Guest R Cunningham Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I did a search and didn't see anyone else had addressed this issue. For the tanks and infantry teams I always had an ammo count, but my halftracks show nothing. What I see is a halftrack blazing away with no ammo count and then later it stops. When I give it a target order I get "out of range" at the end of the targeting line. By checking the unit details (by hitting enter)I was able to see the he was empty MG (0)[and if I check one that still has ammo I can see that too MG (5)], but this data is not displayed in the normal screen like for the other units. When the FOs are done with their on call ammo, labels will show "out of ammo" but I don't see this with the halftracks. Does this qualify as a bug or is this an intended effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Yup, noticed the same thing last night. Madmatt out...of ammo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Halftrack ammo "should" be counted, and if it isn't then it's a bug. You will find the ammo for the HT MGs when you select one and hit enter to bring up the detailed unit window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I was able to see the ammo or lack thereof in the detailed screen but is this the only way to see it? Does this have something to do with being a vehicle since the tanks don't show MG ammo unless you look in the details screen either? But even if this is the case, I think the "out of range" message should be replaced with an "out of ammo." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I think it's becuase it's a vehicle. Originally, halftrack ammo was unlimited. BTS just added it in recently. I agree though, there should be a mention of the fact that the MGs are out of ammo somewhere else other then the detail screen, if possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darstand Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Anything thats runs out of ammo need to be tracked on the main unit screen. I once spent 3 turns running around with a HT that was not firing before I finally discovered why. ------------------ "Armchair Generals never lose any men"-Darstand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I ran into the same thing. The HT's MG ammo should be displayed out on the main screen just like the ammo levels are for crew manned MG's carried by the foot pounders. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Sorry, but I'm going to piss off a few folks here... R. Cunningham: "What I see is a halftrack blazing away with no ammo count and then later it stops." Darstand: "I once spent 3 turns running around with a HT that was not firing before I finally discovered why." Mike D: "I ran into the same thing." Yes, the ammo should be displayed...but with an overview screen this information would have been VERY easy to catch. You would have seen that your ammo was low or gone right away. Instead infomation was lost due to its lack of organization. Simply putting this information deep in the individual unit status screens will not alleviate this problem. And for all the 'vision' and 'realism' arguements: Is it realistic that that halftrack spent 3 minutes driving around chasing enemy infantry...with no ammo? Does that fit with the vision you have? Sorry to post about this again but this issue touches so many areas IMO. I will hide now so that you may extract your just revenge for this semi-off-topic post. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Simply putting this information deep in the individual unit status screens will not alleviate this problem. Scott, I don't think you understood me. I'm saying put it right the heck out on the main screen where you see the ammo listed for every bloody infantry unit every time you click on one. I.E., you see a number like the 40 ammo level for squads and the 80 starting ammo level for crewed MG's near the bottom left of the main screen. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Mike D. : Oh yes, I understand. You get this information as long as you click on each and everyone of your units each and every turn. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Out of curiosity, is there a low ammo label (shift-L) shown when the HT is low on MG ammo? Secondly, I would put forth a vote for the ammo to go to 'low' instead of zero for MGs on vehicles. I would equate the MGs on the halftracks (and tanks for that matter) more closely to the crew served MGs (which just go to 'low' status) then main guns or arty (which actully go to zero) Ben ps Scott, is there really a need for more info then whats given with the labels? Between the number of soldiers shown, and the labels, you can pretty much gleen all the information you get from clicking on the unit... [This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 We intend on putting something in the main interface when the vehicle is out of ammo. This is a Beta, and it simply isn't in yet. And Scott, hate to take the big wind out of your sails, but... you have to click on a unit to issue it orders. No need to have some big report to tell you what you will plainly see when the unit is clicked on (after we add the UI that is). And if you aren't checking up on your units that have no orders after 3 or 4 turns, then we have zero sympathy. Sorry, you are going to have to do MUCH better than that Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 > you have to click on a unit to issue it orders. No need to have some big report to tell you > what you will plainly see when the unit is clicked on (after we add the UI that is). And > if you aren't checking up on your units that have no orders after 3 or 4 turns, then we > have zero sympathy. Am I suppose to issue orders to each and every unit each and every turn? Hmmm…It looks like I may be playing with more 'realism' than anyone if you guys are all micromanaging your men down to the team level and telling them when to run across a meadow or when to crawl each and every turn. Not me, I will devise my entire plan of attack BEFORE THE BATTLE. During setup I give each and every unit a LONG series of commands that when I am done represents the entire plan of attack. Heck in the demos as the attackers my movement lines stretch all the way to the other end of the map…and back as I sweep the map clear of enemy units. This is much more realistic IMHO. In reality all platoons, squads and teams would have specific planned objectives for the coming battle. They most certainly would NOT be getting different/new orders from HQ each and every minute. Granted no plan lasts first contact entirely intact. Adjustments must be made. But these are just adjustments where required not wholesale re-issuing of orders down to the squad level each minute. Thus if it were not for the NEED to click on each unit to get vital, basic information I would not do it to about 2/3 to 3/4 of my men each and every turn in the demo. Maybe its just style but it looks like maybe I am not the one that is really the micromanager here after all... ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I run CM on a AMD-200 WITHOUT a 3D card at 0.33 fps. It takes me exactly 58 seconds to get from one side of the map to the other. And still I have enough time and patience to check on all my units, every turn. As far as realism, I don't think a company/battalion commander gets nice, detailed overview of how much ammo, casualties, and suppresion every unit has every minute of combat. If you need to justify your having to click on each unit to get a report, pretend like you are making a radio call to the commander of the unit. Obviously you can't talk to two commanders on the radio at once, so you gotta click on every unit to get the report. ------------------ "Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter." Sir Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Scott, with all due respect I advise you to drop it. You are not doing anything but annoy us with the costant barbs in topics that have nothing to do with your pet peeve. The topic has been covered to death, we have given our final rulling, and you are (in our opinion) wrong at least to the degree of your argument. And trying to pick up a word or two of mine (or someone elses) to twist into some sort of leg for the table you wish to make does nothing to further your cause. In response to your latest attempt, I can only shake my head. If you want a spreadsheet so you don't have to be engaged in the game (i.e. checking out your units positions, current move orders, ammo, and a dozen other things that would not fit into any sane report) then I think you are only reinforcing our opinion that a big report is harmful to the game. Ironic, ain't it? We are planning on looking for a reasonable compromise after CM 1.0 ships. I have said this in response to pretty much every thread that this has been mentioned, so why is this not good enough for you? Do yourself, and your cause, a favor and drop it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 >> Do yourself, and your cause, a favor and >> drop it. Drop what? The correlation between the issue of this tread and the overview screen? Has this been addressed before and I just missed it? I see a valid correlation between these two issues, even now. I am sure others do also, they are just afraid to post...don't you wonder why? Why is it that you assume every post made is not only directed at you (i.e. BTS) and expects a response but is a 'barb' intended to harm? They are not, I assure you. If you have 'spoken' on this issue and there has been no change in your mind/attitude they why do YOU feel the need to respond at all??? I was under the impression that this was a DISCUSSION board, not just a message board for posting messages only directed at BTS. Perhaps I was mistaken. But for the record, this post was not directed at BTS in any way shape or form. I never expected any 'official' response. I will say it again, IMO the difference in views lies in that some like to think of the checking each unit, each turn to get this data (or choosing not to) as a form of FOW. I (and others) don't see it that way. IMO, it can't be FOW if the data exists for viewing; it is just somewhat difficult to get to. If perhaps there was a little more 'openness' to the dialog, a little less hubris and a lot less stereotyping this might have been sorted out days ago. Hell, for all I know I could still be wrong about the reasons behind this 'stand', but we will never know, because DISCUSSION is stifled. I know you don't see it that way but it has been, at least in some people's eyes. I have seen worse, that is for sure. But from what I have seen you and Charles do on this board (and the old one) in the last year and a half leads me to believe this is not what you want. Trust me, I am not alone in feeling this way. You might be surprised to see the number of emails I received from people afraid to post there true feelings because it may go contrary to what you and Fionn believe. If my honesty is too much feel free to put me on your **** list. BTW, no one has asked for MORE data or a HUGE screen. You exaggerate and you know it (or you should). ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Scott, I'd like some form of OoB Too. Frankly I see it as a way of helping to get the Big Picture, but its not to be. Oh well. As for your comment: "I will say it again, IMO the difference ... viewing; it is just somewhat difficult to get to." (side note: how do you do that quote-y thing with the lines?) In real life - actual combat - this information IS available to the commander, if he took the time to go out and get it (as you can do in the game). Which he can't afford to do (but you can in the game becasuse of the turns), so he doesn't have it available when making decisions. So introducing ANY form of OoB to the game (making it easy to get the info) compromises this aspect of FOW, and FOW seems central to the Vision. In a PBEM, or any,game with the turkey-timer turned on this aspect of FOW rears its head full force. Its taken me a few days to realise that, I think, this is what BTS, Fionn, et al mean when they say that on OoB would detract from the core of the game. I guess what I'm saying I start to agree with them on this . Sorry if you feel I've wasted your time guys. JonS ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme [This message has been edited by JonS (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 'I was under the impression that this was a DISCUSSION board, not just a message board for posting messages only directed at BTS.' I think the point is that there was a thread to discuss this further down, in which all whom wished to make their point did. BTS read them, responded and suggested that it is something that will be looked into further at a later date, and thus, really, that is that. Each is entitled to their own opinions, but honestly its gotten to the point where you sound like your arguing just for the sake of arguing. Personally Im happy with it how it is at the moment, BUT I can understand why others arent and if the feature gets in after release that would be a nice addition. Thats it, not much else to say really. There really isnt much to achieve by flogging a dead horse [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Scott, FWIW, in a real firefight, ALL the data one would want on friendly troops AND the enemy is there for the taking as well. Ammo levels, casualty lists, morale status, etc., etc. All the commander has to do is go get it Its just that some of it is VERY hard to get to. Sure i can get casualty reports from that seemingly mauled squad in the line, if I'm willing to do what it takes to get it (crawl my way up there under fire, risking my skin, etc.). I can even get enemy info if I'm REALLY brave and willing to do what it takes to get it, too. Point: it's a lot of work to get that info in real life. So, in the game its not 'readily accessible in one easy-to-use list.' That's the way BTS designed it, and it seems it is going to stay that way for now. Steve has already stated on numerous occasions that some form of OOB list is being considered for future releases. So there we have it. Let's move on. Just my .02 Preacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If perhaps there was a little more 'openness' to the dialog, a little less hubris and a lot less stereotyping this might have been sorted out days ago<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We already sorted it out. It isn't going in for reasons already clearly stated. We will take a look at coming up with a compromise solution later. Now it is time to drop it and move on. What more do you want from us? Scott, this *is* a discussion forum. It is not a "jab at the developer every chance I can find" forum. You have CLEARLY made your point, over and over again. We have HEARD it, told you what we think about it, and that we will pick up on it later to see if we can find some compromise solution. So what is the point of jabs like this (and they ARE jabs): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It looks like I may be playing with more 'realism' than anyone if you guys are all micromanaging your men down to the team level and telling them when to run across a meadow or when to crawl each and every turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe its just style but it looks like maybe I am not the one that is really the micromanager here after all...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And to answer your question: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you have 'spoken' on this issue and there has been no change in your mind/attitude they why do YOU feel the need to respond at all???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because I have to read them and they ARE directed at us no matter how you try to put it because it is OUR game you are talking about. You go off and start accusing the game (which is actually us) of forcing micromanagement (which is mocking our MAJOR beef with your idea), then you get all bent out of shape when I ask you to drop it since it isn't doing anything positive for the discussion. You also launch into an accusation that we are causing a tidal wave of fear for simply expressing our own opinions. What the Hell are we supposed to do? Scott, if you are even HALF serious about accusing us of being closed minded, all I can do is shake my head. The number of user suggestions, unsolicited ones for the most part, that are in Combat Mission are far to numerous to even begin to count. But when we disagree with ONE thing, and all of this is conveniently forgotten and we are now as bad as all the other game companies. Nice. If we were so pigheaded, egotistical, and downright mean, how the heck could all these great user ideas be in the game? Think about that. There is a reason we are digging in our heals on this one, and it is not because we enjoy telling people to put a sock in it. The time for discussion on this topic is OVER for now. But you just won't let it go... So I ask you again... please DROP IT for now. After the game is out, then we can figure out if there is some way of making both camps happy. But in the mean time, stop the crusade since its time has passed. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-04-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 JonS, That's pretty much my take on things. Like I said before, if people just give it a little time they'll see why. SOME won't and IMO they're the ones wanting a "crutch". It's strange how when I offer MY opinion Scott takes it as a jab but when he offers his (which includes a comparison which in email he ADMITTED was put in purely because he knew it would annoy me) he's goodie two-shoes. Scott, FWIW I think the reason BTS (and I haven't spoken with Steve or Charles about you at all) is upset about this is NOT that they are trying to stop discussion BUT it is because YOU are trampling all over unrelated threads bringing your pet peeve into all these other worthwhile discussions and trashing them. Also, bear in mind you haven't been around here all that long. You haven't seen the large number of discussions we had before this in which features got into the game. If EVERYONE with the game is saying this might be a bad idea then maybe they're right? I want to say more but you'd merely throw it back in my face I feel. If you want to know who feels like they're hunted on this board I'm telling I sure as hell feel like it now due to your actions and those of others who got a bone in their mouths and simply won't stop banging away at it even when they've been told it will be looked at... ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want to know who feels like they're hunted on this board I'm telling I sure as hell feel like it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok wabbit, listen up Scott, there is another reason why there should not be extra screens. As you get better at the game, you will develope an greater advantage over the newbee if there are no screens.(using a timer).Even without a timer, the guy who checked all his units over and over would still forget things(unless he wrote notes and then still he could make mistakes in his notes). So the screen is also a memory tool too. A guy with a good memory will have an advantage over someone that needs the info on a screen in front of him all the time. Let's trust Steve on this one, he deserves the benefit of the doubt even if it's hard to understand exactly why right now. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-04-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 In case anybody is interested in real numbers... official amount of ammunition carried for the regular SdKfz 251 and most of it's sub-versions was generally 2,010 rounds, although there were some special versions whose basic MG ammo loadout differed, varying from as low as 600 rounds for the 251/17 (the one with the 2cm FlaK), to 1,100 rounds for the 251/10 (the one with the 3.7cm PaK) and up to 4,800 rounds for the engineer variants (the 251/5 and the 251/7 Pionierpanzerwagen). yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts