A question about ammunition sharing.

[Oddball_E8]

So, my friend was learning to play the game at my house a few days ago and he was playing the barkmanns corner scenario.

One of his panzerschreck teams got the launcher carrier killed and the other guy ran off in panic. After a while his panic subsided but he couldnt reach the place where his buddy was killed to retrieve the pzschreck, so my buddy moved him to another pzschreck unit that was out of ammo, thinking he would share the 4 at rockets he still had on him with them.

But he didnt.

I was under the impression (in fact im positive that its happened to me before) that specialist teams like that share the ammo if they are next to eachother.

Not only that, but he played platoon patrol and each squad had 3 60mm mortar shells, but we couldnt figure out how to get the mortar team to use those extra rounds.

any help for a returning player like me who might be missing something obvious?

[YankeeDog]

Ammo of any type can only be shared between units of the same low-level formation -- platoon or section, usually. So your buddy's orphaned Panzershreck ammo carrier would have shared his ammo with another Panzershreck team from the same platoon, but not one from a different platoon.

There's been lots of debate as to whether this is a good thing to have in the game or not. It definitely can create some rough edges at times.

The 3 x 60mm ordnance you're seeing on the squad ammo load out aren't mortar rounds, they're HE rifle grenades (actually, IIRC, they're 66mm, but at a quick glance I could see how it could get misread as 60mm)

[Sublime]

They have to be part of the same formation to share ammo - e.g. same platoon.

Not sure about the 60mm in Platoon Patrol though. Are you sure he wasn't reading wrong and read that each squad had 3 66mm HE rounds? Those are rifle grenades, different than 60mm mortar.

edit: ninja'd by YD

[Oddball_E8]

Oh yeah! Those ARE 66mm... i didnt see that when my buddy was playing, but then i didnt look too closely

As for the ammo sharing thing, well im definately on the side of "well its a bad thing that they dont".

There are plenty of times during world war 2 where units of different formations were fighting together and sharing supplies during battles.

Imagine two machinegun teams from different formations sitting next to eachother and one runs out of ammo during an enemy attack... and then imagine them asking for some ammo from the other MG and being answered "sucks being you" or the likes.

Doesn't sound very plausable.

But at least now i know that its platoon based, so i have a reason why (albeit an invalid one if you ask me).

[YankeeDog]

Yeah... I don't have any special insight into BFC's logic here, but I assume "ammo sharing within a platoon only" rule was put in as an additional incentive encouraging the player to move and fight his forces as coherent platoons.

This is definitely a good game design goal -- I think one of the things that separates CM from other wargames of similar scale is that it rewards the player to pays attention to C&C rules and keeps his platoons/sections together as fighting units. There are exceptions where splitting platoons up can be a good idea, but for the most part, you want to keep them together.

However, now that I've been playing CMx2 engine games for several years, I'm not really sure this restriction is necessary; the C&C rules in CMx2 are already a pretty strong incentive to keep platoons together, and restricting ammo sharing does create some weirdness at times, as in the Panzershreck rockets example in the OP.

[Holman]

I'm generally of the opinion that we have too much control already, so I don't mind this inability to share between platoons.

It does look strange when I'm standing right next to you with my empty bazooka and you won't pass me the rockets you can't even use. On the other hand, it prevents the player from unrealistically gathering all the rags and tatters of broken units across the map and using them as a combined ammo dump for all the units that still need ammo. Real forces would rarely manage that kind of coordination during the time span of a CM battle.

[Oddball_E8]

I'm generally of the opinion that we have too much control already, so I don't mind this inability to share between platoons.

It does look strange when I'm standing right next to you with my empty bazooka and you won't pass me the rockets you can't even use. On the other hand, it prevents the player from unrealistically gathering all the rags and tatters of broken units across the map and using them as a combined ammo dump for all the units that still need ammo. Real forces would rarely manage that kind of coordination during the time span of a CM battle.

Im very much against limiting control just to prevent gamey behaviour...

In real life, you could often send people back through the lines to gather more ammo and then return, but its no possible in the game so having this kind of sharing between specialist teams (like mortars and rocket launchers) would make sense.

[YankeeDog]

I'm generally of the opinion that we have too much control already, so I don't mind this inability to share between platoons.

It does look strange when I'm standing right next to you with my empty bazooka and you won't pass me the rockets you can't even use. On the other hand, it prevents the player from unrealistically gathering all the rags and tatters of broken units across the map and using them as a combined ammo dump for all the units that still need ammo. Real forces would rarely manage that kind of coordination during the time span of a CM battle.

Generally speaking, I'm with you on the "too much control" thing. But Ammo sharing isn't really something you "control"; it's just something that happens automatically between adjacent units.

I just wonder if this restriction is really necessary. Theoretically, I can see how it might be possible to make gamey usage of the survivors of broken units as "walking ammo dumps". Practically speaking though, getting broken units to move around under incoming fire heavier than pebbles thrown in their general direction is like herding cats, and putting broken units within 2 action spots of actively fighting units so that they can share their ammo strikes me as a great way to hand my opponent casualty points.

So I'm not sure it's a tactic that would often be fruitful anyway, even if the restrictions on ammo sharing were lifted.

[womble]

Im very much against limiting control just to prevent gamey behaviour...

It's not to prevent gamey behaviour, per se, it's to prevent gamey behaviour that's facilitated by the limitations of the model. There's no distinction drawn in the ammo numbers between a 100 round fabric belt and an 8 round "en-bloc" clip (in the case of M2 ball). So if ammo sharing was "universal", a rifle squad could sit next to any old MG ammo bearer team and use that boxed, belted ammo as if it was already in clips. Or the other way around. What we gain in being able to almost instantly resupply any weapon of the right calibre, we lose in the flexibility of passing ammo around.

In real life, you could often send people back through the lines to gather more ammo and then return, but its no possible in the game so having this kind of sharing between specialist teams (like mortars and rocket launchers) would make sense.

You often can in CM, too. Split a team and have it grab ammo off a vehicle; they'll divvy it out into the squad when they get back.

[Oddball_E8]

It's not to prevent gamey behaviour, per se, it's to prevent gamey behaviour that's facilitated by the limitations of the model. There's no distinction drawn in the ammo numbers between a 100 round fabric belt and an 8 round "en-bloc" clip (in the case of M2 ball). So if ammo sharing was "universal", a rifle squad could sit next to any old MG ammo bearer team and use that boxed, belted ammo as if it was already in clips. Or the other way around. What we gain in being able to almost instantly resupply any weapon of the right calibre, we lose in the flexibility of passing ammo around.

You often can in CM, too. Split a team and have it grab ammo off a vehicle; they'll divvy it out into the squad when they get back.

Hi.

I'm Oddball_E8.

You seem to have missed the part where i said "specialist teams like mortars or rocket launchers"

Seriously tho, i dont mean between troops and specialist teams. It would have to be a specialist team of the same kind.

So a bazooka team would have to have a bazooka team to resupply them.

An M1919 team would need another M1919 or M1917 team to resupply them.

And so on.

So its not that every random halfdead squad can run up to an MG team to supply them with ammo, but teams that actually have the same equipment (or very similar in the M19191/1917 case) can resupply eachother.

[aleader]

Just ran into this rather ridiculous limitation in a battle. My one 60mm mortar had run out of ammo so I moved another ammo bearer close to him and he would not share the ammo with the mortar team.

Also had another mortar in the same battle that refused to fire it's mortar rounds after the first 3 rounds. It was healthy, not suppressed, had clear LOS, it was deployed, but it would not fire for 20 some turns. I tried moving it, targeting different areas, nothing worked. Anyone run into this?

[Erwin]

IIRC the mortar teams have to be from the same platoon.

Mortars often don't work for various reasons, obstructions like bldgs., trees, sometimes that one can't even see...

Re ammo sharing, I hope we'll be able to one day simply acquire a reasonable amount of ammo from ANY adjacent unit... no more having to split a team so it can board a vehicle, then acquire, then dismount, then join up with its squad... A PITA in WEGO.

Sure, there should be a time penalty or delay, and there should be a limit on how much can be transferred. But that would greatly speed up set-up. One can spend ages getting one's units supplied as desired during set-up. And there is great temptation to load up with ridiculous amounts of ammo at setup just to avoid having to go thru the hell of resupply later. Actually, I hope there will be more limits on how much a couple of guys can carry. Currently, they don't tire nearly as quickly as one would expect when loaded to the gills.

[Warts 'n' all]

I found it a tad annoying when a breach team who'd run out of demo charges, wouldn't share their small arms ammo with a rifle squad that had run out of ammo. It meant that neither unit could do anything for the last ten minutes of the battle. Grrrrr!

[aleader]

It doesn't seem that BF is too interested as I didn't see any answers from them on this. I didn't see any players posting against the idea, so is this just a case of them telling us what's best for us? Not a fan of that...

The mortar had clear LOS and target area (according to the indicator). Wouldn't an obstruction nullify this?

[A Canadian Cat]

Well to be fair it has been discussed many times before. BFC have chimed in before. If the forum search does find it try Google using their site: syntax.

[sburke]

It doesn't seem that BF is too interested as I didn't see any answers from them on this. I didn't see any players posting against the idea, so is this just a case of them telling us what's best for us? Not a fan of that...

The mortar had clear LOS and target area (according to the indicator). Wouldn't an obstruction nullify this?

It usually doesn't do much good to wonder if BF's response or lack thereof implies anything. Sometimes Steve can be very active on the forum, other times he is a ghost. There is no telling what any particular day may bring and don't even bother wondering if it has anything to do with Combat Mission. Despite the rumors to the contrary he does have a real personal life too.

Sometimes these things will be discussed on the beta forum and no one will comment as there simply isn't anything yet to comment on and sometimes as someone else noted they have been discussed ad nauseum in which case folks may just not feel inclined to repeat themselves.

When bringing up a subject that you figure seems to be an obvious issue it usually makes sense to see what has already been said. Pretty easy to find good info, a search in google specific to the battlefront site will give you an idea of just how often it has come up and pertinent discussions. It may be you'll find a thread that is exactly along the lines of the frustration you have and commenting in that thread is sometimes more helpful at re-igniting a discussion than simply starting from scratch.

ammo sharing site:battlefront.com

As to my own opinion, don't really have a strong one. The number of times it affects me is relatively small and I have my own personal rules that tend to deter me from seeing it as an issue. Would I be opposed to a change, not really.

[aleader]

This thread is an old one that I looked up as you'll see by the first post. Been here for a while, I know to search. Among the searches I completed I saw no response from BF. There may be one somewhere, but I have a personal life too ;-). As far as I can tell, BF is Steve's occupation, no?

Whether or not it affects you, it seems like a pretty petty limitation. Ammo bearers in real life I'm sure do not hoard ammo while other units are under fire without any. Seems to me the other soldiers may take offense to that ;-). Completely unrelated, how do I post the 'smiley faces' inside my post? Never been able to do it, have never thought to ask.

[sburke]

This thread is an old one that I looked up as you'll see by the first post. Been here for a while, I know to search. Among the searches I completed I saw no response from BF. There may be one somewhere, but I have a personal life too ;-). As far as I can tell, BF is Steve's occupation, no?

Whether or not it affects you, it seems like a pretty petty limitation. Ammo bearers in real life I'm sure do not hoard ammo while other units are under fire without any. Seems to me the other soldiers may take offense to that ;-). Completely unrelated, how do I post the 'smiley faces' inside my post? Never been able to do it, have never thought to ask.

If you scroll all the way down on the left hand side bottom you'll see an info panel about the forum. One item says smilies are on, you can click that and it'll show you the basic icon options and their respective key strokes.

Sorry hadn't caught that this one was page 2 already, my apologies

heh an excuse to use another icon

Lemme take a look, I know Steve has responded on this. I can't promise to spend too much time on it, but is one of those subjects that really is open to going either way.

[womble]

...it seems like a pretty petty limitation...

Pretty sure it was Steve that said it's a partial mitigation of the already too-liberal ammo sharing rules. Park a squad next to their platoon MMG, and belted M2 ball automagically turns itself into en bloc clips for the Garands and 20 round box mags for the BAR as fast as the squad can use it. All the while every rifleman and the MG are blazing away: exactly who is converting this ammo from one form to another? Not to mention that the ammo is always stored in vehicles in exactly the format you want it.

The penalty for such convenience is that units are restricted in who they can share with.

Roll on a proper inventory system where ammo is recorded by loading type as well as calibre. Until then you're going to have to live with swings and roundabouts.

[aleader]

If you scroll all the way down on the left hand side bottom you'll see an info panel about the forum. One item says smilies are on, you can click that and it'll show you the basic icon options and their respective key strokes.

Sorry hadn't caught that this one was page 2 already, my apologies

heh an excuse to use another icon

Lemme take a look, I know Steve has responded on this. I can't promise to spend too much time on it, but is one of those subjects that really is open to going either way.

Thanks, I guess I've just been doing it wrong That's better...

[aleader]

Pretty sure it was Steve that said it's a partial mitigation of the already too-liberal ammo sharing rules. Park a squad next to their platoon MMG, and belted M2 ball automagically turns itself into en bloc clips for the Garands and 20 round box mags for the BAR as fast as the squad can use it. All the while every rifleman and the MG are blazing away: exactly who is converting this ammo from one form to another? Not to mention that the ammo is always stored in vehicles in exactly the format you want it.

The penalty for such convenience is that units are restricted in who they can share with.

Roll on a proper inventory system where ammo is recorded by loading type as well as calibre. Until then you're going to have to live with swings and roundabouts.

I can see the limitations for different types of rifle/MG ammo, but a 60mm mortar round is a 60mm mortar round is a 60mm mortar round... I'm not asking them to allow an 81mm round to morph into a 3 inch round or anything. It's one of those things where I can't imagine anyone actually complaining about the implementation of it, yet most would welcome it (or not care either way).

[womble]

I can see the limitations for different types of rifle/MG ammo, but a 60mm mortar round is a 60mm mortar round is a 60mm mortar round... I'm not asking them to allow an 81mm round to morph into a 3 inch round or anything. It's one of those things where I can't imagine anyone actually complaining about the implementation of it, yet most would welcome it (or not care either way).

Thing is, coding and keeping track of exceptions like that in the code is a pain in the butt. Since the whole ammo sharing system is an abstraction, the penalty for having infinitely usable bullets is applied to all ammo types. Maybe BFC think it would be too easy if the exception were coded for larger items. Maybe they think it wouldn't be worth the coding effort required, however slight.

Much of the problem will be mitigated by the new ammo supply units in RT v1/BN v3/FI v2.

[Michael Emrys]

I'm not asking them to allow an 81mm round to morph into a 3 inch round or anything.

Oddly enough, the bore of the British 3" mortar actually measured 81mm, or so I was told by a man who had measured one. That doesn't necessarily mean that ammo between it and say a German 81mm would be interchangeable though. In fact I rather doubt it. Apparently though the Germans could fire their 81mm ammo through captured Soviet 82mm tubes. Whether there was any degradation of performance when they did, I don't know.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Apparently though the Germans could fire their 81mm ammo through captured Soviet 82mm tubes. Whether there was any degradation of performance when they did, I don't know.

Interesting. I remember my Dad (serving line Infantry officer in from the 60s to the 80s) telling me that the Soviets created their 82mm mortar on purpose so that it could fire both Soviet made 82mm ammo and captured 81mm ammo. They apparently did have different performance but the Soviets had conversion tables to allow them to fire using either type of ammo.

I have no documented evidence just third hand what he was told at the time.

[Erwin]

"Oddly enough, the bore of the British 3" mortar actually measured 81mm..."

maybe the trigger mechanism would need changing? But, otherwise why could it not fire 81mm? (Wonder if the Soviets had to change trigger, or it was same as German.)