Unlimited Mg Ammo for Tanks??

[dano6]

I have seen it said that tank and halftrack MG ammo is not tracked. Does this make sense? I know that tanks only carried a certain amount of ammo.

I saw one of your responses that something along the line of it wouldn't matter because it would never be used up in a typical game.

Now on to the game at hand. There are about 30 turns left and fionn has a pzIV with unlimited ammo. Figuring that it has already fire approx. 600-1000 rounds from previous turns. If he uses it as MG support platform each turn he probably will shoot somewhere around 100-150 rounds from both MGs each turn. This would equal 6,600-10,000 rounds of MG ammo. Is it possible for a PzIV to hold that much ammo and still have room for a crew. And this would apply to the half tracks as well, How much ammo did they carry?

I don't know but it sounds like alot of MG ammo to fire. Are my firing rates about right? It would seem that a MG could easily put out 100 rounds per minute if not more, of course until the gunner had to go to the back to resupply the MG because there is no way he could store 4,000 or 5,000 rounds near him especially in the turret.

dano6

[Guest Bobb]

And along this line in the other direction, is it unreasonable that a scenario on a battlefield of these dimensions could have an ammo point either aboard a vehicle or stashed behind a front line from which at least a limited resupply could be made? The time scope seems long enough for at least a minor amount of this sort of thing to take place. Particulary so for vehicular units or infantry with vehicles. Wouldn't old Kelley just love to have a HT with a little HE aboard along about now standing by? Or Martin

to have had a jeep load run up with the Shermans reinforceing him? For the lack of a single accurate PZ IV shell on such a jeep could hang the battle no less than that which was lost for the lack nail. A big coding issue I am sure, but one that certainly could add interest and additional reality in my opinion. I have read of tanks running back for ammo and returning within the possible time frame of CM. It does not seem too unreasonable for additional ammo to be stashed in an established position either. For attacking units like Martins other support is required -- or nightfall. Interdicting arty made night resupply virtually a necessity where supply lines lacked cover. Even then it was hazzardous as preregistered fire was lobbed in speculatively on the chance - - -

Nevermind though, in the current scenario play, the ammo shortage is just as likely a situation as otherwise, perhaps somewhat more so. Anyway it would be nice for a scenario designer to punch in a 30 or 40 percent ammo reinforcement to arrive just along the time he thinks the troops should be in despair for the lack. Or an inplace small forward supply point to risk a few troopers or a vehicle exposure to make a supply run. Just a little spice.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dano6, we though long and hard about this one. This was a balance between info overload and realism. Typically a tank or HT won't run out of MG ammo even during an assault like the current AAR game. Tanks generally carried about 4000 rounds of MG ammo. When you look at the rate of fire of the MGs you might think this isn't much, but it is. MMG and HMG teams have about the same and they rarely run out of ammo, even though shooting their MG is the ONLY thing they are supposed to do.

In a campaign units get ammo inbetween battles.

Bobb, ammo scavaging was something done mostly inbetween engagements. So, Fionn might call off the attack now, then drive back to the whacked PzIV and pick through the wreck to see if there are any round left intact. But this would take at least 20 minutes or more, with the vehicle being fully exposed to a counter attack. Units on the defensive can have extra ammo assigned to them to simulate stockpiles though.

Steve

[Ben Galanti]

Steve,

Do all units get fully supplied between battles in a campaign? While I can see consolidating ammo between battles, was fresh stuff brought up from the rear that quickly? If not, wouldn't vehicle ammo become an issue over a days fighting?

If this topic is still open to discussion, I would vote for having MG ammo tracked. As for info-overload, perhaps just have the mg ammo listed on the detailed stats page you can bring up on units. I know it lists where the MGs are located, perhaps just a rounds number after that? Though, that would go against having all the pertanent info being displayed when the unit is selected, and only generic unit type info showing up on that stats page. Or, maybe, just a symbol at the end of the ammo status line when MG ammo is low (an ! or something) since the player really doesn't need to know MG ammo down to the round (and probably won't care until it's low anyway)

[This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 09-16-99).]

[Ben Galanti]

(I know I could have just edited my post, but that's a pain to do in lynx )

Going back to resupply between battles in a campaign. Is this an option in the scenario editor? Not having one side get more ammo between some battles to simulate being cut off, or only getting partial ammo if it's being rationed, etc... Just curious.

[dano6]

Steve, it seems as if the MG teams in the AAR are running low or getting close. It would seem that the pzIV would be also considering it probably has fired at least 1000 rounds by now and will shoot way more. I just think the unlimited ammo is a bit much. If the tank has time to expend all of its main gun ammo then it definitely has time to expend all of its MG ammo too. This gives way to much to the person with the last surviving tank. An unlimited MG platform from which to massacre the opposing infantry. This is not close to realistic and it is the first thing that I have finally found to have a major problem with. The more I think about it, the bigger my problem becomes. This is especially true for longer scenarios. How can a tank, with 2 MGs fire for 60 turns at a lowly 100 rounds per minute from 2 MGs and not run out of ammo(12,000 rounds). Incredible, whoever has the last tank standing has the mobil machine gun nest with unlimited ammo.

I'm sorry guys, but this is unbelievable. I'm sure the code for tracking tank MG ammo is not that difficult to put in. You have it for everything else, information overload, no way.

dano6

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ben, I am not sure so I have asked Charles.

Dano6, most of Martin's MGs are running low because they have lost a crew member who is tasked with carrying ammo. So I will clarify my previous statement, MG teams rarely run out of ammo through shooting alone.

As far as your ammo math goes, you have way over siplified things. Tanks don't start blazing away on turn one, and never cease until the game ends. That just doesn't ever happen. I think most of Fionns vehicels didn't even use their MGs for the first 5 turns solid for example. And while on the move they don't fire too much either. On top of that while the turret is rotating it isn't firing, when hull down the bow MG isn't firing, when out of LOF/LOS (like behind a building) it isn't firing, when hiding they aren't firing, etc. The end result is that for the BULK of a game the tank MGs are silent.

Basically, the MGs fire a lot less than you think they do. So once again, we do not feel this abstraction is one that will affect gameplay or realism. Your imaginary scenario of one tank swaying the battle at turn 59 is just not going to happen. The game would most likely be ended long before this would be the case. Fionn can tell you that having the one HT with a MG and the tank with MGs isn't going to help him win the game. Tanks in CM aren't the über weapons in other games

BUT, just to be on the safe side, we have a placeholder in the save game data structure in case the beta testers come to a different conclusion. If they do, we will go with MG ammo loadouts for vehicles. But at the moment we don't think there is any need.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-16-99).]

[Brian Rock]

I think the unlimited ammo could be a problem too.

I suspect the reason tanks generallty didn't run out of ammo was because they would tend to use it sparingly. With unlimited ammo there is no need to conserve, and I Dano6's scenario of a tank spraying 12,000+ rounds is not impossible.

It's also not clear to me why this would be information overload.

Of course this discussion has to pop-up with the beta version only days away.

++++++++++++++

Ooops - my message hit just after BTS's reply - seems they addressed most of the points. Heh.

[This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 09-16-99).]

[Fred]

Some numbers:

A Pz IV usually has 2700 rounds MG ammo

A Panther usually has 4200 rounds MG ammo

Practical fire speed (not theoretical) of the MG 34 was 300 shots per minute, down to 150 shots per minute if firing short bursts of 3 to 5 rounds.

Well, if it is not to much work (and delay) I think MG ammo supply for tanks should be added.

Fred

[Guest Big Time Software]

The info overload thing NEVER applies to adding "just one more thing", but rather the whole range of things that COULD be added. So would adding MG rounds itself be overloading? No. But there are literally dozens of things we aren't displaying/tracking to the nth degree. If we applied the "but it is just one little bitty thing to add" to all of these things you would have serious info overload. So we have chosen the things you REALLY need to know and/or REALLY matter to display/track.

Our filters have put MG ammo for vehicles into the "not necessary to display/track" category. So far we stand by this, but beta testers will decide for sure. Dano6's nightmare scenario didn't happen in Martin and Fionn's bloody all out assault, so we are still quite confident that it isn't a problem. Remember, just because you can picture a flaw in your heads doesn't mean that it is actually there

Steve

[dano6]

Steve, sorry for the rant, I know I have over-simplified the situation. But I do not understand, with unlimited ammo, you could use the tank to area fire into suspected enemy areas for turns on end trying to supress the infantry. This would also work for the hunt key. In this scenario, with all moons suspected AT defense away, you could just set the tank up to fire its MGs across the river on the hunt command or fire at specific buildings trying to supress suspected infantry. This could be done with no regard to ammo wasting. What if fionn still had 3 or 4 halftracks with unlimited ammo. Set themn up and just keep firing at the buildings across the river until the infantry is supressed and then keep firing while you make your assualt. You could just wait turns for the MGs to supress without regard to your ammo.

I also believe from a stationary firing platform a tank could easily expend 300-500 rounds per minute total. That would be a ton of ammo over a few turns.

Also, if the code for tracking vehicle ammo is done, why not use it. It isn't too much information, it makes the game more realistic and I seriously doubt if it takes up too many resources.

I seriously feel as though this could be a serious problem in a long extended game. And if it is done why not include it. Maybe it would just make someone mad that they can't just blaze away with the MGs forever.

dano6

[Guest Big Time Software]

It is a legit concern, granted, but a valid concern does not mean there is a valid problem. The examples you just gave don't work against the game either. Here is why...

Area fire means the tank is not paying as much attention to other things. And since you can only area fire in one specific place for an entire turn (unless the TacAI does decide to override) you are really LIMITING what your tank can do. So the damage caused will be little, but the danger posed by tying up the tank is substantial.

The HUNT command fires on targets that the tank feels are juicy or threatening. It has fire disciplin built in, so it won't go running around the map spraying everything that it sees with MG fire.

Funny enough, Fionn had hoped to do just that with his HTs. But battlefield reality crept in and trashed his HTs because they were exposed. There tends to be natural balance in CM that is absent in others.

As far as a stationary tank getting a higher RoF, not likely. The single biggest restriction on firing for prolonged times is heat. This is the same for a LMG, HMG, or tank mounted MG. Crews also still have to reload, clear jams, dig out new ammo cans, etc. Practical RoF would be no better, if not worse because of much poorer spotting ability.

We aren't saying that MG ammo is NO problem, but there is absolutely no in game evidence to support your fears. Rember that while we are both talking theories here I also have the benefit of playing the game Now if the testers find MG ammo to be a problem then we will the tracking. What you need to keep in mind is that adding this means something else on The List doesn't go in. We have NO spare time here to add anything. So if there is no game/realism need it won't happen. That's reality for you, unyielding

Steve

[Justin Hoerter]

Hi,

I understand your position Steve, and tend to agree with you. However, perhaps its worth implementing ammo for vehicle MG's so it does not become an exploit. As you mentioned, a vehicle often has better things to do than fire MG's (Hide, remains hull down, operate main gun, etc...) So with relatively ample ammunition, no risk of losing ammo carriers (Inf. MG team), and fewer firing oppertunities ammunition should be less of an issue. It seems like a decent concession to make. However, I'm curious if people will drag combat out to seek that last casualty or two. I understand CM monitors the pace of combat and should stop a game once this starts to happen. OTOH, perhaps ammo tracking for MGs should be in to create more of a player driven cease-fire.

Regarding ammunition depots on map. I don't see this as an issue. I understand CM to represent (in campaign mode) a series of fire-fights over a day or so. So ammunition resupply should coincide with a break in the more intense action. I understand from my reading that even in hotly contested areas (Arnhem, Stalingrad, etc...) that there were several breaks in combat. IE. 10-30m. firefight with possible manouvre broken by rest and refit of the now exhausted and out of local supply troops. IIRC ASL's Red Barricades had the players fighting a scenario per day (or night). Their abstraction was to have this scenario, again IIRC 2min. per turn with 10 to 20 turns a scenario (poor memory) represent a DAYS combat. This is a bit of an extreme case, as the fighting was so brutal and slow, to abstract in ASL terms what reasonable gains were for a day. End result, we have maybe 20-30m. of combat (ASL) with rearming and minor repositioning occuring the rest of the day. ASL's logic was that while there are several smaller firefights, they were focusing on the big pushes. In any case, this is how another game system choose to handle rest & refit. Of course ASL didn't monitor ammo either... Well special ammo had its own abstractions (I think ASL and WP was brought up in the past )

I loved the ASL system, but they had to make MANY abstractions. The above is a bit of a severe case, but it is also one of the more highly regarded products of the ASL system. After much babbling, I'm trying to better understand CM's methods and relate them to what I'm familar with, so bear with me. I'm looking forward to a game that more closely matches what I've read. While I dont quite have your library, I'm building what I can

I'd like to hear others comments.

Justin Hoerter

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Justin,

If the unlimited ammo thing influences player behavior in such a way that benefits their cause, then we will make changes. However, one or two AFVs driving around towards the end of the game, without infantry to match, is SOL. I don't want to give things away, but let us just say that Fionn would agree

As far as historical battles went, all of 'em were broken up into several short, quick battles. Even in extreme battle situations, like Stalingrad, this was the case. There is only so much men can take before they need rest and ammo. The average solider had only about 20 minutes worth of practical engagement time before being spent. This is a running total kind of thing, not necessarily consecutive. So you fight for 5 minutes, move around or hide for another 5, then fight, then move, etc. Fionn showed that off very well on the attack, and Martin very well on defense. The 30 minutes of combat both have been engaged in so far consisted of several distinct firefights, and now both forces are largely spent. If either side got some reinforcements the other would be toast.

Steve

[dano6]

Steve,

Well of course you have played the game, and I have not. If the MG tracking actually has no effect on gameplay then, it doen't need to be implemented. If on the other hand it does then it definitely should be. I have always loved a good debate, and I feel my concerns are warranted, but if it doen't effect the game situation then it doesn't really matter. I just saw a supposed oversight and debated to have it recognized if not rectified.

always argumentative

dano6

[This message has been edited by dano6 (edited 09-16-99).]

[Simon Fox]

I find Steve's arguments pretty reasonable. Yes, unlimited ammo is globally unrealistic. But in the context of the game? Probably not IMO. While we can all discuss features in isolation and I have pushed a few ideas myself I have generally been content to accept that BTS need to be stubborn about what goes in. What might seem a minor but critical change from your view (especially if you have a bee in your bonnet about it!) in isolation is from their perspective an incremental but significant increase in complexity. It is all about prioritising.

BTW from all stories I have read about the way they loaded their tanks up I would guess that in reality they had a fair bit more than the official load. This applies to situations where ammo was plentiful of course.

[Guest Big Time Software]

All... this has been a worth while debate. As I said a few times, the concern is VERY valid. It could very well be a big problem, so we do have our eyes on it. We have covered our bases by leaving a small placeholder in the data file so that if we DO find that it is an issue we can fix it without crapping out the save game format in the middle of testing. Adding the code to support MG ammo tracking would add time, but breaking the format would be huge.

Simon, you are VERY correct. It was a bit harder to stow extra shells in most armored vehicles, but MG ammo wasn't that hard to stock up on. Overstocking on ammo was a rule of thumb for everybody. I know that if I was a foot slogger and had a crappy Kar98k I would have as many stripper clips of ammo stashed in various pockets and bags as I could This is one reason why we use a more or less fuzzy number for infantry ammo. They start out with a hard number, but we don't bother counting up how many actually rounds each one expended.

Steve

[Fionn]

FWIW I agree with Steve regarding the effectiveness of tank MG fire vs dug-in infantry.

A couple of tanks with MGs isn't going to break any enemy platoon-sized position simply with MG fire.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Bobb]

Steve, you mentioned ammo scrounging. I am curious how that works in CM. I can see that it would in reality be affected by things that might not or could not inserted into the game. For instance an armored unit that is merely immobilized against one that has been hit hard or one that has brewed up. Or infantry or crew units that have remained in place with their casualties as opposed to leaving those casualties behind (with the ammo they were carrying) Infantry or crew units on the move and unfired are burdened to the max and can't use stray ammo they pass in their travels, but one already down on ammo could concieveably profit from casualties they happen upon (of their own side). Sometimes the pace of battle or exposure would prescribe stopping.

I also worry a little about having time for an armored unit to spend the time necessary to travel back to an imobilized brother, spend the 20 minutes for scrounging and get back to the fight with that last straw for the camels back only to have the game engine decide not enough was going on automatically activating the end game clause. Perhaps this end game feature might have a little discretionary out for players.

Neither can I feel too comfortable with an arbitrary cut off time limit. Needing just another 5 minutes to realize the fruits of an already won scenario only to have them denied due to the turns alloted seems a little narrow. Of course that should be a part of the designer's responsibility to allot enough time. But, never overlook the possibility of some gamer hatching a plan the designer did not allow for.

Apollogies if this has already been covered.

[mikemac]

I am convinced by the arguments that tracking is not necessary. I am also impressed that my question to Fionn generated this amount of discussion.

I will just assume that another smart Enlisted Man found a place to hide a little more than the book allows for. As an ex-submariner I had repair parts (not on the approved list) stuck away for a rainy day. And you know what? When something broke 400 feet down, in the middle of the Atlantic, no Officer ever complained when the repair part just appeared.

[Guest aaronb]

There is one aspect of unlimited vehicle ammo that no-one has addressed: public perception.

CM goes to great lengths to do realistic modelling, and sells itself on this strength.

Non-grog's may not know about machine-gun placement on a Ferdinand, but they will sure know that vehicles do not actually have unlimited ammo. CM's competitors will make some hay with this.

Food for thought. The game will only be a success if it sells to everyone, not just the dedicated few.

[guachi]

This discussion of tracking tank MG ammo begs the question -- why did tanks have so much ammo anyway?

Ammo for everything else is tracked because of the possibility of running out. Why were tanks supplied with several thousand rounds of MG ammo when they might have had a few more HE or AP shells instead?

I admit to being completely ignorant on this subject so I hope you can enlighten me.

Jason

[Brian Rock]

When fighting infantry, few things keep them off the tanks as well as a few MGs. Faster rate of fire and can cover more ground.

Against the Japanese US tankers sometimes had to resort to spraying each other's tanks with MG fire to sweep the tanks clean of enemy inf. Try doing that with HE or AP and you're probably going to upset your buddies.

[Guest Big Time Software]

The question of why so much ammo is basically answered by another question; why not? You aren't going to stash 2 or 3 rounds of 88 ammo in the radio man's location, but you can keep many hundreds of rounds of MG ammo there. Plus, MGs on tanks are an escential part of tank warfare. Brian's example is extreme, but exactly what the MGs were designed to do. The lack of adequate MGs on tanks such as the Ferdinand, StuGs, Hetzer, and numberous other TDs on the German side were a real problem.

BTW, just checked and Shermans had 6000!! rounds of .30 ammo for the bow and coax MG. More .50 for the roof MG. And you know how much GIs paid attention to max limits

Aaron, your point is well taken. However, we don't simulate lots of things that some Gorgs would call "important", like how many eyelets a US boot has vs. a German one Seriously, if MG ammo isn't really a concern, then there is no reason to display it to the player. Just because someone THINKS that it is important doesn't mean that it is. I remember someone years ago talking to the Road to Moscow team and asking if they were going to simulate SS cottage industries in Southern Russia. They made felt boots and this kept the SS better prepared for winter. Oh boy MG ammo is not nearly as extreme as this, but the point still is that if it isn't important it isn't important.

Plus, Grogs are going to be ALL over us because of things like M10s taking out a Jagdtigers

Steve

P.S. We have put it on The List just so we can end the debate

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bobb, there is no ammo scrounging in CM. More often than not this sort of thing doesn't happen on the battlefield beyond one's reach. After the battle, yes, quite a bit of scrounging, but during is rare. The loading and unloading of ammo between AFVs is not a quick and easy process.

There is also no hard turn limit. Games can go shorter or longer than the designer specified ending. However, a scenario is more likely to end early than later, especially in a campaign scenario.

Steve