Is ammo needed?

[David Fair]

N.C. rebel, yes I've been testing UGG for about 6 months now.

[N.C.rebel]

Ok cool I like the way you think and have knowledge on the war lol

[David Fair]

There certainly is interesting tension between the game community and the history community.  

 

It's easy to see why these communities split at about the time GPUs were introduced.  

[N.C.rebel]

As much history of the battle you can put in te game but only but works I'll be happy with lol I'm buying the game anyways cause I'm a really huge civil war buff since a little kid even do reenacting and read the official records of the war lol

[David Fair]

N.C., ultimately the game needs to be fun and visually satisfying.  Quick to learn difficult to master is always a good goal.

 

History is great as long as the game doesn't get bogged down in micromanagement.

[N.C.rebel]

I agree I'm glad both are going well together.

[Twiggy]

Ammo isn't needed.  The only case I can recall of a unit running out of ammo during the battle was the 20th Maine and I believe that was probably due more to incompetence involving the supply chain than them not actually having any ammo available within a reasonable distance.  I'm sure their may have been a couple other cases of it happening during the battle, but no more than a handful and for the same reason as the 20th.  And if it would negatively effect the AI, I would say no definetly. 

[Tormidal]

I agree that ammo isn't needed.

Its just bad all around, I think. Since Union has the advantage in ranged combat, the Union player is always going to try and keep some distance between them and the Confederate divisions. Meaning they're more like to run out of ammo first. When they run out of ammo, their only option left is to run around until time runs out, or charge. Either way, the confederates win.

 

Its also going to introduce a new level of micro-management that is just unecessary. Nobody wants to keep scrolling around the battlefield to make sure all the brigades are well stocked on ammo. It distracts too much from enjoying the game itself.

[SlappyMoose]

I registered just so I could post a response to this thread.

Please don't add ammunition. This game, from what I sense, is VERY much against micromanagement. It's centered around battle flow and big picture thinking. There is already morale and condition affecting unit combat effectiveness, with Officer units having an aura that affects the morale of units. The last thing I want to do is spend more time ordering supply wagons all across the battlefield, and having to deal with a unit that is completely out of ammo just because I put them in the fight for too long. I'd much rather spend my time dealing with actual combat units. This is not a micromanagement oriented, 1-1 scale warfare simulator. This is a game, and in my opinion, this does not seem like the game that should force any kind of ammo management on the player.

At most, make it an option. If people want to play with limited ammo, that's fine, I would just really prefer not being forced into it.

[CptBanzai]

It would be nice if one could choose without limited ammo and with limited ammo option If you were implenting such a feature. Because some will like it and some not. I'm against limited ammo. Because there isn't an option to fallback and re-supply. It's only time based. And AI troops that i'm commanding are firing when they're not supposed too. So it could be a little bit frustrating when your army runs out of ammo.

 

It's a great idea for the hardcore fans but an option/setting with or without limited ammo would be nice.

[Whitenoise71]

I think you could implement ammo, but I would prefer it be non-micromanaged. You could do some ammo rate adjustment based on units current action. A "heat" map that discerns between units that are in or out of combat. This would also make VP locations possible for road supply points, that if captured by the enemy would lower  the rate and or other penalties. this has pitfalls since you don't want cheap victory points. but an idea nonetheless. it also makes Cavalry do what they did in this era, which is to screen and raid and disrupt supply. Something that is not always accounted for in games of this era. Just my low knowledge of design two cents. 

[Blackburn42]

Maybe a resupply system similar to the "Wargame" series, where units rearm from Ammo Trucks. Plus, you might be able to simulate the evacuation of the wounded throught that and the next day, both morale and casualities wouldn't be that severe.

 

Anyway, if this gets into the game I would stick only to computing groups of wagons, similar to how cannon batteries currently work. 

 

And this might be a silly idea, but do you remember "World in Conflict" online? Where on a 5vs5 match, one guy managed the Air Force, another the Infanty... Can you imagine having 2vs2 matches in this game where one player controls the army and the other one the logistics? I'll actually be fun only if the logistics system is deep, and that may cause problem on making the AI to use that system. 

 

Anyway, I'm very glad that the developers are having in serious consideration the opinion of the backers. 

[Tormidal]

Maybe a resupply system similar to the "Wargame" series, where units rearm from Ammo Trucks. Plus, you might be able to simulate the evacuation of the wounded throught that and the next day, both morale and casualities wouldn't be that severe.

 

Anyway, if this gets into the game I would stick only to computing groups of wagons, similar to how cannon batteries currently work. 

 

And this might be a silly idea, but do you remember "World in Conflict" online? Where on a 5vs5 match, one guy managed the Air Force, another the Infanty... Can you imagine having 2vs2 matches in this game where one player controls the army and the other one the logistics? I'll actually be fun only if the logistics system is deep, and that may cause problem on making the AI to use that system. 

 

Anyway, I'm very glad that the developers are having in serious consideration the opinion of the backers. 

 

This actually brings up a good point.

Will it always just be deaths that get counted, or will injuries where men have to be taken away be counted as well? What about desertions?

[Zaduman]

It can be done with an area of effect aura, imagine  deposits placed around the battlefield that have a supply aura, to simulate ammo needs,   you could just make an internal  counter for shoots fired, when the unit starts to run out of ammo will, a sing will appear just like the flags, that's only when you need  to take care about supply, the player can choose to go back to a supply area and get a instant recharge.    if the enemy captures it.  then the whole area would be cut off suplies.  

But i think  the way you have divided battle phases makes this whole supply idea a bit out of place,  A civil war soldier carried around 60 bullets to battle, and that's more that enough for the time frame scenario that you've defined.  but i you expand battle phases then this would make sense. also if gameplay time concerns you  a pc player woundn't mind  longer battles, and for a tablet users you could keep the current time frame.

[Blackburn42]

This actually brings up a good point.

Will it always just be deaths that get counted, or will injuries where men have to be taken away be counted as well? What about desertions?

 

I thought more about adding a wounded counter on each brigade. And that wounded counter randomly substracts and add to the casualties counter, to simulate the soldiers that couldn't make it. When a wagon arrives in range of the unit, the wounded will begin to get to the wagons. When the wagon leaves the area of effect, the wounded are carried away. The next day, a random percentage of the unit's wounded will be brought back to the front line and a random percentage of them will die due to their injuries.

 

The problem is that each brigade would have 3 counters: Casualties, Wounded on the front and wounded on the hospital. I'm not sure if it'll be more fun to play with that system. 

 

In addition scattered on the map should be some kind of "Depots", allied wagons can refill supplies and evacuate the wounded there. But, both allies and enemies sould be able to destroy them and capture them.

 

As a disclaimer, this is only an idea of how the resupply system could be used for more mechanics. I'm not really sure if it is doable in terms of code and if it'll be worth it regarding the gameplay itself.

 

 

EDIT: I don't really think ammo sould be implemented in the game. 

[Townsendvol]

Do not need limited ammo I do not believe, not for the one battle. Also I prefer a great AI over a confused one.

[RowleysBottle]

I don't put ammo high on the list.

Sure I want the most realistic thing possible, but I want this game to be successful first.

 

You have to be real careful trying to put "realism" into every aspect of a game.  First you might actually break the game (as in the case with the AI) by over complicating things.  Second - you might turn off gamers who just find the game learning curve far too cumbersome.

 

I've seen it with recent games like DayZ.  I pull out my compass to see which way I'm going.  Oh, wait... first I have to pull it out, then I have to raise it up, then open it.  Same with a bottle of water.  Click to put the water in my hand, click to open the water, click to drink it, click to put the cap back on, click to put the water down, click to put the water away.... just way too much.. but there are people who scream for realism.  I just think you have to be careful when you get into these aspects of the game.

[fdsdh1]

Has anyone played any of the Wargame series, they are cold war rts which use a supply system, and great emphasis on the supply network behind your lines.

 

The problem of the supply system in the wargame series is that it is incredibly micro-managy, a supply truck will need to be guided from the FOB to the front then guided back to the FOB again, it feels clunky. Suppy trucks are also really vulnerable to enemy fire and the routes they take back to base are sometimes mad (although in this game that would not happen as the move order system is really good)

 

This game is warfare on a grand scale, it is true that in wargame you can have many units on a huge battlefield, but the scale is still small compared to this.

 

A General should not have to micro-manage supplies of individual units (a la wargame), his subordinates should be able to do that themselves. That is not to say there should be no supply aspect, I would support a supply aspect as long as it did not require much management and was mainly automatic.

[lotharr51]

I think this should fit into the category of reinforcing the primacy of defense for this period of the Civil War. Interior lines, improvised field defenses, cover and elevation all support the defender. The Secesh had their work cut out from them from the start and focusing on these realities would make for a more realistic and enjoyable game, imho.

[squishband]

I'm assuming that the AI takes into account the amount of firing and it's rate when updating a units status. If it does then the player will know the condition of its unit, one of the factors affecting its condition being ammunition consumption.

If it doesn't at the moment then you might update the algorithm to take this into account and add an icon for 'supplies' or 'ammo', enabling the player to decide to rest their unit, giving it time to gain its breath, recover its morale and be re-supplied, if they so wish.

The issue of supply trains might be simply dealt with in campaign mode by having either clear lines of supply meaning that a unit is fully re-supplied next 'turn', or less if the line of supply is contested. I don't think you need to make it more complex than that.

[Blackie]

As has been pointed out by Powderhorn above, ammo was a factor in the Battle of Gettysburg, and the reality is, it did affect unit effectiveness.  Supply problems were much more of an issue for the South, but the North did have distribution issues even though supplies were much more plentiful. 

[David Fair]

When you leave units on the firing lines too long their "condition" deteriorates and the unit routs.  Ammunition supply is inherently built into the "condition" of units.  As noted above water supply was also a "factor" at Gettysburg.  IMO giving the player more micromanagement will detract from the game.

 

Also do you have some infantry examples other than the 20th Maine?  (There is another answer).  Note that the 20th Maine was one regiment in a brigade.  At the brigade-level the supply system was reasonably effective for both sides at Gettysburg.  This is a brigade-level game.

 

If you are talking about artillery ammunition then I'd agree you have more of an argument.  The CSA fired more than half its artillery supply the Union about a third.

[lotharr51]

I changed my vote. The condition indicator makes a lot of sense for this.

[JohnJellicoe]

Supply as a modifier of combat, perhaps with a timer to refill depending on distance to chain of command would be great. Supply as another unit (wagons) that need AI crafted or they will drive off randomly to the enemy lines, please do not do. I have seen that way too many times. Supply is great provided it does not become the focus of the game, but of course there are those who would (somewhat correctly argue) war is logistics.

[David Fair]

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.