Ammo Sharing...

[Peter Cairns]

It was not uncommon for units in W2 to share ammo, ie if a squad with plenty of ammo came across one running low, they would help them out, (trude they would also sometimes say "Bugger off and get your own".

Rather than have a complex system of runners and ammo carriers, (have a look at the WIA thread to see how difficult it can become) have simple rule.

If two units of the same type are adjacent for a full move they will exchange 1 unit of ammo, but only if the difference between them is greater than the lower ammo.

So if two Bazookas are side by side and one has 4 rounds and the other one, next turn it will be two and three.

This would allow a limited amount of flexibility and a fair representation of what actually went on.

Peter.

[Abbott]

I wouldn’t mind scavenging ammo from fallen soldiers but have never put much thought into the game mechanics of handling it. I am sure I would find it useful in game. I bet the guys at BFC have considered it and opted out in the past for good reason (s). They are pretty good at what they do and always seem to have good reason for including or excluding actions. Maybe with 1 to 1 scale and the new engine we will see ammo handled a bit different.

[Loeffe]

AFAIK the "LOW" setting that appears when you've spent all your ammo is meant to somehow simulate the troops scrounging for ammo, in the current versions of the game.

[Zalgiris 1410]

AIUI the 'Low' ammo statis for squads and some teams (manly HMGs) represents them reduced to saving their last few rounds for as long as possible, but does not mean that they are scrounging or actually sharing ammo. Note that for all snipers, rocket teams, on board guns and mortars 'Low' ammo statis really means that they are out of ammo and arn't able to even pick up the unfired rounds from knocked out similar units. Same goes for all AFVs.

I don't know what's happenning with 'Low' ammo statis in CMx2 yet, I guess that ultimately it's all up to some BFCs, but I would like to call for theere to be a more generous usual amount of ammo provided to units and better handling of it. It's part of their designer's making decision though.

[rune]

ZAl,

Wrong. For squads and teams it represents both. Saving the last few rounds AND getting ammo from whatever. It was a deisgn decision back from CMBO when we were still in alpha.

Rune

[Zalgiris 1410]

I stand corrected thanks Rune, I checked me manual to be sure, not that I wasn't taking your word for it.

Still for me this conserving of ammo thing whatever is bloody handy IME, but I've always wondered why snipers don't do the same thing?

I can't remember does this feature apply to LMG teams in the way it does for HMGs?

Regards,

Saul.

[rune]

Honestly I don't remember anymore, have been too busy working on other things and haven't open any of CMX1 since I made a scenario which I have to get back to tweaking one of these days.

Rune

[Zalgiris 1410]

No worries mate I'll do a test to put my mind at rest on this very unimportant issue one day.

[MikeyD]

I thought I recalled a loooong time ago someone (Moon?) saying the troops and their weapons would be separate items in CMx2. That implies manning abandoned Paks, picking up a dead guy's BAR, and maybe scrounging for ammo. Of course that was said quite awhile ago. I can't say if the concept is still in play. I'd be surprised, though, if moving two squads within proximity of eachother would mean their ammo load suddenly evened out.

[Denwad]

you know what would be awesome, maybe out of the scope of a CMX2 game, but ammunition caches actually on map.

[Philippe]

That's nothing. I've got a better one: caches of medical supplies on the map...under waterfalls.

[stoat]

But that implies that wounded would be modeled.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by stoat:

But that implies that wounded would be modeled.

I think the game will abstractly assume that they've been healed by allied clerics. For some reason, BTS doesn't want to actually model the clerics - although there may be an exception if they are in Priests; I'm not really sure how that would work. Maybe they will be able to cast cures from within the Priest.

Nazi clerics, of course, can't cast cure spells because they are so evil...but I think they get animate dead. So there should be interesting fights as the allies try and keep the germans from reanimating the KIAs and suddenly reversing the results of a battle.

:eek:

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Philippe:

That's nothing. I've got a better one: caches of medical supplies on the map...under waterfalls.

Just when despising you seems like the only option, you post something that makes me realize that despising you is simply the most satisfying personal option.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

If two units of the same type are adjacent for a full move they will exchange 1 unit of ammo, but only if the difference between them is greater than the lower ammo.

So if two Bazookas are side by side and one has 4 rounds and the other one, next turn it will be two and three.

This would allow a limited amount of flexibility and a fair representation of what actually went on.

Peter.

I dunno, this seems a bit daft to me. It might make some sense for crewed units, like mortars or bazookas (why they'd be moving up in tandem, and why 'equalizing' ammo would necessarily make sense to the crews is a question left begging, rather than the crew with more ammo simply trying to achieve what they could with it), but for units like infantry, the logistics of everyone 'swapping around loads' until the two units were a bit more on par would seem to be outside the scope of what's normally been depicted in a CM game.

Mind, with this whole '1 to 1' representation, it might be a different thing. But frankly, in a squad of 8-12 men, I already figure a certain amount of 'ammo-swapping' is going on. So now we're to envision a group of 16-24 guys somehow coming together on the map and redistributing ammo? Frankly, it would seem to me that the ability to maneuver squads together simply to 'share ammo' would result in unrealistic behaviour on a tactical battlefield, contributing to the 'Overlord Effect' of CM battles, in which you, the godlike commander, tell squads to do things that would be simply bizarre in combat.

[Michael Dorosh]

How about having the guys in the battles shooting a lot less; that would be more realistic....

[Peter Cairns]

People should shot less tahts for sure, i tend to think that ammo use is to high particularly at long ranges.

Having said that i remember reading the account of the attack on Mount Tumbledown in the Falklands, where the british were astounded at the end of tha battle that so many rounds could be fired and so few people killed or even hit.

This leads to the possibility that for realism people should fire less and hide more, so that ammo and casualties are kept lower

Battles could be are won by your opponent falling back due to low moral, ie "Sod this I am getting out of here", rather than by being broken or destroyed, something that might be done now that Morale and suppression are seperate.

It might however make the more "realistic" CMx2, less exciting....

As to Sharing ammo, If I was aplatoon Co and one of my three squads was going to sit an watch an assault for lack of ammo, I'd make damned sure it got at least enough to give proper covering fire, if the other squads had spare.

Anyway my rough formula. would never equalise, only narrow the gap, If a squad with 10 met a squad with 1, it could omly give it 1 ammo a minute, and would stop at 7 to 4 after five minutesout of the fight.

You would need to make atactical judgement if reajusting ammo was worth the time and effort involved.

Peter.