Changing ammo loadout in editor

[JonS]

At the moment I can't test. I'm pretty sure lower exp troops have lower fire disc (so might, for example, be more likely to fire outside of covered arcs), and I thought that extended to firing rates. I've never tested it directly though, and since Vanir has I'm happy to go with his results.

Still, that aside, lower exp and motivation troops will still lead to a slower, longer game with - I should think - more ammn expenditure in total.

[Crushingleeek]

thanks guys, for the accounts im too lazy to test. Works out well, since the division i'm enamored with currently (29th) was often greener the grinch. actually im going to try it now.

[Paper Tiger]

IMHO, Green is definitely the way to to go. Now that I've updated 'Montebourg' so that the US Army troops are mostly Green to keep it in line with the The Scottish Corridor's Green UK troops, I reckon I'm going to stick with Green from now on. Not because I think that the fighting men of both sides in NWE were Green but because it makes for a much more realistic feeling WW2 game. It also makes the good units shine, i.e., the Regular/Veteran experience levels, when they appear without making them utterly uber. The future is Green!

I've been using Conscripts in my Canadian campaign to represent the Hiwis that were fighting neear the beaches. My experience with conscripts shows that they are very trigger happy but they don't hit very much. It's almost pointless giving them an ambush-type order as they'll just fire anyway. They are also very fragile. I'll be using Conscripts more frequently in the future too to represent poor quality replacements and stomach battalions, etc.

[Crushingleeek]

turns out I was less lazy than I thought.

Vanir Ausf B is right. Higher experience = higher rate of fire.

This experience was conducted in triplicate with standard deviation calculated under 5 conditions.

Garand-only infantry squads were ordered to fire at a target 48m away on flat ground with no opposition.

The squads were of the following experience, motivation, and leadership, all with full ammunition:

as you can see, only experience seems to have an appreciable effect on rate of fire. The graph indicates percent ammo expenditure in one minute. Neither motivation nor leadership seems to have an appreciable effect.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Lower quality troops do slow games down, no question about it. But I suspect they will also use less ammo rather than more, not only because of the rate of fire but because cowering troops don't shoot at all.

And don't forget about the motivation rating. Unlike CMx1, in CMBN you can have soldiers that are very enthusiastic about their jobs despite being marginally competent at them e.g. early war SS, as well as highly trained troops who don't have a **** left to give e.g. late war British But there does seem to be some overlap, as my casual observation has been that green troops tend to be more fragile than regular troops of the same motivation.

[Crushingleeek]

IMHO, Green is definitely the way to to go. Now that I've updated 'Montebourg' so that the US Army troops are mostly Green to keep it in line with the The Scottish Corridor's Green UK troops, I reckon I'm going to stick with Green from now on. Not because I think that the fighting men of both sides in NWE were Green but because it makes for a much more realistic feeling WW2 game. It also makes the good units shine, i.e., the Regular/Veteran experience levels, when they appear without making them utterly uber. The future is Green!

I've been using Conscripts in my Canadian campaign to represent the Hiwis that were fighting neear the beaches. My experience with conscripts shows that they are very trigger happy but they don't hit very much. It's almost pointless giving them an ambush-type order as they'll just fire anyway. They are also very fragile. I'll be using Conscripts more frequently in the future too to represent poor quality replacements and stomach battalions, etc.

thanks, and i've found by experimentation, you're absolutely right!

[Crushingleeek]

turns out I was less lazy than I thought.

Vanir Ausf B is right. Higher experience = higher rate of fire.

This experience was conducted in triplicate with standard deviation calculated under 5 conditions.

Garand-only infantry squads were ordered to fire at a target 48m away on flat ground with no opposition.

The squads were of the following experience, motivation, and leadership, all with full ammunition:

as you can see, only experience seems to have an appreciable effect on rate of fire. The graph indicates percent ammo expenditure in one minute. Neither motivation nor leadership seems to have an appreciable effect.

yes, it will be interesting to see how ROF of all these groups i've tested is influenced by being suppressed

[Paper Tiger]

highly trained troops who don't have a **** left to give e.g. late war British

I thought that would apply to late war everybody, except for Germans fighting the Russians.

[LukeFF]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I don't like Green troops. Even when handled properly, they get spooked too easily by enemy fire and can't be consistently relied upon. Regular troops IMO strike that right balance - they know how to handle incoming enemy fire, but they also will only tolerate so much before they start to crack. It's exactly for that reason that I like the original version of the Montebourg campaign.

[sburke]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I don't like Green troops. Even when handled properly, they get spooked too easily by enemy fire and can't be consistently relied upon. Regular troops IMO strike that right balance - they know how to handle incoming enemy fire, but they also will only tolerate so much before they start to crack. It's exactly for that reason that I like the original version of the Montebourg campaign.

LOL I don't think you'll get much disagreement about prefering regular troops. I would advise trying green units though just to appreciate the variations. It really makes you think about your style of play and what you think you can achieve realistically which in the long run helps you learn how far you can push your troops. I think it can also give you some new ideas about how to deploy etc that you can apply to other experience levels as well. With green units and lower fitness levels you have to plan further ahead and pace your decisions.

[Crushingleeek]

yea, and with green troops I find myself running the ship tighter, being more patient for the smoke to fall into place, really make sure the mg42 is suppressed before maneuver.

it can be good for your "technique"

conversely, sometimes I fall into the trap of "they're crack troops, I'll just run them to the next house."

Of course the trajectory of the incoming bullet doesn't care what your experience is, if you're in its path, you're a casualty.

so sometimes I do better with green troops!

[Broadsword56]

Not to throw too many variables into the mix, but recently I had the experience of Green troops with +2 Leadership (the Hamel Vallee battle sburke and I shared in that AAR). This simulated a trained and motivated force that had no battle experience yet, being put into an "intensive" setpiece attack with loads of higher-level planning and support.

It's hard to tell in the heat of battle whether Green troops are firing less or hitting less -- as a commander all you might see is that they're just not achieving the desired results.

But one thing I noticed right away was that with high Leadership, even Green troops will have a lot more staying power -- I was able to make even Broken Green troops keep fighting a little bit (although they'd usually be finished once they took another casualty).

In other games I'd usually found Broken to mean absolutely useless -- good only for lolling around the HQ or manning some listening posts.

[LukeFF]

Based on the manual, this is how I've always interpreted the experience levels:

Conscript: barely trained (or not trained at all) troops. Example: Volksturm formations.

Green: inadequately trained troops with no experience, or professionally-trained troops who are being employed outside of their normal area of training. Examples: Luftwaffe infantry, cooks/messengers/supply/signals personnel. Also, Ost battalion troops could fall into this category.

Regular: properly-trained combat arms troops who either lack experience or are a mix of experienced troops and fresh replacements. Examples: American troops landing at Normandy, typical German formations, etc.

Veteran: troops with good training and battlefield experience, or troops who've trained to a higher standard than other formations. Examples: paratrooper/glider infantry, German units with Eastern Front experience.

Crack/Elite: the best of the best.