GonzalesCartagena416
De BISAWiki
Logistics may not seem as romantic and heroic as combat, but the truth is that campaigns can frequently be won or lost purely on the basis of logistics.
If you have significantly knowledge at all of logistics and military background, you will most likely discover that the more such information you have, the much more wars and battles you can feel of that would not have been needed at all if logistics had been far better handled.
To stay away from the danger of bringing up any historical controversy I shall use simulated gaming and hypothetical examples rather than employing examples from Earth's background.
Take for instance the strategic Discover/eXpand/eXploit/eXterminate (4-X) game FreeCiv, which is reasonably characteristic of a whole family members of games recognized Civilisation Games. These are games which provide a wide range of civilisation-developing tools but which in practice tend to turn out to be shoot-em-ups when played by a number of players.
When a number of players try to play such a game collectively the logistics of attempting to uncover sufficient time for sufficient players to all play at when tends to be an incentive to go to war. That is because going to war can be a lot more rapidly than trying to develop a civilisation, carefully with consideration to detail, and taking full advantage of all the a lot of colourful choices that are accessible for creating huge cities, full of impressive cultural artefacts. The issues involved in attempting to co-ordinate a quantity of players are logistical issues. Can they all take sleep breaks and meal breaks and breaks to go to work and so on yet nevertheless stay co-ordinated? Typically not. So the logistics of trying to fit playing time into people's lives tends to lead to a want for short fast games.
In the true planet, the folks enacting these kinds of scenarios tend to be provided for in such a way that their activities are part and parcel of their career. Volunteers and conscripts might share some of the type of "lets get this over with so that we can go do some thing else instead" pressure that players of simulation games usually have, but there also tend to be profession-military folks too who may possibly not only have a lot of time to devote to furthering the objectives, but even have a vested interested in have it take plenty of time.
Let us place aside the logistics of in fact operating the simulation and look at the simulation itself and what it is simulating. There is exponential growth, and that has a powerful logistic effect. A little economic benefit, a tiny difference in productivity, tends to have an ever-increasing impact. That is actually typical of 4-X (Discover/eXpand/eXploit/eXterminate) in general. You might bear in mind the infamous logistic predictions of Malthus, that despite the fact that population increases geometrically, resources boost arithmetically. His argument is basically about logistics, even though it tends to be in the field of economics that he is remembered most vividly. Economics and logistics are very closely intertwined.
The reason that I have selected FreeCiv as my example is that one particular finds that, even in single-player (against artificial intelligence opponents) mode, a really fundamental logistic issue turns out to be such a fundamental element that combat is somewhat secondary. It turns out that the majority of impressive "improvements" that a single can construct in one's cities is also secondary. It turns out that the logistics is such that modest is better. It is far better to build lots and lots and lots of unimproved cities than to develop your cities. A player who spawns more cities in preference to enhancing current cities gains such a production benefit that bothering to create one's cities puts 1 at a disadvantage. Therefore logistics guidelines. This straightforward logistic truth outweighs every thing. It is in truth a fundamental dilemma of the game, a defect as it were, which causes all of the colourful facts and interesting artefacts offered in the way of achievable city-improvements to be somewhat of a waste of time, a red herring. Protagonists whose attraction to the simulation is that it supplies a huge range of exciting factors that one can build, are led astray by their quest to increase their cities and they get wiped out by hordes of "barbarians" infesting the planet with large numbers of puny, undeveloped population-centres.
I am not at all implying that such a simulation is accurate. In fact I could easily have selected an even far more abstract simulation as an instance since the point I am attempting to make is absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the simulation. My point is that logistics can be so incredibly decisive that regardless of whether, and how, 1 decides to go to combat, and how one particular conducts one's combats, can turn out to be absolutely secondary. If you are predisposed in favour of a certain logistical course, such as spending sources on improvements to one's population-centres, you can find your self following a foredoomed course. If you are predisposed to go to war, you can likewise be foredoomed because creating far more and more and more cities can be a lot far more important than constructing combat units.
Logistics is so essential that you actually should completely investigate the logistics of the predicament and the elements that impact the predicament prior to jumping ahead into other military considerations such as weaponry and troops and so on. Get the logistics appropriate and you may well be able to get, and keep, so far ahead of any possible opponents that even if they do decide on to go to combat they will be foredoomed to lose to you. In real life that may possibly well lead to their seeking to steer clear of going to war with you at all. Logistics might not appear as romantic and heroic as combat, but the reality is that campaigns can often be won or lost purely on the basis of logistics.
If you have a lot expertise at all of logistics and military history, you will probably uncover that the a lot more such information you have, the a lot more wars and battles you can consider of that would not have been necessary at all if logistics had been far better handled.
To steer clear of the threat of bringing up any historical controversy I shall use simulated gaming and hypothetical examples rather than using examples from Earth's background.
Take for instance the strategic Discover/eXpand/eXploit/eXterminate (four-X) game FreeCiv, which is reasonably characteristic of a complete family members of games recognized Civilisation Games. These are games which provide a wide range of civilisation-building tools but which in practice tend to become shoot-em-ups when played by a number of players.
When a number of players try to play such a game with each other the logistics of attempting to locate enough time for sufficient players to all play at when tends to be an incentive to go to war. That is since going to war can be a lot quicker than attempting to create a civilisation, very carefully with interest to detail, and taking full benefit of all the several colourful possibilities that are available for making significant cities, full of outstanding cultural artefacts. The issues involved in attempting to co-ordinate a quantity of players are logistical troubles. Can they all take sleep breaks and meal breaks and breaks to go to perform and so on but nevertheless keep co-ordinated? Generally not. So the logistics of trying to fit playing time into people's lives tends to lead to a desire for brief fast games.
In the genuine globe, the people enacting these types of scenarios tend to be provided for in such a way that their activities are portion and parcel of their career. Volunteers and conscripts may well share some of the kind of "lets get this more than with so that we can go do anything else as an alternative" pressure that players of simulation games often have, but there also tend to be profession-military folks as well who may possibly not only have a lot of time to devote to furthering the objectives, but even have a vested interested in have it take a lot of time.
Let us place aside the logistics of really running the simulation and look at the simulation itself and what it is simulating. There is exponential development, and that has a effective logistic impact. A modest financial advantage, a tiny distinction in productivity, tends to have an ever-increasing impact. That is actually common of 4-X (Discover/eXpand/eXploit/eXterminate) in general. You may possibly remember the infamous logistic predictions of Malthus, that although population increases geometrically, resources increase arithmetically. His argument is in essence about logistics, though it tends to be in the field of economics that he is remembered most vividly. Economics and logistics are really closely intertwined.
The cause that I have selected FreeCiv as my example is that 1 finds that, even in single-player (against artificial intelligence opponents) mode, a extremely fundamental logistic issue turns out to be such a fundamental aspect that combat is somewhat secondary. It turns out that the majority of impressive "improvements" that one can construct in one's cities is also secondary. It turns out that the logistics is such that little is far better. It is greater to construct lots and lots and lots of unimproved cities than to develop your cities. A player who spawns a lot more cities in preference to improving existing cities gains such a production advantage that bothering to create one's cities puts a single at a disadvantage. Hence logistics guidelines. This straightforward logistic fact outweighs anything. It is in reality a fundamental problem of the game, a defect as it had been, which causes all of the colourful details and exciting artefacts provided in the way of attainable city-improvements to be somewhat of a waste of time, a red herring. Protagonists whose attraction to the simulation is that it supplies a significant range of interesting things that one can create, are led astray by their quest to enhance their cities and they get wiped out by hordes of "barbarians" infesting the world with huge numbers of puny, undeveloped population-centres.
I am not at all implying that such a simulation is accurate. In fact I could easily have chosen an even a lot more abstract simulation as an example since the point I am attempting to make is absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the simulation. My point is that logistics can be so very decisive that whether or not, and how, 1 decides to go to combat, and how a single conducts one's combats, can grow to be absolutely secondary. If you are predisposed in favour of a specific logistical course, such as investing resources on improvements to one's population-centres, you can locate oneself following a foredoomed course. If you are predisposed to go to war, you can likewise be foredoomed since building much more and much more and far more cities can be significantly more crucial than constructing combat units.
Logistics is so important that you really must thoroughly investigate the logistics of the scenario and the aspects that impact the predicament prior to jumping ahead into other military considerations such as weaponry and troops and so on. Get the logistics right and you may possibly be in a position to get, and keep, so far ahead of any prospective opponents that even if they do select to go to combat they will be foredoomed to shed to you. In actual life that might nicely lead to their seeking to keep away from going to war with you at all.
