#i know it's sci fi so logistics doesn't matter that much BUT

[em-dashes]

i have to do so much math for aphelion 😞

[howtofightwrite]

How exactly does one research the logistics of raising/maintaining a fighting force? A lot of media seems to overlook or gloss over something so critical and in the hopes of avoiding that I was wondering where I should start looking.

My setting is post-apocalypse, but it seems like pretty important information (and a good source of worldbuilding/conflict) to at least keep in mind whatever flavor sandbox an author is playing in.

I suspect the best starting place is going to be the least glamorous and actually looking at the history of military logistics. There's a lot to cover, so I'm going to cover a few concepts in passing, and this should not be taken as a substitute for digging into the history. Beyond that, I can't think of much fantasy or science fiction media that really pays any serious attention to logistics, outside of strategy games, and some RPGs.

The post-apocalyptic element adds a few wrinkles. While I can think of a few examples of fantasy or sci-fi logistics, I've got almost nothing for post-apocalyptic settings that actually took logistics seriously. (I'm not exaggerating, I can remember two examples; one of them was obnoxiously detail oriented, while the other was downright awful.)

At the simplest level, logistics isn't just about keeping your troops equipped and fed, it's also about being able to get them where you need, and about being able to get orders to them. This means that defensive positions are easier to maintain from a logistical perspective. Access to resources like food and whatever materials you need for producing their gear and repairing their base are going to be known issue. Communications isn't likely to be a problem, as you know where to send the messages (whether that's by runner or radio.) Further, if you have an established territory, you can build roads to speed travel within your borders. (Or, in the case of most of the modern world, you'd need to rebuild and maintain the existing infrastructure, as modern roads will fall apart without maintenance.) Worth remembering that roads are a double edged sword, they help you move troops defensively, but they also help invading forces quickly move through captured territory.

Long term, your faction would need a ready supply of metal and petroleum. They'd probably also need access to rarer materials, though that would be harder to come by, and and they may need to resort to salvaging for those. Beyond that, they'd need a significant supply of safe food and water. They'd need the ability to produce arms and armor. Also, the ability to produce any vehicles they make extensive use of, and the ability to produce replacement parts for any vehicles they use (even if they can't reproduce the entire object.) While it's not automatically critical, in a lot of situations, you'd need a ready supply of wood. (This can be used in the construction of buildings, but also weapons manufacture. And, if your petroleum resources are limited, it may be a better option than plastic for weapon furniture.

The major takeaway from logistics is the concept that it doesn't matter who has the better weapons, or more troops, what's most important is who can get their troops into combat, while keeping them effective. A post-apocalyptic faction that scavenges lost technological wonders will (likely) be at a significant disadvantage when fighting a more conventional force armed with, “inferior,” weapons, if that force can keep their troops armed and get them onto the battlefield. Every loss of a conventional weapon can be replaced through post-collapse industry, while each pre-war raygun is gone forever if broken or lost.

This is the same reason I pointed out the importance of vehicle maintenance earlier (and the importance of being able to manufacture new transports.) If you have some trucks you can haul your troops around in, that's a significant advantage against an infantry who has to walk everywhere. However, that advantage is only consistent if you can keep those vehicles running. If they fail, and can't be repaired, then that advantage will lost at some point, and anyone who was depending on it will suffer.

The kind of apocalypse your world is recovering from is also a major factor. A world destroyed in nuclear war is going to look very different (and be far more inhabitable) than one that was destroyed in a complete ecological collapse, while a world affected by a coronal mass ejection would be more temporary. A viral or zombie apocalypse may still have most of the old world infrastructure in place with specific considerations for those biological threats. So, it's worth keeping in mind exactly why your world ended, and then consider how that might affect your available resources. (A world where resource wars burned themselves out, and everything collapsed in civil unrest, is still going to have guns, and computers, but a CME would mean no computers, including no vehicles, until new ones could be fabricated.)

So, yeah, the first step would be looking at historical logistics, there's probably some analog for what you're thinking of mixed in there, unless you have something particularly novel in mind.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get early access to new posts, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[minici]

hey I saw your tags on the airy vs grounded worldbuilding post, and I'm just here as a big fan of both sci fi and fantasy to say: screw the haters, write the story you want to tell, your story will ALWAYS be better if you lavish attention on the bits you find interesting and put just enough work into the rest of it that it's a solid scaffolding for the true heart of the story. star trek is a bastion of sci fi and it is FAMED for its technobabble! you can do that too!

that very post is dragging grrm through the mud NOT for failing to write proper grounded worldbuilding, but rather for being dishonest about what he was doing. he's really good at political machinations, fascinating character dynamics, and playing with genre tropes; he doesn't need to be any good at calculating army logistics, he can just make that up. his failing isn't in making stuff up, it's in constantly drawing our attention to stuff that doesn't hold water and saying, "look how good this is at holding water!"

also, one of the major joys of setting things in the space future and/or just some made-up solar system is that you don't have to worry about realism any more than you want to. how does the spaceship engine run? magic rocks from the moon, don't worry about it. it's not your job to completely flesh out every detail of your world, it's your job to explain exactly as much as the reader needs to know to understand the nuances of your plot. everything else is unnecessary. just signpost in your writing which bits are important for the reader to focus on, and let the rest be lightly sketched out.

it's your story! write the bits that are most interesting to you (and most important to your plot), be consistent and thorough in those things, and the story will be strong enough to withstand any amount of weak worldbuilding in other areas. all worldbuilding is at least somewhat handwavey anyway; your worldbuilding will be stronger, not weaker, if you know when to say "this part just works because I said so" instead of trying to prop it up with flimsy scaffolding. besides, if the heart of the story is compelling enough, readers can overlook anything up to and including complete retcons. focus on the bits that matter for the story and leave the rest to the readers' imaginations.

Okay you've got me all fired up now! I need to forget the haters and do my nice, airy light scifi that's heavy on the concepts and characters and light on the actual science. I've got a whole crew fleshed out after all, and people like the bisexual space pirates.

"If the heart of the story is compelling enough" very true, I can and have overlooked all kinds of things if I loved the characters, themes, and aesthetic of something. I have, for instance, had people tell me repeatedly they love the dialogue and flow of my story so much they kindly overlooked my lack of descriptions of certain moments.

@aethersea thanks :D