What ammo do I have/need?

[Olle Petersson]

Thoughts about large calibre ammo handling in CM and real life.

NOTE: In the text I will use AP meaning all of AP/Tungsten/HC/HEAT, unless otherwise noted.

Most large calibre weapons have a some different types of ammo available.

There's also a limitation to how many rounds you can have in total. It may be due to limitations in production, distribution or on board space/weight.

This means you have to get the right mix of different rounds for the mission at hand.

How is this achieved?

In real life:

A couple of specialists make an assessment of mission, possible threats, total ammo allotment, weapons available, etc. and end up in a fairly optimised loadout for each weapon.

In CM:

- DF weapons have a fixed(?) standard load that is randomly tweaked a little.

- IF weapons have just a total number representing exactly the mix of VT/impact HE and smoke needed.

CM result:

- DF weapons commonly run out of either AP or HE long before the other type, because the mix isn't optimized. As a good example and without spoiling anything, think of the scenario "Last Defence"; most AP rounds are used against infantry...

- IF weapons function fairly well as intended. (With an exception for the VT/impact fuse issue...)

Possible solutions to the DF ammo problem:

A) Keep it as it is.

Let each player pick their own mix of ammo. (Already possible within the scenario editor.)

C) Let the AI make a mix based on the opposition. (AP/HE mix = AFV/Soft target mix)

D) Use nearly the same system as "Command Decision", which is nearly identical to the one currently used for IF weapons, i.e. just note the total number of HE+AP rounds.

The exception is that an extra note is done for ammo of limited availability, like tungsten, smoke and HEAT for low trajectory weapons. (Smoke is standard for mortars.)

A typical ammo load could be for an Allied tank with 50 rounds max; 40regular (HE+AP), 7t, 3s.

Pros and cons of the suggestions above:

A) + Easy to implement. (Already done...)

- Ammo is rarely what you need, and therefore it's somewhat unhistorical.

+ ?

- Becomes a game within the game. What will I need for this weapon, and what will I need for that?

C) + Possibly not very difficult to implement.

- No guarantee that the loadout will be correct.

D) + My favourite!

Always the right mix.

Possibility to have specific limited ammo types refused by/restricted for each player.

(Player: - Can I have some tungsten for my Sherman, please?

AI: - No, scenario parameters says you're not allowed. But you can have some smoke!

Player: - But I don't want smoke rounds...

AI: - Then you won't have any. )

- Possibly a bit more difficult to implement, even more if the options above are taken into consideration.

Not as detailed knit-picking, which some fans of micro management would like.

Anyway, these are my toughts.

Cheers

Olle

IMO realism and fine details aren't always combineable...

[Olle Petersson]

To add to the above;

What do you think about the current system?

Are you annoyed getting lots of AP to fight infantry, and HE to fight enemy armour?

How is it solved in other games with the same scale as CM, like for example ASL?

Cheers

Olle

(Bump...)

[Sten]

Solution D is a step away from realism. In RL, tanks often found themselves out of a particular type of ammo.

Frustrating, yes very. But also the most realistic solution is to leave it as it is.

The problem is nonexistant in designed scenarios, unless the designer wants it to be a problem. In a QB you don't know what you're up against (ideally).

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

Sten

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.

[Private Pike]

My only complaint against the current system is the number of times I've bought Fireflies which seem to carry no HE. Is this a historic thing, there seems to be a 17pdr HE round as the AT guns get some (or was this a late war introduction?). After the problems the British had in the desert with no HE round for the 2pdr I find it hard to believe hey wouldn't carry any in a Firefly. I can see that the Firefly should have limited HE (as its role was tank killing) but no HE at all?

This seems to impact particularly in small QBs. The Axis may well have a Panther or Tiger so to stand any chance you have to have a Firefly or M10 or Archer (and in small battles you can only afford 1 MBT). This then leaves you very dificient in anti-infantry firepower.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sten:

Solution D is a step away from realism. In RL, tanks often found themselves out of a particular type of ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can buy that it can't have been a perfect match, but it's a step from that to having half of the ammo left virtually useless cause the targets weren't the right type...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem is nonexistant in designed scenarios, unless the designer wants it to be a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In a QB you don't know what you're up against (ideally).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this the ideal?

The attacker would usually have some idea what was waiting (except perhaps for some nasty reinforcements rushed in), and the defender would also usually know if there was lots of enemy armour in the surroundings or not.

In a QB you usually know if the opponent is "Armor", "Infantry", "Combined" or "Mechanised".

SPA should probably have more AP when brought up to the front line than when positioned in the rear.

Where do the numbers for CM standard loads come from?

Cheers

Olle

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sten:

But also the most realistic solution is to leave it as it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would totally agree with that.

While I don't know whether the Firefly loadout is historical, you have to remember that times had changed since the desert. There all tanks had the 2pdr that was unsuited to HE ammo (according to Bovington), while in Normandy, one Firefly was part of a troop of four Shermans, with the other three being excellent infantry support tanks with lots of HE. There may also be an issue with the effectiveness of the 17pdr HE round, compared to the 75mm, and with the fact that putting the 17pdr into the tank in the first place reduced ammo loadout. AT-guns are different b/c they have to expect to deal with different threads on their own.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

... in Normandy, one Firefly was part of a troop of four Shermans, with the other three being excellent infantry support tanks with lots of HE. ... AT-guns are different b/c they have to expect to deal with different threats on their own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's is a generalisation.

In Pike's case there were no other Shermans, or anything else with substantial calibre to take the HE-pounding role.

If a Firefly was sent on its own to support infantry, wouldn't it be likely to have more HE than usually?

And if you do have the standard setup with one Firefly and a couple of Sherman(75), then isn't it probable that you'll let the Firefly do most AT shooting?

Ideally, with the current ammo system, you should always have to buy a full organisation (platoon or more) for each unit to get the ammo balanced. (i.e. you're not allowed to get a Firefly unless you also get three Sherman(75).) But this is neither practical nor really historical.

With the ammo flexibility I'm proposing, skilled players will still strive to use available weapons at their best performance, which is to use the best ammo available for the task. This will probably not differ too much from the standard load in most cases, but when it does it's crucial...

Cheers

Olle

[PeterNZer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Always the right mix<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's kinda the point that you don't always have the right mix. No, you can't have a firefly loaded up with HE and AP. No, you can't give you hetzer piles of HE.. or whatever. Changing the system would, in my mind, throw game balance and points in complicated and messy directions.

As for Germanboy's 'Generalization'. If by that you mean "well generally that happened in WW2", well that's the IDEA. This is a ww2 game where the general theme is to get as close to history as possible.

If you want to take a firefly, but want fire support, pick up a stuart even, pick up a cheap M4, it's not too difficult and allies almost always have the points for it. Furthermore you get a couple of MGs chucked in as well.

Also, who wants BTS fiddling with stuff like ammo options when they could be doing something useful? I'd rather not have osme ahistorical stuff start popping up like a building blowing M10, or a infantry support 17lb. I also don't think that many other people would either.

This is an interesting idea, but not within CM's design I would suggest.

PeterNZ