hq ammo

[Sarge]

i've read the past posts having done the search and i didn't see anything that addressed this.

i understand the redistribution stand, or later inclusion between squads/platoons. but what i'd like to ask is the programming/philosophical reasoning behind the PltHQ elements so richly endowed with ammo.

if they are meant to stay with their command but not necessarily in the front, and you can't share ammo....why have so much?

do they automatically share with their respective squads?

if this has been addressed for the full version i guess i'll know it then, if its in the BetaDemo rules, sorry i missed it.

i really like the way BTS has dealt with the'Low'ammo useage.

[Fionn]

I really do not understand what you mean by "so richly endowed with ammo"..

The platoon HQ sections carry the SAME basic load of ammo as the fighting men. That is hardly richly endowed and is SOP in all countries AFAIK..

I know that if I was a lieutenant back then I'd want a gun and as much ammo for it as my men got.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Sarge]

Fionn-

thanks for the reply, i guess what i mean is the HQ element has fewer men than the squad, but still carries the same total. if they are not in the front lines, they would consume their by 'ratio', larger amount, slower. so if they could share with members of their squad??? wouldn't that enhance the value of Hq?

[Guest Bobb]

The resupply issues having been thouroughly hashed, considered and reconsidered are apparantly settled at this late date. I still can not help but feel a little reservation about the result. Not having the demo playable on my miniscule computer capability, I can not speak from the view point of having been there with the virtual troops. But, with all the vehicle resources available it seems to me that some resupply capability is possible to the virtual situation consonant with reality - at least some chance. Had I a jeep available at least as a company commander to say nothing of a halftrack or attached tank or two, I would sure try to add a little resupply treasure there. A half track so employed would be a nice ace in the hole especially if and when we secured some positional advantage on the battlefield and could reorganize around it.

As I see the resupply problem, the difficulty is not in getting the ammo there, but 1. obtaining a "there" sufficiently secure in approaches and local defalade to be able to make any distribution and 2. the time in which to make a distribution effective within that alloted for the scenario. I can envision the troops providing an initial base

of fire from a place of advantage being resupplied from a halftrack and continueing with a full basic load to further roles in the battle. I believe I recall in the AAR of the play between Fionn and Moon, Fionn having spent a rather long time reorganizing his forces along the wall. I could see in a simular situation an opportunity for a resupply. It should not take very long to through out bandoliers of clips and boxes of belts or morter bombs. Especially the latter as their location should be more secure than troops on the forward edge.

Troops on defense seem to be in a position to have in possession or nearby more than a basic load. Whether they can keep it or get it would require some code modeling. On the attack and unsupported, obviously in a short time frame only the basic load is possible. Even otherwise it is often problematical whether the resupply can be effected. Among the numerous circumstances affecting that, a stray artillery round, a mine, a command or personnel snafu, a lost driver, a destroyed bridge, a flooding ford, ad infinitum can inject their unwelcome face against the unit waiting anxiously.

A longer scenario could add to the necessary time element for accomplishing resupply and a computer evaluation of the circumstances outside of what an enemy could effect in direct opposition seems to me to make at least an outside chance of effecting a resupply during a scenario possible. As a commander I would sure hope that given the means, I would attempt to make some kind of provision in my plans to bring in some ammo beyond the basic load. A rally point or two achieving that would nearly be as good as obtaining fresh reserves. Being able to plan and accomplish an augmented supply for at least a few of the forces enaged would certainly favorably mark the player doing it.

Coding of such a thing is, of course. now out of the question. As initially stated my reservation here is not great. Probably most often circumstances and planning were against ammo resupply and that is why the matter lies where it does. Perhaps someday.

[Fionn]

Sarge,

What has happened is that you haven't fully grasped what the ammo indicator means.

Think of that ammo indicator as standing for 40 BURSTS OF FIRE PER WEAPON...

Now, a burst of fire for an SMG might = 10 rounds so a single SMG squad ( 8 men) might carry 400 rounds per man thus 3200 rounds in the squad.

An HQ squad armed ONLY with SMGs would have 40 bursts per man (400 rounds). But carry a total of only 1600 per squad.

SO, that ammo indicator is an indicator of hw many bursts of fire PER WEAPON the squad has remaining and isn't any indicator of how many rounds in total they carry.

Two squads could show 40 but, due to differing sizes and weapons carry totally different numbers of rounds.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Scott C]

Sarge,

I think most of your question is due, not to ammo supply, but to ammo usage rates. HQ teams will generally (a) NOT be in the front lines and ( have shorter-ranged weapons, e.g. carbines and pistols, as compared to the combat squads. So, what this adds up to is that HQ squads will fire much less often than combat squads. Therefore, it seems like they're much more well-stocked, because they run out slower.

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

Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories?

[Los]

This notion about HQ squads not being "in the front lines" is either a belief that HQ sqauds = some sort of bn or regimental command post or that we're still talking WW1 trench warfare here.

The HQ elements in CM normally means either PLT HQ or CO HQ. Platoon HQs (For example) include some combination of a PL, PSG, a medic and or RTO or a couple of runners etc, etc.. These guys are in as much of the thick of fighting as any other riflemen since their command radius does not afford them the luxury to hang back out of harms way while still being effective in imparting C&C. They are armed with the same weapons as the rifle squads, (in the case of the Americans, carbines, garands and Thompsons.) As Fionn correctly states they carry the same basic load since they are going into the same danger.

They are fighting soldiers, though obviously you should be careful with them since their loss constitutes a loss of capability for your unit. Though no rifle squad guy is going to call a guy at platoon HQ a REMF.

Los

[Scott C]

Actually, what I meant was that attacks (mine, anyway) tend to be led by the riflemen, with the HQ squads 10-15m behind. Perhaps not a really accurate use of "front lines," but it is, in my experience at least, far enough back that they shoot MUCH less often. Also, the differences in armament do seem to me to matter. Checking from Reisberg, a US platoon HQ has 3 M1 rifles and a pistol, compared to a rifle squad's 9 M1s, 1 SMG, and 2 BARs, leading to having 1/5 the firepower at close range and even less farther out - undeniably FAR less effective on a man-for-man basis. And since a squad shooting at 500m, out of any effective range for anything but the BARs, uses just as much ammo as shooting at 5m, this means the rifle squad does burn through its ammo a lot faster even at the same range... and even more so if the HQ is 10m behind. Hope this clarifies my previous unclear post

[This message has been edited by Scott C (edited 01-21-2000).]

[Los]

Obviously there are more guys in a full squad than a platoon HQ. I was responding to yoru statement that:

"HQ teams will generally (a) NOT be in the front lines and ( have shorter-ranged weapons, e.g. carbines and pistols, as compared to the combat squads."

Which leads to the erroneous conclusion that they are armed differntly than rifle squads. But yes you are corrct that they have less firepower since they are smaller and without a SAW. And yes also in my experience they usually have a little more ammo left than the rifle squads when others are running out.

Los

[Sarge]

Fionn..& Scott-

BULLSeye guys! thanks. you are right i did not understand the ammo allocation number. i feel much better. ahh its great to have people like you to explain those 'little' details-

much appriciated!

[Fionn]

Pleasure.