[VariousRen]

Necro'ing this because I've done some math and things definitely don't seem right as written in the logistics rules. It turns out it's cheaper to not maintain a force at all and replace it as the people starve than it is to provide maintenance for them.

Consider a force made out of 5 medium infantry. Each unit has a raise cost of 30k and a maintain cost of 6k. Our full force will cost 150k to raise and 30k to maintain each month. So far so good.

If we maintain our force at full combat readiness they will need a logistics force with an LS of 30. Raising a logistics force costs 5k per LS, so raising the logistics unit will cost 150k to raise and 15k to maintain. Doubling our raising cost and adding 50% to our maintenance. Total cost for the army is 300k raise and 45k monthly.

Now instead we provide no logistics forces at all. Page 14 of mass combat gives us the effects of no maintenance. Halve TS of every element and 5% desertion per month. We'll need 10 units to equal the effectiveness of the 5 before. To replace the deserting troops we must pay a percentage of the raise cost, 5% per month of 30k is 1.5k each. Total cost to raise the force is 300k, and 15k to maintain.

By not maintaining our troops at all we save 30k a month, don't have a logistics force to worry about defending in a battle, and have 10 elements ready to go if we decide we need them and provide maintenance again. The problem gets even worse if operating in an area with higher maintenance costs like a swamp.

Obviously there would be plenty of in game ramifications that a DM could apply to stop this from happening, disloyal troops, lack of recruits, and so on. It does point to something being very wrong with the logistics rules in Mass Combat though. Are there any suggestions or alternatives from people who have used these rules in the past to provide more reasonable logistics costs?