Acquire & supply depots

[c3k]

Of the original points...

I'd agree that same AS as a vehicle should allow acquiring, rather than needing to load into the vehicle.

If a vehicle is destroyed, then no ammo, IMO. If the ammo isn't "packaged", it'd be too hard to carry. That, and the odds of the ammo not being destroyed, bent, damaged, etc., plus the gameplay aspects of zooming a vehicle up into your trenches for resupply all game long, just cries out against implementing this.

Ammo dumps: I wouldn't make separate echelon types, rather, I'd like to see generic ammo "buckets" which the designer could place about as he'd like. Small arms (all calibers for that nationality plus grenades), LATW (disposable and multi-use), ordnance (all calibers for that nationality); with those three available in the editor, the designer could mix and match as needed to create whatever he'd like. However, even creating this number of variations may be too much. Even a single, all inclusive, ammo dump would be nice to be able to place on-map.

Acquire in +100 steps would be far better than the big-grab we have to do now.

Even more so, an UN-acquire command would be very useful. Only used as part of the acquire command, and only for the ammunition just acquired. This way you can undo mistakes, but not create gamey bastidges by unloading ammo below what the men started with.

Allowing players to move weapons around within the squad would also be a mistake, IMO. How many PIAT gunners does your squad have? Sure, once the "good" gunner gets gunned down, the next guy would grab it. However, you'd never give the PIAT to the eager newb just 'cause he wants it for the bling factor: you'd keep it in the hands of the guy trained, and expected, to use it. Similarly with the other weapons in a squad.

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

Even more so, an UN-acquire command would be very useful.

A general Un-do command would be very helpful. I.e., one that would cancel the last mouse click/key press for any order. This has been asked for before by several players.

Michael

[Childress]

And as was pointed out, this simply isn't true.

You missed my drift. Certainly BF can make achieving better fine tuning of ammo distribution a reality with an additional option or two. Which, historically, they tend to resist. I shifted the topic a bit toward the risk/reward ratio of carrying greater and greater loads on unit fatigue. The effect is currently under-modeled in my opinion.

[Michael Emrys]

I shifted the topic a bit toward the risk/reward ratio of carrying greater and greater loads on unit fatigue. The effect is currently under-modeled in my opinion.

I am inclined to agree with you. I hesitate though because I don't know the precise degree to which it is actually modeled. The only thing I can definitely say is that I am not seeing it where I would expect to. Actually, I think the whole fatiguing system could use some refining. It's okay for now, but I think it would be nice if the effects were more closely keyed to terrain and activity. Just to give one instance, I haven't seen troops drop any energy levels from climbing steep slopes as long as they do it in Move mode. They march right up the same as if it were on level ground.

Michael

[Childress]

Units never suffer from fatigue on Move. Nor do they recover from existing fatigue on Move. A design decision, no doubt.

Edit: Michael, you should actually try 'starting' a topic one of these days. The pain is transitory.

[Michael Emrys]

Edit: Michael, you should actually try 'starting' a topic one of these days. The pain is transitory.

When I do, they usually suffer a quick death.

Michael

[Vinnart]

I agree that supply could be streamlined, and expanded a bit. It seems to make sense that the acquire command should be able to be used if next to the vehicle instead of having to enter it especially since ammo re-supply happens automatically if close to vehicle now without having to enter it. I like the idea of supply depots, and or ammo crates. The game “Sudden Strike” had depots, ammo crates, and supply trucks. Depots could not be moved, and probably would not be applicable due to the small size of CM maps. Ammo crates could be loaded into trucks/jeeps, and moved where one desired. If ammo crates are added I would like them to be able to be loaded/unloaded too. Ammo trucks when close to troops would automatically re-supply them. In all cases if a unit were out of ammo it would automatically re-supply itself if close to any supply crates/depots. Blowing these up would make for some nice, BIG explosions.

P.S. To commander Battlefront need more 45cal. ammo sent to the front ASAP! My Tommy gunner keeps running into battle with nothing but his dick in his hand when out of ammo.

[mjkerner]

P.S. To commander Battlefront need more 45cal. ammo sent to the front ASAP! My Tommy gunner keeps running into battle with nothing but his dick in his hand when out of ammo.

And I bet he shot that a few times as well.

[Vinnart]

And I bet he shot that a few times as well.

Yeah, but at least that gun gets re-supplied eventually

When it comes to 45cal. ammo there really needs to be more available for game play to be more on even par with the mp40’s never ending supply. 2k 9mm rounds on a truck compared to 300 45cal. The problem comes when Thomson guy is out it creates a bit of predicament due to the limitations of the game in that he cannot be split off alone. The options are:

* Separate the assault team to leave back along with the few rifles it comes with where he will get shot if not set all assault team on HIDE thus weakening the squad.

*Keep him in the squad where he will still LEAD the assault with NO ammo only to get shot.

*The best is when he runs out in the middle of a fight, and still keeps his head up only to get shot.

I am assuming the ammo load out amount on it is based on what the average truck/jeep carried, but It is just a case where hyper realism in supply just does not transmit well for playing due to game limits. Reality has much more flexibility to deal with it.

So, all I want for Christmas is a crate of 45 cal, of 45 cal, of 45 cal…. All together boys sing it.

[Canada Guy]

What about German ammo? 7.92k is never available for resupply. Was there a shortage on the front that they only had one ammo load out or is this a bug in the game? I would like to see some way to resupply that rifle.

[StieliAlpha]

I do not think this resupply is a good idea at all. Walking back to an ammo truck under combat conditions, asking for "some more ammo, please"?

Does not sound very realistic, looking at the short 30 to 40min battles in most scenarios. Especially not in an advance situation.

I guess the answer to low ammo is simple: strict fire control.

The same goes for the idea to grab weapons or equipment on the battlefield, as proposed in other threads. I could partially see that in a "stalingrad style house-to-house brawl". But elsewhere?

Can somebody with real life experience comment?

[Vinnart]

I do not think this resupply is a good idea at all. Walking back to an ammo truck under combat conditions, asking for "some more ammo, please"?

Does not sound very realistic

Watch "The Pacific" showcasing the story of John Bassilone who ran back several times under fire to get more ammo for the MG's.

I agree the maps are a bit small for supply trucks, or depots, but not ammo crates which would be positioned closer escpecially in fixed positions like trenches, or a little ways back at the CP.

[YankeeDog]

I do not think this resupply is a good idea at all. Walking back to an ammo truck under combat conditions, asking for "some more ammo, please"?

Does not sound very realistic, looking at the short 30 to 40min battles in most scenarios. Especially not in an advance situation.

I guess the answer to low ammo is simple: strict fire control.

The same goes for the idea to grab weapons or equipment on the battlefield, as proposed in other threads. I could partially see that in a "stalingrad style house-to-house brawl". But elsewhere?

Can somebody with real life experience comment?

Unless we have some octgenarians here on the forums, no one here has "real life" experience with WWII tactics and deployment -- modern tactics and SOPs aren't necessarily the same as WWII. However, if you read AARs from e.g., Fallujah in 2003, you don't have to look very far to find accounts of units sending runners back to vehicles and/or ammo resupply points to resupply during intense firefights.

And ammo resupply points were an integral part of small unit deployment in WWII; you really don't need to look any further than the period FMs (U.S. Army training manuals) to verify this.

Whether the ammo was in a truck, a handcart, or simply in a dugout in crates depended a lot on the tactical situation. But regardless, ammo resupply points are definitely relevant at the CM scale.

[StieliAlpha]

I guess my message is: this resupply should be "factored in" into the ammo supply and consumption (and perhaps is already; only BFC knows).

I would find this supply runner odd. No point to overload the game with this fancy stuff and better focus on the more simulation relevant issues. E.g., planes, Flak fire, flame throwers, missing vehicles and troop types, you name it. There are nice wish lists elsewhere.

But then: in GMT's "Combat Commander", they have "hero counters" to simulate the top performers (which I find strange, too)

And in the very old days, in SPI's "Campaign for North Africa", the game rules even considered a higher water consumption due to Pasta cooking for the Italians.

[YankeeDog]

@StieliaAlpha:

Too late for that suggestion; ammo supply in CMx2 is already tracked right down to the individual bullet. The game is far beyond using some sort of abstracted ammo supply and consumption system -- you'd have to go back to CMx1's "ammo points" and "low ammo" state for that.

I do think this is, overall, a good thing. Among other things, exactly modeling ammo supply, usage, and resupply means doing things like maintaining internal lines of communication are important tactical considerations, which is very realistic thing.

And overall, I think the current ammo usage & resupply system in CMx2 works pretty well. I think the changes we have been requesting/discussing here in this thread are minor adjustments and tweaks to a system that functions fundamentally well.

[c3k]

Many examples of men running back to the ammo supply point IRL.

In-game, an ammo point, loaded on a truck, in a trench, or in a bunker, would make that spot have a much higher tactical significance. I don't know about being able to carry ammo boxes around. If it's in a truck/jeep/trailer, okay, then it's mobile. But, seriously, have you ever tried to carry around a tactically significant amount of ammo? Not for your individual use, but enough to resupply several squads?

Grenades, 7.92k, .45, what else is short-changed?

[YankeeDog]

Many examples of men running back to the ammo supply point IRL.

In-game, an ammo point, loaded on a truck, in a trench, or in a bunker, would make that spot have a much higher tactical significance. I don't know about being able to carry ammo boxes around. If it's in a truck/jeep/trailer, okay, then it's mobile. But, seriously, have you ever tried to carry around a tactically significant amount of ammo? Not for your individual use, but enough to resupply several squads?

Grenades, 7.92k, .45, what else is short-changed?

Can't think of anything else short-changed in the current ammo stocks; M1 carbine ammo available is reasonable for the number of these weapons in most formations. .50 BMG is rare (IIRC only a few halftracks carry acquirable stock), but I also can't recall ever running out of .50 BMG and needing to Acquire for infantry teams. Mortar shells are also rare, but as I've also mentioned, I think it's debatable whether significant additional stocks of mortar bombs should really be available on the CM scale; mortar shells tend to run out quickly and be in short supply at the "sharp end of the stick".

Man-porting an entire ammo cache is probably not something that would usually be done on the CM timeframe. A box or two at a time to an MG team running low, sure, but that's what the "ammo bearer" teams we have in the game already are for (now if we could just get the code so that ammo bearer teams can leave some of the ammo they carry with their sibling MG teams and actually do their job properly...)

It was, however, something that was sometimes done outside the CM timeframe. That is, if vehicles were not available and/or the terrain unsuitable for wheels or tracks, extra ammo would be be man-ported in and stowed in a central location for access by units as needed, especially if an intense engagement was expected in the near future.

So I do think some sort of abstracted "ammo cache" on the ground (or in a building or whatever) is realistic and appropriate in certain situations. I don't see much reason to make such non-vehicular ammo caches moveable after setup, though. I suppose theoretically a team of soldier could load one onto a truck in a few minutes and then drive it somewhere else, but this seems complex thing to code for very little benefit. If this is what the Scenario Designer wants to model, simpler to just use a truck already loaded with ammo.

[Michael Emrys]

I am assuming the ammo load out amount on it is based on what the average truck/jeep carried, but It is just a case where hyper realism in supply just does not transmit well for playing due to game limits. Reality has much more flexibility to deal with it.

I think a lot of this problem would go away if SMG toters were inhibited from firing their weapons at ranges beyond 50 meters. That way they would be less likely to fire off all their ammo before their weapons really start to take effect and you want them to be shooting.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I would find this supply runner odd. No point to overload the game with this fancy stuff and better focus on the more simulation relevant issues. E.g., planes, Flak fire, flame throwers, missing vehicles and troop types, you name it.

I guess you never heard the adage, "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics." Supply is incredibly important. It is the lifeblood of armies, right down to the squad and individual soldier level. I remember hearing that something like two-thirds of all the soldiers in uniform during the war were devoted to getting supplies forward to the other third. Not suggesting that CM should get that deep into the subject, but the suggestions put forward in this thread do not strike me as entirely excessive in their concern.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Among other things, exactly modeling ammo supply, usage, and resupply means doing things like maintaining internal lines of communication are important tactical considerations, which is very realistic thing.

By that you mean safe secure routes between units and the front and the rear - I totally agree.

[A Canadian Cat]

What about German ammo? 7.92k is never available for resupply. Was there a shortage on the front that they only had one ammo load out or is this a bug in the game? I would like to see some way to resupply that rifle.

I believe it was in short supply. I am not sure if the current situation of no resupply at all is correct or not. I, too, would like to see some resupply available of that amo type.

[superwoz]

I have promoted a modification in the acquire key ever since the release of CMFI. Sadly I’ve come to learn battlefront doesn’t listen or care about its customers so I don’t foresee anything good changing with respect to this issue anytime soon. Apparently only the reviews of gaming websites matter so until one of these sites mentions these short comings, we the customers aren’t going to get alteration.

[womble]

Man-porting an entire ammo cache is probably not something that would usually be done on the CM timeframe.

Where's the request for that? And surely whether the "entire" cache is lugged about depends very much on the initial size of the cache and how many units draw from it.

A box or two at a time to an MG team running low, sure, but that's what the "ammo bearer" teams we have in the game already are for...

No it's not. The Ammo Bearer teams are there to represent the established complement of men for a HMG team as defined in the TO of the time, and to carry the establishment number of rounds for that team.

...if we could just get the code so that ammo bearer teams can leave some of the ammo they carry with their sibling MG teams and actually do their job properly...

If we could get that sorted, or even have the MG team use the Ammo bearer ammo first rather than once they've completely run out of bullets, then you could use the ammo bearers as ammo runners. Or if crewed weapons had the "proper" number of troops in one team and were able to split off a scout team to go fetch.

It was, however, something that was sometimes done outside the CM timeframe. That is, if vehicles were not available and/or the terrain unsuitable for wheels or tracks, extra ammo would be be man-ported in and stowed in a central location for access by units as needed, especially if an intense engagement was expected in the near future.

The bit in italics is what we want. The ability to designate an ammo dump or several.

So I do think some sort of abstracted "ammo cache" on the ground (or in a building or whatever) is realistic and appropriate in certain situations. I don't see much reason to make such non-vehicular ammo caches moveable after setup, though. I suppose theoretically a team of soldier could load one onto a truck in a few minutes and then drive it somewhere else, but this seems complex thing to code for very little benefit. If this is what the Scenario Designer wants to model, simpler to just use a truck already loaded with ammo.

[YankeeDog]

@superwoz.

Oh please. Spare us your histrionics.

I've been on these forums since Bill Clinton was president and "Combat Mission" meant one and only one game: CMBO. Some of the forum members have been here even longer, and participated in discussions back in the CMBO Alpha days. In my time here, I've probably participated in more discussions about CM game features than I have hairs on my arse: MG modeling, tank gun accuracy, spotting and unit ID, SMG rate of fire and effectiveness, HE lethality, vehicle bogging/breakdown chance, to name a few of the more popular topics.

And, yes, the Acquire command as well. Discussions about the Acquire command, and how it might be tweaked/improved, have been going on pretty much since the command first appeared when CMSF was released in 2007.

Sometimes ideas that I have proposed or like garner a fair amount of support on the forum, but BFC has nevertheless politely, but firmly, shot them down for one reason or another – e.g., too difficult to code, they have a better idea, just not in the direction they want to take the game.

Other ideas of mine haven’t gained much notice and have withered away without notice or support from other forum members, and without a response from BFC, either. When this happens, I have a good cry and wonder why nobody loves me, but eventually I get over it.

Still other times, an idea I like or have suggested is also liked by many others here on the forum, there is a lively discussion refining the idea, BFC has listened and participated in the discussion, and eventually a change has been incorporated into the game engine.

But never once have I felt that BFC “doesn’t listen or care about its customers.” In fact, I think they are quite attuned to criticism and suggestions here on the forum. They haven’t always done things exactly the way I wanted them to, but given the fact that I am just one customer of many, this is something I must accept. In the end, it’s their game and they’ll make it the way they want to. If it were really just money and commercial success they were after, they’d be trying to make the next Peggle or Candy Crush, not a niche-market wargame.

If you feel your ideas here on the forum aren’t being listened to, I would suggest taking a moment of introspection to consider how you have been expressing yourself, how well you are building consensus with other forum members, and so on. A good idea advocated by a large number of forum members usually gets picked up by BFC sooner or later. And as the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[A Canadian Cat]

If you feel your ideas here on the forum aren’t being listened to, I would suggest taking a moment of introspection to consider how you have been expressing yourself, how well you are building consensus with other forum members, and so on. A good idea advocated by a large number of forum members usually gets picked up by BFC sooner or later. And as the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

All good advice and I feel much like @YankeeDog wrt how "my" suggestions have been received. I put my in quotes because nothing that only one person wants is ever going to get done so really one person does not own an idea. Some rebuffed directly some actually done eventually.

The other thing we should all remember is to get a realistic idea on how long the process takes to get any new feature actually in our hands. Advocating for something since when CMFI was released is not a very long time. There has not been a major feature release point since CMFI came out. There was the CMBN 2.0 upgrade but that mostly brought the CMFI features to CMBN (small opportunity for new stuff there) and then the GL release but that was for a module so no real major features there either. In other words there has been no opportunity to release a largish new feature since CMFI came out. So, the pace is not super fast. And frankly that is normal for software development.