Changing ammo loadout in editor

[Georgie]

As far as I can tell its not possible to change the ammo loadout in the editor. It would be helpful when writing a large or huge scenario to be able to increase the ammo load out for the AI defenders or AI attackers. The H2H scenarios don't have this problem for small arms as troops can replenish from a half track or a truck. Anti tank guns only have ,even with an ammo team, 20 or so rounds of AP and this will run out very fast if the gun is taking long shots. The survivability of guns firing from 1400m or so in good cover is very good but they run out of ammo.

[Amizaur]

It woudl be also very helpfull being able to set specyfic number of AP / HE

ammo. Or at least an option for "empty". No AP or no HE.

[JonS]

There is an editor setting for ammo. It runs from Full down to Severe, if I recall correctly. It changes the amount of ammo that units have, not the mix of ammo natures.

[Amizaur]

Yes, but there is no possibility to set a tank with no ammo, or with only HE ammo, lacking AP (or vice versa).

[Georgie]

There is an editor setting for ammo. It runs from Full down to Severe, if I recall correctly. It changes the amount of ammo that units have, not the mix of ammo natures.

Thats true but even on full the loadout for an AT gun is only 20 or so rounds of AP. They go thru this in about 5 or 6 turns of long range targeting, lots of misses at 1400m. What would be good is reinforcements of ammo bearers or the time limit of the game could gauge the amount of ammo for a gun. The way it is now a 30 min scenario allows the same loadout as a 4 hour scenario.

[Crushingleeek]

i think that might set up more pissed off ppl than it creates happy ppl.

At the same time, on a sort of related note, someone brought up that statistic of 100,000 bullets fired for each casualty of WWII.

If that's true, the firing to casualty rate of the average engagement in CMBN is WAAAY too low.

How do we begin to simulate a higher firing:casualty rate? The only thing I can think of is engaging at longer ranges (for infantry).

[YankeeDog]

i think that might set up more pissed off ppl than it creates happy ppl.

At the same time, on a sort of related note, someone brought up that statistic of 100,000 bullets fired for each casualty of WWII.

If that's true, the firing to casualty rate of the average engagement in CMBN is WAAAY too low.

How do we begin to simulate a higher firing:casualty rate? The only thing I can think of is engaging at longer ranges (for infantry).

Careful. Typical CM scenario =/= representative sample of WWII combat.

We've been over this before. Most CM scenarios represent the climactic segment of a decisive engagement, when maneuver forces have come in close contact and duke it out in intense, short actions. While engagements like this could sometimes decide course of much larger battles, they're not necessarily typical of WWII combat as a whole, and they're certainly not indicative of how ammunition was spent WWII combat as a whole.

An awful lot of ordnance got thrown around in WWII at "maybe" targets, with no particular maneuver goal in mind, just the gradual attrition of the enemy -- e.g., large area artillery strikes well behind enemy lines at suspected assembly areas, harassing mortar fire at suspected enemy positions, intermittent MG fire at suspected enemy OP positions to keep heads down.

If you want to set up any play these kinds of situations in CM, you can. You'll note a very different balance of casualties to rounds fired if you do.

[Crushingleeek]

If you want to set up any play these kinds of situations in CM, you can. You'll note a very different balance of casualties to rounds fired if you do.

so........

How do we begin to simulate a higher firing:casualty rate?

[Crushingleeek]

An awful lot of ordnance got thrown around in WWII at "maybe" targets, with no particular maneuver goal in mind, just the gradual attrition of the enemy -- e.g., large area artillery strikes well behind enemy lines at suspected assembly areas, harassing mortar fire at suspected enemy positions, intermittent MG fire at suspected enemy OP positions to keep heads down.

See my rant about artillery strikes behind enemy lines awhile back;)

[Crushingleeek]

See my rant about artillery strikes behind enemy lines awhile back;)

Rather, how its not really possible to do much in CMBN

[YankeeDog]

Rather, how its not really possible to do much in CMBN

Eh? Use "map fire" on turn 1 to simulate planned "speculative" artillery fire on suspected enemy positions out of immediate LOS

How do we begin to simulate a higher firing:casualty rate?

It really doesn't take a lot of imagination. Set up a scenario. Make terrain objectives worth very little, or nothing. Give both sides a high "preserve own forces" incentive. Give both sides plenty of ammo, especially medium caliber artillery and ammo-deep units like HMGs. Set a long time interval. This is a reasonable abstraction of the kind of conditions that exists on the front lines, a lot of the time.

[Crushingleeek]

Eh? Use "map fire" on turn 1 to simulate planned "speculative" artillery fire on suspected enemy positions out of immediate LOS

It really doesn't take a lot of imagination. Set up a scenario. Make terrain objectives worth very little, or nothing. Give both sides a high "preserve own forces" incentive. Give both sides plenty of ammo, especially medium caliber artillery and ammo-deep units like HMGs. Set a long time interval. This is a reasonable abstraction of the kind of conditions that exists on the front lines, a lot of the time.

1) turn 1 doesn't satisfy my craving. (Neither does a 4hour maximum time limit anymore)

2) You sound like you are talking about a H2H scenario. I want to make campaigns, which are single player.

[YankeeDog]

1) turn 1 doesn't satisfy my craving. (Neither does a 4hour maximum time limit anymore)

OK.... like it or not, unobserved "map fires" were generally done with a considerable amount of advance planning. I suppose, from a strict realism standpoint, you could argue that artillery fire should be allowed anywhere on the map, but with 2-4x the prep time if you don't have LOS to the target point, and then only for area targets of at least 200m diameter (converging sheaf point fires were almost never done without direct observation and correction of the aim point). 99% of players would probably never use this feature, though, so I can see why BFC didn't bother to put it in.

2) You sound like you are talking about a H2H scenario. I want to make campaigns, which are single player.

Great. Use Green forces with only a few Regulars. Give the player a very high "preserve own forces" incentive -- points in each battle for keeping his own casualties below, say, 10%. Also, make sure he knows he'll get very few, if any, replacements over the course of the campaign. For most battles, award a decent number of points for causing enemy casualties, but very few for terrain objectives. Even have some battles where there are no terrain objectives at all and the only goal is attrition. And lots of engagements where the objectives are very minor -- a patrol where your only objective is to touch any one of three terrain objectives, just to see what's out there, for example.

I could go on... basically, structure your scenarios and campaign to give the player a strong incentive to shoot a lot, risk only a little. That's what a lot WWII combat was like. Not all of it, but a lot of it.

[JonS]

Also: use conscripts for both sides.

[womble]

1) turn 1 doesn't satisfy my craving. (Neither does a 4hour maximum time limit anymore)

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP.

When the option's there, and it lets you do what you want, it's a bit ungrateful to complain you can't do it.

The fact that scenario designers don't often let you at the facility is not the game's fault, but represents the opinion that accurate fires out of spotting range (or access to eyes-in-the-sky) historically required more work than is usually reasonable for the scenarios that the designers are making. And they're making all the assumptions, so you can't really argue with that.

[Crushingleeek]

OK.... like it or not, unobserved "map fires" were generally done with a considerable amount of advance planning. I suppose, from a strict realism standpoint, you could argue that artillery fire should be allowed anywhere on the map, but with 2-4x the prep time if you don't have LOS to the target point, and then only for area targets of at least 200m diameter (converging sheaf point fires were almost never done without direct observation and correction of the aim point). 99% of players would probably never use this feature, though, so I can see why BFC didn't bother to put it in.

Great. Use Green forces with only a few Regulars. Give the player a very high "preserve own forces" incentive -- points in each battle for keeping his own casualties below, say, 10%. Also, make sure he knows he'll get very few, if any, replacements over the course of the campaign. For most battles, award a decent number of points for causing enemy casualties, but very few for terrain objectives. Even have some battles where there are no terrain objectives at all and the only goal is attrition. And lots of engagements where the objectives are very minor -- a patrol where your only objective is to touch any one of three terrain objectives, just to see what's out there, for example.

I could go on... basically, structure your scenarios and campaign to give the player a strong incentive to shoot a lot, risk only a little. That's what a lot WWII combat was like. Not all of it, but a lot of it.

Thanks. My concern is that in a green vs green battle, by turn 3, will all units on the map be broken, then command becomes a little frustrating. (ungrateful as we are to have the omniscient perspective)

[Crushingleeek]

Also: use conscripts for both sides.

thanks. will they break immediately? I'm looking for sustained shooting, for longer periods, perhaps more suppression, and less immediate casualties.

I'm probably getting ahead of myself (and what ppl are interested in), but I'm starting to think beyond 4 hr battles.

[Crushingleeek]

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP

TRP.

When the option's there, and it lets you do what you want, it's a bit ungrateful to complain you can't do it.

The fact that scenario designers don't often let you at the facility is not the game's fault, but represents the opinion that accurate fires out of spotting range (or access to eyes-in-the-sky) historically required more work than is usually reasonable for the scenarios that the designers are making. And they're making all the assumptions, so you can't really argue with that.

you make a good point, I often forget about the TRP (but I did remember in "Blue and Gray" campaign), especially since points are not an issue in single player scenarios/campaigns, but the ungrateful/complaint comment makes me want to argue with you a little bit...

I have nothing to counter with at this moment. see me in the rebirth of peng you SoB

[Crushingleeek]

maybe you can start your signature with that last statement

[JonS]

will they break immediately?

Depends how you use them. If you try to wheel them about the battlefield as if they were high motivation veterans, then definately yes: they'll be broken in no time.

If you use them like Poor Conscripts, going slowly, pouring many minutes of fire into know or suspected positions before moving in, only exposing small parts of your force to the buzzsaw at a time, maintaining reserves, and all the other humdrum things that are part of tactics and battlespace management, then they should be good for the whole fight. Chunks of the force will certainly become combat ineffective regardless of what you do, but dealing with that to maintain an effective element to the very end is one of your basic challenges. Rotating out wrecked elements to hold the line in peripheral sectors while bringing in fresh forces to sustain the advance or maintain the defence, and doing that simultaneously at the section, platoon, company, and battalion level is the game.

Also, lower experience troops will tend to fire more, more often, but less accurately/less effectively.

And all that adds up to a much slower tempo (which can be slowed even furhter by making them Weakened or Unfit) and much higher ammn expenditure rates.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Also, lower experience troops will tend to fire more, more often, but less accurately/less effectively.

I don't know about accuracy, but in the game rate of fire is directly tied to experience level, with the rate increasing with more experience. I have only tested machine guns but I think it is true of infantry small arms as well.

[Crushingleeek]

Originally Posted by JonS

Also, lower experience troops will tend to fire more, more often, but less accurately/less effectively.

I don't know about accuracy, but in the game rate of fire is directly tied to experience level, with the rate increasing with more experience. I have only tested machine guns but I think it is true of infantry small arms as well.

Which is true: lower experience or higher experience firing more? Any insight would be helpful. Limited time outside of RL appreciates your help in identifying the truth!

[Vanir Ausf B]

rate increasing with more experience.

In other words, higher experience = higher ROF

[Crushingleeek]

In other words, higher experience = higher ROF

agree? rebuttal, JonS?

[Vanir Ausf B]

No need for debate. Just fire up a QB and buy 2 machine guns, one green and one elite. When the game starts give each an area fire order and you will see one fire more often than the other. Takes 5 minutes, tops. I seem to have lost the notes I took, but IIRC the ROF increases about 10% per experience level.