[Mass Combat] What's the point of Raiding the Logistics Force?

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

Reading the Raid Strategy, I can't see what's the big point: the only reason to prefer Raid seems to be the case when an enemy has a huge Position Bonus (because it gives +1 to the Strategy roll). I don't see the point in attacking the Logistics Force - the effects of failed logistics will not affect the enemy until much later after the battle (a month, right?). Or do the logistics insufficiencies kick in immediately (blown up ammo storage etc.)? I doubt it, but the MC book is silent on the matter.

Thanks in advance!

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Greetings, all!

Reading the Raid Strategy, I can't see what's the big point: the only reason to prefer Raid seems to be the case when an enemy has a huge Position Bonus (because it gives +1 to the Strategy roll). I don't see the point in attacking the Logistics Force - the effects of failed logistics will not affect the enemy until much later after the battle (a month, right?). Or do the logistics insufficiencies kick in immediately (blown up ammo storage etc.)? I doubt it, but the MC book is silent on the matter.

Thanks in advance!

Raiding has the best combination of battle strategy modifier and drawbacks in some situations. The BSM is up to +4, if you've got enough special superiorities. The drawback is appreciable if you're planning to hold the field, unless you've already lost some ground, but it doesn't hurt you immediately. And it's always available.

Taking out logistics isn't obviously useful in immediate terms. If you're not planning to annihilate your enemy, and particularly if you're planning to abandon the field, it can cause much more strategic difficulty than taking out a few more troops.

[DouglasCole]

In addition, it may be that the main force of the enemy is unassailable, either through position or numbers. In that case, raiding the supply lines would be best, and perhaps the only, method of impacting their actions.

A hugely powerful force without food, ammunition, water, and possibly fuel is either useless or becomes effectively a fixed fortification which can be bypassed.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

In addition, it may be that the main force of the enemy is unassailable, either through position or numbers. In that case, raiding the supply lines would be best, and perhaps the only, method of impacting their actions.

A hugely powerful force without food, ammunition, water, and possibly fuel is either useless or becomes effectively a fixed fortification which can be bypassed.

Some of Edward I's early campaigns in Wales would be a prime example of this - the Welsh simply refused battle except where they could attack the English army's (very limited) logistic tail. Eventually Edward ran out of supplies and was obliged to return home.
It was only by improving his logistics and lines of communication security that he was eventually able to defeat Llewelyn.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

In addition, it may be that the main force of the enemy is unassailable, either through position or numbers. In that case, raiding the supply lines would be best, and perhaps the only, method of impacting their actions.

A hugely powerful force without food, ammunition, water, and possibly fuel is either useless or becomes effectively a fixed fortification which can be bypassed.

This doesn't appear to have any bearing on the Raid battle strategy as described on MC35. Any time you could damage the logistics tail by that method, you could have done proportional damage to the enemy's main body.

Maneuvering around the enemy's force without giving battle doesn't correspond to any of the battle strategies. If you don't engage, presumably you don't have a battle.

I don't think there are any rules governing interdicting logistics forces outside of combat, either.

[sgtcallistan]

I don't know the Mass Combat rules, but the raiding action is generally used when you can not or should not make a decisive battle.

To appear strong, to misdirect, to make the enemy mass in an area where you are not, to give your troops a small victory, to make the enemy attempt to be strong everywhere, for troop training, to appear weak and divided, to capture weapons, to frighten a less-able enemy commander, all are excellent reasons.

Basically, all of warfare except logistics and the decisive battle.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by sgtcallistan

, to frighten a less-able enemy commander, .

Or annoy a competent one into acting stupidly...

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This doesn't appear to have any bearing on the Raid battle strategy as described on MC35. Any time you could damage the logistics tail by that method, you could have done proportional damage to the enemy's main body.

Maneuvering around the enemy's force without giving battle doesn't correspond to any of the battle strategies. If you don't engage, presumably you don't have a battle.

I don't think there are any rules governing interdicting logistics forces outside of combat, either.

It's not that you don't engage - it's that you don't engage the knights/first line armoured regiments in his main body, but instead go after the logistic and support units in his rear echelon that are easier to destroy and don't hit back as hard.
Defeating an enemy by engaging his army is the most costly strategy possible for winning a war (or, indeed, losing it) as was proved in last century for those that hadn't worked it out already.