviet air interdiction attacks, scud strikes on main supply routes, and those nasty SPETNAZ setting up ambushes of supply convoys. 

After that, I was hooked and am a sucker for any game with a deep logistics dimension.  GG's War in the Pacific for example, is so brilliant, precisely because it does model logistics so well.

Boardgames are more problematic.  How to handle number crunching, without creating a spreadsheet game.  A recent game tackling supply in WWII Europe looks interesting and may have tackled the playability issue:   1944 Race to the Rhine  http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/148601/1944-race-rhine

Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: James Sterrett on March 17, 2015, 08:23:15 PM
Any idea where LogWar could be found?  Who specifically used it and issued it?

Race to the Rhine is superb!

Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 17, 2015, 09:21:18 PM
There is a boardgame Westinghouse 'Logistics Command'. Rare but good, I hear.
Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: Staggerwing on March 18, 2015, 04:20:55 AM
A recent game tackling supply in WWII Europe looks interesting and may have tackled the playability issue:   1944 Race to the Rhine  http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/148601/1944-race-rhine

Gen. Bradley looks different than I remember...  :))
Title: Re: GameTalk: Logistics
Post by: James Sterrett on March 18, 2015, 08:18:15 PM
Logistics Command is interesting.

If you want to practice/study/learn Integrated Logistics Support Planning, then it is solid gold; it's a tight and very well thought through design.

If you want a good game...  it's about 80-90% establishing your ILS plan, and maybe 10-20% dealing with events as they transpire.  The two-players-per-side variant has the upper end of reacting since the spare budget is bigger.

It is, in a lot of ways, competitive solitaire; you can drop the other side and you only lose your competitor on points; there is no interaction between the two sides.

As a game, despite *really dry* subject matter, it is decently compelling.   I played significantly beyond the point that I was required to.  (I was playing it in order to learn it so that I could teach it.  That took around 3 turns.  I then played another 5 or 6 just to see what would happen, and before most of those I'd decided I would only play "just one more turn" and then played another and another....)

However, if it were to be a commercial, for-fun, game, I think I would try to inject more decisions during play and a bit more interaction between the two sides, though I am not sure how I would do that.