Ammo option.

[FFE]

Greetings.

I would like to toss this idea out and see if it sticks.

-Similar to choosing unit morale level, is it possible we could have an ammo toggle? The settings would be something like:

Low, (not zero, around x0.4 modifier)

Midly low, x0.7 modifier

Average, x1.0

Above Average, x1.3

Surplus, x1.6

Of course some sort of hidden modifier could be applied thus changing the unit's value accordingly. This would help in the creation of scenarios and add a little flavor to purchased units.

Thanks!

[Gpig]

Hi.

I might be misunderstanding your post, but you can already edit ammo loadout of any unit in the scenario editor. High and low.

Maybe you are talking about another parameter for QB's?

Gpig

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by FFE:

Greetings.

I would like to toss this idea out and see if it sticks.

-Similar to choosing unit morale level, is it possible we could have an ammo toggle? The settings would be something like:

Low, (not zero, around x0.4 modifier)

Midly low, x0.7 modifier

Average, x1.0

Above Average, x1.3

Surplus, x1.6

Of course some sort of hidden modifier could be applied thus changing the unit's value accordingly. This would help in the creation of scenarios and add a little flavor to purchased units.

Thanks!

Why?

Are you suggesting that combat modifier in the form of: (0.4 - 1.6)

Low, (not zero, around x0.4 modifier)

Midly low, x0.7 modifier

Average, x1.0

Above Average, x1.3

Surplus, x1.6

should be added to the firepower rating of these units with more ammo?

What happens as the Ammo runs down??

what exactly does your proposed modifier (x0.4 - x1.6) modify?

As mentioned ammo load outs can be edited in the scenario editor.

I don't really understand your proposal or suggestion at all

-tom w

[ June 18, 2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

That's odd. I understand FFE. I think it's a cool idea. Like when you are defending, you may want your troops to have a little more ammo than usual. A pull down menu with ammo amounts would be interesting. You can keep your varifiers, I don't need to know what happens behind the scenes.

[FFE]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The modifiers are to the unit's 'stock' ammo levels and has nothing to do with the unit's firepower.

For instance the usual load out for infantry is 40 ammo points. A unit with Surplus would have 1.6x40, 64 ammo points.

This could even be randomized a little, too. Hiram wrote exactly what I was thinking of. If you're defending and want to pay a little extra for more ammo, you could. Or if you're creating a scenario and do not want to select every unit, to muddle with thier ammo level, you would be able to preset. Plus the preset would also adjust the unit's cost, thus making overall force balancing a bit easier.

[ June 18, 2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: FFE ]

[JasonC]

I agree with the idea and have suggested it before. But I think the ammo levels might be a bit less drastic. 0.4 is really very low (16 squad shots? You will use that inside of 3 minutes). I'd suggest -25%, -10%, +10%, and +25% as the drop down options. If extremes are wanted, you might add -50% and +50% settings as well, I suppose.

I also like the idea of point cost being modified by ammo level. That is especially important for artillery modules, where the ammo is the real thing you are paying for. For artillery only, the effect on cost could be about proportional to the ammo change.

For most other units, the effect on cost should be less - perhaps half the percentage change in ammo, or the square root of the factor, or something like that less than linear. Because units often take damage or die before firing off everything they've got, making 10 units with 10 ammo more effective than 5 units with 20 ammo.

[Sarge Saunders]

It's a good idea. For QBs, defenders would have an option to buy more ammo. JasonC is correct in that ammo modifiers should affect cost for artillery modules more dramatically than infantry.

Lots to consider: Teams can only carry so much. Also, with less ammo shouldn't guys be able to run faster.

Seriously, any modifiers like this would add lots of flavor to the ordinary QB and encourage players to conserve ammo for only good shooting opportunities or conversly shoot at everything that moves with high ammo loadout.

One more thing about ammo modifiers for artillery. This would discourage the constant "shell counting" that goes on in QBs. (ie. determining how much arty of a certain caliber that an FO has left by counting shell holes, etc.)

Good idea FFE!

Cheers,

Sarge

[FFE]

Giving credit where credit is due, I like your idea JasonC.

Nevertheless, the change in point values would go a long way in mixing things up a bit. Sarge Saunders is correct about the static'ness of many games. You can anticipate and gauge your opponents' capabilities. Sure it might be gamey, but after playing for two years it becomes a natural 'feel.' (i.e. Facing US opponent and heavy shells start to drop. You realize your opponent probably has fewer than 35 of these rounds unless the point value for the game is high).

Hope BFC likes the idea enough to make it happen!

[Sarge Saunders]

Another thing specific to artillery FO ammo versus cost modifiers. Imagine a 100 point 81mm FO with 100 shells (hypothetical numbers for the sake of argument). Say this FO only cost 50 points for 50 shells. Then you can get two 50 round FOs for the price of one 100 round FO. Yet the effectiveness of 2 FOs wold be even more than double for the same cost.

I think this is clear enough. If ammo modifiers are implemented then the cost must reflect this to a certain extent.

Now imagine 12 mortar FOs with only 20 rounds each...this for the price of 2 regular ammo loadout FOs. Who would not choose more FOs with less ammo? Much easier to fire on different targets. Would create a lot of flexibility even if it is ahistorical.

So the cost should prevent this from being a typical tactic under such a plan.

More food for thought!

-Sarge

[ June 18, 2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

...Now imagine 12 mortar FOs with only 20 rounds each...this for the price of 2 regular ammo loadout FOs. Who would not choose more FOs with less ammo? Much easier to fire on different targets. Would create a lot of flexibility even if it is ahistorical.

So the cost should prevent this from being a typical tactic under such a plan.

SS, I proposed something similar in this thread, which was expanded upon by NightGaunt. The enhanced flexibility you are worried about is actually fairly easy to correct for IMHO:

Each FO has a base price, independant of ammo. So, you could by an FO with no ammo, and just use him as an observer from hilltops. These guys would be moderately cheap, but not so cheap that you'd happily throw them away. On top of the base price is the ammo you buy for them at, say, one point per round.

So, say each FO party costs you 30 points, and you decide that you want to have 180 rounds of 81mm. One option is to have a single FO with all that ammo, for a total cost of 30 + 180 = 210 points. Alternatly, you could buy 3 FOs and give each one 60 rounds, but this would cost you (3 x 30) + (3 x 60) = 270 points - or nearly 30% more than just having a single FO.

A different approach, and the one I am starting to favour more, is to disregard the point cost of ammo for FOs altogether (though each FO party would still have a base purchase point cost), and allow them to fire as much as they want. But, each round fired costs the player in terms of victory points at the end of the game. Subtle variations could be introduced such as "the first 50 rounds are free", or "after 100 rounds the VP cost per round fired doubles", as well as different VP costs for different calibres (heavier = higher VP cost), etc.

The individual VP cost per round would be quite low, but since 81mm mortars - for example - can fire upwards of 30 (IIRC) rounds per minute the total VP cost would climb quite quickly if you weren't careful. You could easily let the VP cost run away from you, and thus lose the game even as you completely destroy the enemy.

I think this would dramatically alter the way players handle artillery, and in conjunction with a few other modifications (some of which I believe are already planned for CMBB) bring it much closer to realistic/historical use.

The historical justification for this proposal is in my post in the link above.

Regards

JonS

Edit: clarifying some points.

[ June 18, 2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by JonS:

So, say each FO party costs you 30 points, and you decide that you want to have 180 rounds of 81mm. One option is to have a single FO with all that ammo, for a total cost of 30 + 180 = 210 points. Alternatly, you could buy 3 FOs and give each one 60 rounds, but this would cost you (3 x 30) + (3 x 60) = 270 points - or nearly 30% more than just having a single FO.

Yes, Jon. Something like that. Of course FFE's Ideas apply both to increased and decreased "standard" ammo loadouts. But the point I was making (which you expanded upon with more precise proposed costs) was that the cost should be prohibitive to buying too many cheap, low ammo FOs.

Oddly enough, for an only 30% increase in cost I assure you that in capable hands those three FOs will cause 30 to 300% more havoc than a single FO with the same number of shells.

JasonC mentioned this, IIRC, in regards to infantry costs being cheaper with lower ammo loadout and really more effective because guys are constantly dying with 25 ammo points left and such. Yet who does not empty their FO's loadout by the end of a given game?

Anyway, I like your numbers. And reiterate that ammo / cost modifiers should take into account such factors as I and others have mentioned.

Of course, I would love to see BFC do such a thing. Come on guys! Purty pleez!

-Sarge

[Mud]

WRT defending non-FO units and extra ammo, CM:BO perhaps already shows one way to do it -- the extra ammo is available (currently only via the scenario editor), but is sacrificed once the unit moves. If added, it might be a particularly tempting option for HMGs and on-board mortars within fortifications.

Hm. Unit point values would vary in a way that should probably not be revealed under fog of war until it becomes obvious that one unit has been expending a LOT of ammo. A bit orthogonally, I wonder whether the victory point estimates will be based on expected unit costs (e.g. average price that you expect the other guy to have paid for something) or whether the variable rarity settings will be "known", even if only obliquely.

[Olle Petersson]

Wow! Finally there's a discussion about artillery ammo point cost!

I've tried to start a debate about this.

In victory conditions each FO is worth 30pts, no matter what nationality or troop quality.

So when calculating the point cost for each round of ammo there's a wide spread for different types of artillery and troop quality.

The more extreme examples are German 15cm rockets and Allied 14" naval guns. The former has ammo that's one point each, at regular level, while the latter cost hundreds of points per round, at high level.

Is this a reasonable way of counting?

Is the current cost difference for ammo, depending on troop quality, reasonable?

I'm planning to use a modified ammo supply for the Triple Battles and need some fair way to recalculate the point values.

Cheers

Olle