Ammo resupply

[Pieper]

Hi guys,

Does anyone know if you can resupply units that are low on Ammo?, Or do you have to make do with what you have?.

[KBF-Loupblanc-Montreal]

Hmmm, well, since some battles last 10-15 turns

(minutes!) And that troops got 30-40 ammo...

Image a trooper with 40 ammo clips strapped

to him... you want him to resupply on top of

that?!

Try pacing yourself, don't continually

shoot left, right, center...

Hint : USMC M16A1 could do full auto, M16A2

could fire at most 3 shot bursts...

That's so Vietnam troopers wouldn't continually

run out of ammo as much, as they were wont to

shoot at their own shadows in company strenght:)

The enemy has to pace himself too, don't worry

about it.

There's more to this game than just continually

blasting away. Try sneaking, or positionning

better. Local fire superiority is always nice,

but that doesn't mean firing continuously at

targets that are out of effective range, hmm?

ie : SMG teams firing at 500+ meters...

[CMplayer]

You can't but it might be a cool option in some future version of the game. It's not easy to think of a good way to implement it though. Perhaps a bren carrier could drive an ammo chit out to a platoon. If the chit is close enough they can resupply as long as their status isn't pinned or worse. I dunno. Ammo portage gets really complicated and might not improve the gameplay experience that much.

[Brian]

Ammunition resupply is indeed IMO something that is sadly lacking in CM. However it should also include AFV's as well as infantry. There are numerous accounts of tanks having to withdraw in the midst of battle because they have run short of ammunition (or have to redistribute whats in their bins) and infantry being resupplied when they run short.

I'd like to see each player allocated a certain number of ammunition "loads" at the start of a game, depending upon how many points are involved in the battle or they are assigned by the designer.

These "loads" would consist of x small arms points and y tank loads. They would be held off map and the player would be able to call them forward as and if required.

They would appear at a point on the player's map edge where they designate and be dumped there. Movement forward from that point would be the player's responsibility (ie he has to provide transport). It takes five turns to load a smallarms load but only 2 to unload. For an infantry unit to replenish their own ammunition they must move within 10 metres of the ammunition load and be stationary for 2 turns.

Tanks would have to withdraw to the dump to reload which takes 15 turns.

While this would not have much effect on either small battles or short ones, it would be most useful in the longer/larger ones.

However, we will obviously have to wait for the rewrite before this could even be seriously considered IMO.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Brian:

I'd like to see each player allocated a certain number of ammunition "loads" at the start of a game, depending upon how many points are involved in the battle or they are assigned by the designer.

These "loads" would consist of x small arms points and y tank loads. They would be held off map and the player would be able to call them forward as and if required.

They would appear at a point on the player's map edge where they designate and be dumped there. Movement forward from that point would be the player's responsibility (ie he has to provide transport). It takes five turns to load a smallarms load but only 2 to unload. For an infantry unit to replenish their own ammunition they must move within 10 metres of the ammunition load and be stationary for 2 turns.

Tanks would have to withdraw to the dump to reload which takes 15 turns.

While this would not have much effect on either small battles or short ones, it would be most useful in the longer/larger ones.

Hmm. This, or something like it, may almost be a sensible suggestion. Have to think about it some more...

Michael

[BloodyBucket]

Only thing close to ammo decisions in the current game are made during scenario design. You can give units extra ammo, or twiddle the smoke/HE ratio of the bigger shootin' irons, but IIRC the infantry types loose the extra ammo if they move, so it is only a factor on defense.

There have been several threads regarding ammo supply, the most interesting one being an arguement by JasonC(?) that rifle intensive infantry units should get more, partly to offset the German submachinegun firepower advantage.

Getting more ammo during the typical CM firefight would be hard to simulate, since that would entail tracking individual soldies or vehicles carrying various calibers all over the place. It would be funny when the company runner dumps a case of .45 ball off at your M1919 machinegun position.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

I'd like to see each player allocated a certain number of ammunition "loads" at the start of a game, depending upon how many points are involved in the battle or they are assigned by the designer.

These "loads" would consist of x small arms points and y tank loads. They would be held off map and the player would be able to call them forward as and if required.

They would appear at a point on the player's map edge where they designate and be dumped there. Movement forward from that point would be the player's responsibility (ie he has to provide transport). It takes five turns to load a smallarms load but only 2 to unload. For an infantry unit to replenish their own ammunition they must move within 10 metres of the ammunition load and be stationary for 2 turns.

Tanks would have to withdraw to the dump to reload which takes 15 turns.

While this would not have much effect on either small battles or short ones, it would be most useful in the longer/larger ones.

Hmm. This, or something like it, may almost be a sensible suggestion. Have to think about it some more...

Michael</font>

[Pieper]

All interesting points, Ammo is crucial when engaging the Enemy in contact, 3 round bursts would be an option or having something stashed at Batallion or even Platoon HQ level would be a starting point?.

How could we resupply Tanks etc?, you would have to have some sort of blocking force in position while they withdrew for maint or resupply?

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Brian:

Ammunition resupply is indeed IMO something that is sadly lacking in CM.

Ammo resupply is not lacking in CM, it is already there as one of the features in operations. If you want a certain battle to feature ammo resupply simply make it into a one day op. This way you don't have constantly cycle your units back and forth between the dumps and the front line, the computer will take care of that for you.

Granted, it's not a perfect solution, but it gives you what you want now, rather than wait for the engine rewrite (which might not include ammo resupply anyway)

[Brian]

Originally posted by Pieper:

All interesting points, Ammo is crucial when engaging the Enemy in contact, 3 round bursts would be an option or having something stashed at Batallion or even Platoon HQ level would be a starting point?.

What happens when you advance? Who carries the "stash"?

How could we resupply Tanks etc?, you would have to have some sort of blocking force in position while they withdrew for maint or resupply?

Sub-units resupply, in turn. Indeed, in many battles, individual vehicles did withdraw to resupply, as and when they needed to. Just read the accounts of Hill 112 if you want an example of it occurring.

Usually, only when a unit harbours at night, in their Laarger (quick, who can tell me where that term comes from? ) would an entire unit be resupplied as a whole. Fuel, ammunition, water, food, in that order.

What you have to also remember is that in real life, a tank does not store all its ammunition in the ready-to-use lockers. Many rounds were stored under the floorplates, requiring the vehicle to withdraw to cover, traverse the turret to a preset position and the crew then pull up the floor plates and transfer ammunition from there to the ready-to-use lockers. This is badly modelled in CM at the moment.

[ April 01, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Brian:

...Laarger (quick, who can tell me where that term comes from? ...

If you in fact mean 'laager', it is an Afrikans word referring originally to wagons drawn into a circle for an encampment. Was used in WW II to denote a similar arrangement of armored vehicles (although infantry and guns could be part of the arrangement with soft vehicles in the center).

Michael

[ April 01, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

...Laarger (quick, who can tell me where that term comes from? ...

If you in fact mean 'laager', it is an Afrikans word referring originally to wagons drawn into a circle for an encampment. Was used in WW II to denote a similar arrangement of armored vehicles (although infantry and guns could be part of the arrangement with soft vehicles in the center).

Michael</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Brian:

Now, for an extra 10 points, what was the difference between the way the British would laager as against the way the Germans would in WWII?

I don't know about the difference. One that stuck in my mind from reading various accounts of war in the desert is that the Germans would regularly (almost incessantly, I hear) fire Very lights above their encampments to mark the spot to any stragglers who might be roaming the desert at night, whereas the British preferred a more stealthy approach.

ISTR that the British formed up with their tanks on the outer part of the circle. Could be the Germans put infantry and guns there and the tanks on the inside along with the soft vehicles, but that's only a guess.

Michael

[ April 01, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Kingfish]

The British would laager 5 miles behind their own lines. The Germans would laager 20 miles behind the British lines.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

Now, for an extra 10 points, what was the difference between the way the British would laager as against the way the Germans would in WWII?

I don't know about the difference. One that stuck in my mind from reading various accounts of war in the desert is that the Germans would regularly (almost incessantly, I hear) fire Very lights above their encampments to mark the spot to any stragglers who might be roaming the desert at night, whereas the British preferred a more stealthy approach.

ISTR that the British formed up with their tanks on the outer part of the circle. Could be the Germans put infantry and guns there and the tanks on the inside along with the soft vehicles, but that's only a guess.

Michael</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

The British would laager 5 miles behind their own lines. The Germans would laager 20 miles behind the British lines.

LOL!

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Brian:

The British would withdraw, leaving the infantry to hold the line and their armoured units would laager behind the line, off the battlefield. The Germans for some reason preferred to laager on the battlefield, consolidating any gains they had made. Both have their advantages/disadvantages. This is mentioned quite often in many books about both the desert and NW Europe.

Yes, I remember reading that now. The great advantage of the German system was that it allowed them to recover and repair their damaged tanks and demolish the British ones. Don't recall hearing of any advantages of the British system though I can imagine a few possibilities.

Michael

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

The British would withdraw, leaving the infantry to hold the line and their armoured units would laager behind the line, off the battlefield. The Germans for some reason preferred to laager on the battlefield, consolidating any gains they had made. Both have their advantages/disadvantages. This is mentioned quite often in many books about both the desert and NW Europe.

Yes, I remember reading that now. The great advantage of the German system was that it allowed them to recover and repair their damaged tanks and demolish the British ones. Don't recall hearing of any advantages of the British system though I can imagine a few possibilities.

Michael</font>

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

The British would withdraw, leaving the infantry to hold the line and their armoured units would laager behind the line, off the battlefield. The Germans for some reason preferred to laager on the battlefield, consolidating any gains they had made. Both have their advantages/disadvantages. This is mentioned quite often in many books about both the desert and NW Europe.

Yes, I remember reading that now. The great advantage of the German system was that it allowed them to recover and repair their damaged tanks and demolish the British ones. Don't recall hearing of any advantages of the British system though I can imagine a few possibilities.

Michael</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

...and demolition of enemy casualties was not routine practice by the Germans – they valued the potential of the assets they could take off the battlefield too highly...

Yes. I should have qualified my earlier statement to have said that the Germans demolished whatever they hadn't the time to drag off the battlefield.

Michael

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

I'd like to see each player allocated a certain number of ammunition "loads" at the start of a game, depending upon how many points are involved in the battle or they are assigned by the designer.

These "loads" would consist of x small arms points and y tank loads. They would be held off map and the player would be able to call them forward as and if required.

They would appear at a point on the player's map edge where they designate and be dumped there. Movement forward from that point would be the player's responsibility (ie he has to provide transport). It takes five turns to load a smallarms load but only 2 to unload. For an infantry unit to replenish their own ammunition they must move within 10 metres of the ammunition load and be stationary for 2 turns.

Tanks would have to withdraw to the dump to reload which takes 15 turns.

While this would not have much effect on either small battles or short ones, it would be most useful in the longer/larger ones.

Hmm. This, or something like it, may almost be a sensible suggestion. Have to think about it some more...

Michael</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Since the ammo rating for FOs is actually that of their responding battery and not for their personal weapons, I should think they would not be covered or effected by Brian's rule.

What is the current state of ammo load in designed scenarios? Are they designer-diddliable or do they just come in standard flavors? Seems that it would be realistic to have greater or smaller than usual loads on hand, depending on many historic variables.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

A curious little tidbit to add to this discussion on a slightly different, but related topic:

For one of my military history classes in college, we read a first-person account of a US WWII vet. I wish I remembered the title, but I don't. Anyway, the author recounted how, when he was serving as a crewmember on a 57mm AT gun during the battle of the bulge, they would pre-set positions for the gun along a treeline. Each position would have shallow foxholes (I presume for the crew to hide in) and 5-6 rounds of ammo. The idea was that the crew would fire the available ammo at one location, then haul the gun through the woods as fast as possible (a good path to move the gun along was pre-scouted) to the next location. In theory, this would keep the Panzers from zeroing in on their location too much and allow them to get more shots off.

So, I'm curious as to whether anyone else has heard of this tactic being used. I've never read of it anywhere else, but it makes sense. In CM terms, if this tactic were available I think it would make small (i.e., crew-movable) AT guns considerably more useful in some situations.

What I'm envisioning in CM is some sort of system where the player could 'split' the ammo for a gun and leave caches in strategic places within a 2-3 turn haul from the guns' starting position. Presumably, the crew moving the gun without ammo would get some sort of 'speed bonus' as they could all help move the gun, rather than some of them having to haul the ammo.

It also makes me wonder if a similar tactic was commonly used for other slow-moving support weapons like HMGs and mortars. A more flexible ammo system something like the one mentioned above could probably be adapted to model this tactic if it turns out that it was actually used.

[Michael Emrys]

Sounds to me like something improvised by this crew on an ad hoc basis. I've never heard of it before either, though I'm willing to have my horizons widened.

Michael

[Brian]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

If the artillery was onmap, the first thing I'd suggest was that you're doing something wrong.

However, it would be governed under basically the same rule. You would send your gun tracters back to the dump and they would reload there, at the same rate as the tanks. In reality, this would normally only really apply to anti-tank guns and from my experience with them in CM, I'd be very surprised if they last past at most 1-2 minutes of continious firing, let alone sufficient to actually run out of ammunition before the laser homing missiles of the opposing tanks zero in on them.

The matter of replenishing FO's is something that has concerned me for some time. While I can understand the game device of needing to limit the number of rounds that a given battery can fire in a certain length of engagement, in real life artillery tended to stockpile ammunition and use it up until it was gone, if they were called upon to fire by their FO.

Blackburn makes the point that his battery was firing large numbers of "individual" shoots, usually called by the same FO's, one after another as targets presented themselves, during the fighting in Normandy. Only once or twice though, was it looking like they'd run out of ammunition. So, perhaps rather than having a limit on the number of rounds which an FO can call in, it might be better to have a limit on the number of "shoots", each being of inderminate length but covered by a total number of rounds. Its then up to the player to manage his artillery ammunition but it could also be resupplied on the basis of X minute waits, before the particular battery can fire again, as more is brought forward to the gun position from the waggon lines. I'd recommend perhaps 30 minutes, on my personal experience of how long it takes to load/unload a truck/limber. Perhaps JonS might like to chime in at this point?