Is ammo needed?

[gekkoguy82]

I was in the camp of needing to model supply, but after having played for some time, I'm satisfied with the condition indicator. At the current pace of the game, keeping up with a bunch of supply units to support your advance would not be enjoyable, especially with the roving bands of super skirmishers in your rear areas right now. Wagon trains would get torn up pretty rapidly.

[soccercw]

JohnJellicoe isn't your proposal precisely what the "condition" metric currently does?  The closer units are to their Corps Commanders (hence access to supply) the faster their condition is returned to fighting trim.

 

I 100% agree that adding "ammo" is only going to hinder the game's AI development.  Condition can easily be seen as having "ammo" factored in.  No need to add variables that are relatively taken care of.  If this was a one scenario game that was played over hours, ok, I get the ammo thing.  But it's multiple short scenarios where adding that is only going to take time away from fixing things AI wise that are much more important.

[MkGriff1492]

I think it would be a good idea to have a resupply button on the UI with a cooldown.  The supple wagon should come from the edge of the map and vulnerable to fire from the enemy.  Should have to redraw unit slightly and protect your supply line too. Just my 2 cents. 

[David Fair]

MkGriff1492, you are aware that there were about 30 miles worth of supply wagons parked on the Gettysburg battlefield right?

Why should supply come "from the edge of the map"?  

Gettysburg was fought in the 1860's not 1960's so I'm kind of missing the logic of your supply proposal.

 

When brigades called for ammunition individual wagons were sent forward to drop ammunition behind the lines where runners resupplied troops on the firing line.  This system worked reliably in all but a couple of cases for both sides.  The cases where the system broke down was at the regimental level (e.g., 20th Maine) rather than the brigade or division level.  

 

It's not clear to me what your goal is for a unique ammunition resupply button.  

If the "condition" bar was renamed in favor of a re-labeled "ammo" bar wouldn't this be exactly what you are proposing?

Isn't ammo a subset of a unit's condition?

Aren't other things like water or cleaning a musket periodically just as important for unit performance?

At Gettysburg 37,574 muskets were collected after the battle.  12,000 were empty.  6,000 had one round.  18,000 had 2 or more rounds which would make them unusable.  Keeping up the rate of fire required much more than simply ammunition.  The current abstraction of "condition" in my mind is much more accurate that "ammo".  

See:  http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/Gettysburg_Facts/Gettysburg_Facts.php

 

Just my 2 cents  

 

Keep in mind the biggest logistics challenge at Gettysburg for both armies was forage for horses.  Supply trains, artillery, and cavalry mounts all needed to eat and be watered.  60,000 animals in a 25 square mile battlefield for 4 days puts a serious strain on bulky commodities like forage.  

 

My point is that adding a fictional ammunition supply contrived from thin air burdens a strategy game with minutia.  And every level of complexity added increases the micromanagement on players.

 

 

Regarding supply lines:

 

For the Union empty wagons were convoyed to the Maryland railhead about 20 miles from Gettysburg to resupply and return.  About half of the AoP's 12,000 cavalry were assigned to protecting this off-battlefield supply line.  Another 3,000 cavalry were protecting the flanks of the army  The final Union 3,000 were available as a reserve to fight CSA cavalry.  This is the Union force that fought on the East Cavalry Field.

 

The South really didn't have supply lines.  They were living off the land.  Their supply was limited to what they could fit in the stomachs of the men and carry in the wagons.  The nearest CSA railhead to Gettysburg was over 100 miles away.  Half of the 6,000 man CSA cavalry was guarding the flanks of the ANV and the other half was deployed to exploit the Union collapse after Pickett's Charge shattered the Union army.  The result was that Stuart and his 3,000 men fought on the East Cavalry Field.

[moesislack20]

I have not posted anything on this issue and just watched what people had to say.  I purchased this game and a civil war enthusiast and I live and hour away from Gettysburg.  I have no experience as an online gamer and this is the first time I ever purchased a game.  I enjoy being able to rewrite history if only on my screen.  I voted in favor of unlimited ammo.  I would not mind it being a factor in the equation for the condition of a unit as I think that is fair.  But the idea of a wagon train having to be moved across the screen to resupply forward units seems to be a bit out there.  I understand the principal behind it, but i am pretty sure the confederates during picketts charge had enough ammo to make it through.

[Riekopo]

I thought ammo was going to be in the game. It doesn't make sense for units to have infinite ammo.

[soccercw]

And no entire infantry brigades flat out ran out of ammo at Gettysburg. What would the unit do if it couldn't get more ammunition? Aimlessly wander about? An entire brigade? On this level having a finite ammo amount would be unnecessary imo

[MkGriff1492]

MkGriff1492, you are aware that there were about 30 miles worth of supply wagons parked on the Gettysburg battlefield right?

Why should supply come "from the edge of the map"?  

Gettysburg was fought in the 1860's not 1960's so I'm kind of missing the logic of your supply proposal.

 

When brigades called for ammunition individual wagons were sent forward to drop ammunition behind the lines where runners resupplied troops on the firing line.  This system worked reliably in all but a couple of cases for both sides.  The cases where the system broke down was at the regimental level (e.g., 20th Maine) rather than the brigade or division level.  

 

It's not clear to me what your goal is for a unique ammunition resupply button.  

If the "condition" bar was renamed in favor of a re-labeled "ammo" bar wouldn't this be exactly what you are proposing?

Isn't ammo a subset of a unit's condition?

Aren't other things like water or cleaning a musket periodically just as important for unit performance?

At Gettysburg 37,574 muskets were collected after the battle.  12,000 were empty.  6,000 had one round.  18,000 had 2 or more rounds which would make them unusable.  Keeping up the rate of fire required much more than simply ammunition.  The current abstraction of "condition" in my mind is much more accurate that "ammo".  

See:  http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/Gettysburg_Facts/Gettysburg_Facts.php

 

Just my 2 cents  

 

Keep in mind the biggest logistics challenge at Gettysburg for both armies was forage for horses.  Supply trains, artillery, and cavalry mounts all needed to eat and be watered.  60,000 animals in a 25 square mile battlefield for 4 days puts a serious strain on bulky commodities like forage.  

 

My point is that adding a fictional ammunition supply contrived from thin air burdens a strategy game with minutia.  And every level of complexity added increases the micromanagement on players.

 

 

Regarding supply lines:

 

For the Union empty wagons were convoyed to the Maryland railhead about 20 miles from Gettysburg to resupply and return.  About half of the AoP's 12,000 cavalry were assigned to protecting this off-battlefield supply line.  Another 3,000 cavalry were protecting the flanks of the army  The final Union 3,000 were available as a reserve to fight CSA cavalry.  This is the Union force that fought on the East Cavalry Field.

 

The South really didn't have supply lines.  They were living off the land.  Their supply was limited to what they could fit in the stomachs of the men and carry in the wagons.  The nearest CSA railhead to Gettysburg was over 100 miles away.  Half of the 6,000 man CSA cavalry was guarding the flanks of the ANV and the other half was deployed to exploit the Union collapse after Pickett's Charge shattered the Union army.  The result was that Stuart and his 3,000 men fought on the East Cavalry Field.

I understand your logic but your looking at it in an historic perspective and I'm looking at it more as a gamer.  Seems like the maps are small and reinforcements come from the edge of the map which is set-up as a map on a game table.  It's a simple solutions to call for supplies.  I have played games where supple wagons were always on the field.  I found this solution more interesting but that's just me.   

[David Fair]

MkGriff1492, now I get it.  The game vs. history tension raises it's ugly head once again.  

 

It would be really great if there was a "history" setting and 3 levels (easy, difficult, resolute) to satisfy the history wonks.  

 

That way games can game without driving history wonks to the exits.  

[ColC]

I see artillery ammo as a concern at a corps level. The South ran out. The North Conserved arty until Pickett's charge. Ammo was a concern in our German war plans back during the Cold War. It plays well to the historical battle currently. I have only played it on lowest level as I had graphic card problems with Nividia.

[vs_shell]

What about both solutions? Just realize two game mode: arcade & historical. If user set arcade mode - ammo not needed...

It will be useful for another game aspects like terrain influence on sloders etc.

[Riekopo]

Why not just make ammo an in game option? That would please everyone.

[David Fair]

ColC, the South did not "run out" of ammunition at Gettysburg.  According to General Pendleton (Chief of Artillery ANV) the ANV brought 40,800 rounds of artillery ammunition to Gettysburg and fired about 22,000 rounds.

 

The Union brought about 93,000 artillery rounds to Gettysburg and fired 32,781 rounds.  See General Hunt's AAR.

[thekev506]

And no entire infantry brigades flat out ran out of ammo at Gettysburg. What would the unit do if it couldn't get more ammunition? Aimlessly wander about? An entire brigade? On this level having a finite ammo amount would be unnecessary imo

 

I thought the 20th Maine ran out at Little Round Top, and that forced their hand to fix bayonets and charge?  There's every chance I'm wrong of course, just specifically remember that detail from somewhere.

[soccercw]

I thought the 20th Maine ran out at Little Round Top, and that forced their hand to fix bayonets and charge?  There's every chance I'm wrong of course, just specifically remember that detail from somewhere.

 

Right, but the 20th Maine is one regiment in one very particular situation.  This is a brigade level game.  I'm not interested in watching entire brigades of over 1000 men aimless run around trying to melee each other because they "have no ammo". 

[thekev506]

Agreed, but seeing as one of the nice things about a historically-based game is that you can change history, shouldn't the opportunity for such a thing to happen be in there?

[soccercw]

Agreed, but seeing as one of the nice things about a historically-based game is that you can change history, shouldn't the opportunity for such a thing to happen be in there?

 

Changing history is the fun part, yes, but not at the expense of historical reality.  You'll be hard pressed to find an example of an entire brigade running out of ammunition mid battle.  The way this game plays out in segmented portions it just makes no sense.  If a unit runs out of ammo before the end of a scenario, does it magically get resupplied for the next one?  Are we assuming there's some ceasefire between scenarios where both forces agree to not attack and that allows them to get more "ammo"?

 

I still feel the condition bar is plenty enough to beat down units for extended engagements.  Pulling them off the line helps replenish their condition and can be seen as "resupplying" as well.  Putting in an entire element like ammo will just complicate things that need not be complicated.  Supply is a great variable for campaign games and deep strategy turn by turn ones.  Not real time battle simulations at the brigade level in my opinion

[Cryoteck]

I don't want to have to spend most of the game constantly checking which units need ammo and waiting to click a resupply button. I'd rather it only be an issue if say a brigade was too far from the rest of the division (away from the division's supply line), or if a unit is mostly surrounded. Under those conditions just slow down the reload time to simulate slow resupply, scrounging ammo from fallen soldiers etc...

[llcw08]

I would say this should be part of an eventual larger strategic  layer as on a tactical level it's simply going to be throwing in a sudden task of playing the quartermaster as well as the General. Rather keep such on a larger strategic level where there might be more to gained from fiddling around with that.

After reading most of the Forum's comments; I like Imperial Dane's the best! Number 1; it is concise. And his insights reflect my take on this issue. Yeah, limited ammo is a big deal for "real-play" vs "game-play" AI problems/issues.

 

I like Imperial Dane's suggestion that "limit ammo" could be an Additional layer or improvement, Later. It's almost July, Nick and his team have their eyes on the Prize; KISS is an important principle. 

[JohnnyJingles]

Personally i think its fine as it is now but if you where to add limited ammo please allow users to select what they want.

[Mr. Mercanto]

I think ammo should stay out of it. Speaking as someone new to RTS, its difficult enough just to manage the battle lol. Furthermore, bringing in ammo would act a great deal of micro-management. Given that part of the appeal of UGG is the lack of micro-management I think that adding ammo would be counter-intuitive. 

[Mike the Bike]

How about an option where, in an intense battle, ammo is slowly played out.  The units strength would slowly decline from 100% to 75% to 50% to simulate an ammo shortage.  Then after an appropriate amount of time, the units strength would go back up to 100%.  This would simulate the arrival of an ammunition wagon and disturbution of the ammo.  Of course, if the unit took damage during that time, the strength would reflect that also.  A special case should be made for a surrounded unit, which in reality couldn't receive any resupply.  In that case, the units strength would slowly decrease to 0 and it would surrender (disappear from the map) or it was relieved by other units and eventually resupplied.  The definition of being surrounded would be determined by the developers.  This would be simple and not take away the fun of the game by added a cumbersome supply system.

 

A question: when I click on a unit, the map darkens except for what the unit can see.  This is well done.  However, when clicking on a non-occuppied shot the map remains dark and still highlighted on the area that the last unit could observe.  It will eventually lighten up, but it would be nice if the map would immediately brighten when clicking on a neutral spot.

 

Also, would it be possible to allow facing at the end of the movement path?  I know that this can be done with groups.  It would be nice and more efficient for this to be an option for individual units.

 

Great game.

Mike

[JohnnyJingles]

As long as everyone has an option to do so its fine with me but i dont want to be forced.

[Mr. Mercanto]

As long as everyone has an option to do so its fine with me but i dont want to be forced.

I think that's a good compromise. If the option is there for other people, more power to them. Personally, I'd want to keep ammo off but I can understand why others would want it. 

[JohnnyJingles]

I think that's a good compromise. If the option is there for other people, more power to them. Personally, I'd want to keep ammo off but I can understand why others would want it. 

Thank you sir. I would also like to keep ammo off, but always have the option to enable or disable .