Is ammo needed?

[sharky0922]

I think it should be here. Being without ammo and re-supplying ammo would be nice feature!

How it would look like? New supply units on map? wagons? or automatically re-supply while on rest? 

I guess it depends on technical side? How hard its to make it?

 

But give us option!

Some people wanna have this feature for bit more realism , some people dont.

So make it optional! 

I think it should be here. Being without ammo and re-supplying ammo would be nice feature!

 

I like this game, have so much potential! 

[soccercw]

What will your units do when out of ammo? Surrender? Only be able to make unrealistic suicide charges? Can you retreat them from the map?

[sharky0922]

What will your units do when out of ammo? Surrender? Only be able to make unrealistic suicide charges? Can you retreat them from the map?

 

And what units without ammo usually do? Run for the hills! or if they are surrounded..some fight their way thru, some surrender/or all ? Depending on situation. 

If ordered hold the line no matter what they would hold it as  long their morale/condition allows it.

Of course without ammo, morale would drops much faster and they would be easier to panic.

Why would you want to retreat from the map??

 

There should be warning icon if ammo drops to 10%/20%/X. So they wont shoot  that much or much slower rate, or only when attacked upon.

After dropping to 0 they should retreat themselves (since they are semi-intelligent units), unless they have specific order to hold,  to the back or to supply point - wagons?

[soccercw]

Entire brigades without ammo usually didn't happen, so I don't know what they'd do.  You said "run for the hills" yet my idea of having them retreat off the map is a bad idea?  What if you're against an edge of the map?  Would they just sit there ammo less and get shot at?

 

In segmented battles, simulating maybe an hour or two of fighting, I see no need to have entire brigades and maybe even entire divisions run out of ammo.  You'd turn the game into having a goal of getting behind the enemy lines to block off their supply wagons while trying to somehow still have access to yours.  This is ok on a huge scale but the battles are on segmented maps where it's understood there are still troops elsewhere on the battlefield that you can't see on your specific map.

 

I'll stop arguing this one I guess as I'll never agree with those who want ammo added to complicate the game play (while there's already a condition bar that wears units down after long engagements and is replenished when they are pulled off the line).  At this game scale it would be an embarrassment to simulate entire divisions running around the map with no ammunition because they cant get back to their "wagons" when each individual battle is only simulating a few hours at most of fighting, not multiple days. 

 

And again, my point from before, what happens when the scenario ends and you have units that have no ammunition.  When the map restarts itself as a continuation of the last battle and the units are in the same relative position, will they magically have ammo again?  VP will no longer be the goal, it will be to just go attack these wagons that have no business being in a game of this scale and style.  Having the devs spend hours trying to put this in, tweak the AI to somehow understand the importance of defending their wagons over VP, and then adding it as just as "option" is a complete waste of time IMO.  But we can all disagree

[TheRomanRuler]

Okey i am worried now, becouse 

Ammo must be limited and can be depleted during each battle, no matter the cost for AI and gameplay 

 

Please devs, don`t let that happen... Gameplay is 50% of the game, or you could say 100% or 90%, so it should not be sacrificed... 

It is so even poll that i believe you don´t let that happen and instead find solution where everyone are happy (theoretically, there are always whiners).  But i have to post my concerns, i really love this game, and i have become quite good at it, if i loose i have inflicted high casualties to enemy, very often actually it is draw with close to 10 000 losses for both sides, and when i win, enemy usually suffers more, but sometimes i suffer more, however not too much for Pyrrhic victory, i am always able to fight another day. 

My #1 game atm, i only play other games more than this becouse this is still in development and there are many bugs (and yes, i remember to always report them)

[Tormidal]

A lot of people have mentioned it already; there's already enough to worry about while playing without limited ammo. Condition, morale, hp, locations, flanking possibilities. Adding limited ammo is going to put too much on the player, and it'll be extremely unfriendly to any player. Just don't include it.

Yes, this game is going to be realistic and historical, but its also a game. And as such, you have to keep in mind that your players need to be having fun.

 

Adding limited ammo and supply wagons and whatever, isn't going to be fun. Youre going to discourage a lot of players, especially if limited ammo is on by default.

[sharky0922]

 When the map restarts itself as a continuation of the last battle and the units are in the same relative position, will they magically have ammo again?  

How crazy is that during cease fire units can re-supply right ? And it can be done automatically? Wow , almost unheard off in any game before?

You seriously asking that kind of questions?

 

 

 

You said "run for the hills" yet my idea of having them retreat off the map is a bad idea?  What if you're against an edge of the map?

It is.. cause they can retreat somewhere else on the map? Why they have to retread out of the map?? 

Sure if unit have very high casualties it can retread out of the map. But that's already in the game.

Arty and Cav is more likely to experience that. Didn't see that with Inf yet, but I'm guessing it possible.

 

If they surrounded? Then sure , either run outside the map, or surrender. All make sense.  And? Where is your problem?

 

But your idea is that unit that loses ammo cant go to second line, and HAVE to run out of the map?BUT WHY??? Hows that make any sense?

They already running to the back if they get in bad shape, so what's wrong with that?

 

Following this logic any unit that morale/condition  goes very low, or just panics should run out of the map too right? 

So during battle  many brigades are in panic mode once or twice at least.. you would want them to run off too right? so you would  loose  majority of your brigades? 

Cause units didn't flee position just to regroup X meters away...nooo.. 

 

 

 Would they just sit there ammo less and get shot at?

 

Already answered that. Read my post again.

 

 

You'd turn the game into having a goal of getting behind the enemy lines to block off their supply wagons while trying to somehow still have access to yours

 

No..it doesn't. It would be part of it sure, but that's another challenge you have to face it.

I give you example on other game that have supplies Wargame series. It rely heavily on supply.

But it didn't change to  "hunt supply truck". People still play objective.

Sure , getting somebody supply's or destroying trucks helps, and sometimes somebody is after you supplies. 

But that's not only part of the game!! 

That's the fun part about you have many angles to play scenario. 

 

And it doesn't have to be another unit represented on map. It could be just one more square in unit description. With "Ammo" on it.

Unit would get re-supply slowly/fast etc just like condition going back or morale. Viola...your problem is solved.  

 

 

 

You people don't want it. But that's why I want it as a OPTION.

I didn't said. Its a must, and everybody have to play with this feature.

 

You want to have another layer of difficulty? Then you can switch it on. 

You don't want to? Then switch it off, what is the problem?

 

But instead you wanna go "nazi" way.. "nobody will have it cause I don't like it".

What kind of narrow minded thinking is that? 

 

Adding more features doesn't hurt a game. Especially in strategy genre. 

Of course this all depends what kinda of game Dev wants to create. What's the overall plan?

Which way he want to go? 

 

I'm will use Ruse and Wargame as a example here. Very similar games.

Both are using same type of play,  general concept, and same graphic engine.

Of course with changes. But its stil IRISZOOM.

 

Ruse very simplistic rts. Basic everything. Your usual point and click game.

Build units, send them to battle, paper scissor rock strategy. 1 game made. 1 dlc.

 

Wargame series, waaay more towards realism, many options, units, supplies.

3 games in the series. And  6 DLC 's .

 

So you tell me, what's more popular? Cause  other people know it already, and they decided.

Again if it fits Dev. concept, and can be a option, then WHY NOT?

[soccercw]

But instead you wanna go "nazi" way.. "nobody will have it cause I don't like it".

What kind of narrow minded thinking is that? 

 

There's a realistic comparison.  No need to get all uppity about it and compare me to a political party that eventually was responsible for genocide, or do you not know what that word "nazi" means? 

 

I'm pointing out that you're adding elements that are already covered in the game.  Don't you think the condition bar handles "ammo"? 

 

AS PER THE GAME RULES and how it was intended by the developers :

 

"Your unit status is calculated dynamically. The summary of these parameters is visualized by their morale, condition (simulating fatigue and ammo replenishment), cover and reload bars in unit info panel. Unit status has an immense impact on a unit's performance and should always be considered when making decisions"

 

Voilà!  I don't see a need to separate and micromanage something already covered and factored into the game by those that created it.  Do I think ammo and supply is important in strategy games like this?  Yes.  Do I think having direct sources for supply makes sense in a segmented time period battle game?  I do not.  I'm quite content with having to pull your men off the line once your condition is beat to crap to resupply.  You do feel the need to have the devs develop an entire AI strategy that's based around supply, wagons, and defending the supply sources instead of spending all their time towards the battle AI...and that's fine; we can agree to disagree.  To me it's just complicating something (albeit and important something) that's already being handled in the game.  I won't resort to comparing you to a mass murdering and genocidal faction though

[67th Tigers]

There is no need for ammunition counts for infantry. It was essentially impossible to fire off the assigned ammunition before the musket became unusable. The average Confederate or Union soldier engaged only fired about 20-30 rounds in the whole battle. See: http://67thtigers.blogspot.be/2010/12/small-arms-ammunition-expenditure-at.html for my attempt to pin numbers down.

 

Condition almost certainly covers it. When troops got a break they'd scour their muskets, and if time permitted pour boiling water down them (which is why units carried kettles into combat).

 

Also, most casualties were caused by the first volley (unless the firefight is very prolonged), as the troops have had time to load their (clean) muskets properly, and have a clear sight picture due to the lack of smoke. This is why the defenders of the ridgeline held their fire against Pickett until he was only about 80 yards off. Arguably this is also modelled by condition?

[sharky0922]

Yeah they are covered in game in very simplistic way. And?

 

There's a realistic comparison.  No need to get all uppity about it and refer to a political party that eventually was responsible for genocide, or do you not know what that word "nazi" means? 

 

I'm pointing out that you're adding elements that are already covered in the game.  Don't you think the condition bar handles "ammo"? 

 

AS PER THE GAME RULES and how it was intended by the developers :

 

"Your unit status is calculated dynamically. The summary of these parameters is visualized by their morale, condition (simulating fatigue and ammo replenishment), cover and reload bars in unit info panel. Unit status has an immense impact on a unit's performance and should always be considered when making decisions"

 

Voilà!  I don't see a need to separate and micromanage something already covered and factored into the game by those that created it.  Do I think ammo and supply is important in strategy games like this?  Yes.  Do I think having direct sources for supply makes sense in a segmented time period battle game?  I do not.  I'm quite content with having to pull your men off the line once your condition is beat to crap to resupply.  You do feel the need to have the devs develop an entire AI strategy that's based around supply, wagons, and defending the supply sources instead of spending all their time towards the battle AI...and that's fine; we can agree to disagree.  I won't resort to comparing you to a mass murdering and genocidal faction though

 

 Did anybody said it wasn't? Cant they be more advanced? Or is it forbidden forever?

That's why Dev started this discussion to check if we want more complex supply system taken into account, or just at all.

 

Yeah and I wanna see it in game.

And I don't want to force it my way of thinking to anybody. So option  is crucial for me.

 

Comparison wasn't realistic . But thank you for your sarcasm.

It was over the top, but since we are from around the world, I used most recognizable and phased out regime

to describe how ridiculous, in my opinion,  your "my way or highway" way of thinking.

Or did I misunderstood you ? You wouldn't mind option?  Then I apologise straight away.
If I used other one some people might not get it, or get offended by it since they are still regimes in power in some countries

that they dont consider as totalitarian and I do.and whole mess would broke.. ANYWAY.

Unfortunately to me I know too much about nazis and what they did in my country thank you for concern.

 

 

When troops got a break they'd scour their muskets, and if time permitted pour boiling water down them (which is why units carried kettles into combat).

 

 

 

  I would think quite opposite. Since from firing, any gun get hot. So usually you try to cool it ?

 

So what was the normal  load Inf man would carry?  I see from you link what they would use on average or  was given on average , or I misunderstood it?

"In perspective, this is a fairly high ammunition expenditure. 20 rounds per man was the expectation of a typical battle at the time."

But what would be normal load man carry with him ? 20?

[soccercw]

It was over the top, but since we are from around the world, I used most recognizable and phased out regime

to describe how ridiculous, in my opinion,  your "my way or highway" way of thinking.

Or did I misunderstood you ? You wouldn't mind option? 

 

If this game is created and it has that option, why would I be opposed to it?  I'm just pointing out that I think, at this stage in the game, it's something not even worth looking at until we get a nice flowing AI for the games.  I'm also pointing out that it's going to require and entire reworking of the AI and how it thinks to add that element in the game.  An AI that will have to act completely different when it's not in the game.  Since there's already ammo "factored" into the condition bar I just think it's a waste of time and energy that could be used elsewhere.

 

The poll question above states "Ammo must be limited and can be depleted during each battle, no matter the cost for AI and gameplay".

 

I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice AI and gameplay for something that's already considered a factor in the game as is.

 

And of course my reply was over the top and sarcastic, that's just my personality    Your assumption that I'm a "my way or the highway" kind of guy should be completely discounted due to the fact that I'm here in the forum trying to help improve the game with others opinions.  Everyone else has their opinions and they are just as important as mine.  Doesn't mean I'm not going to give you mine or strongly defend them.  They are, after all, my opinions and I try and back them up with fact or at least reasoning.

 

In the end I think it would be illogical to want ammo factored in "no matter the cost for AI and gameplay" as stated in the above poll and question.  This is, after all, a war game.  To sacrifice the flow and development of the battle engine for something that's already been covered just doesn't float my personal boat.

[TheRomanRuler]

If someone wants to know what really happened in WW2, i advice just waiting, 50 million people died in it, and just look at how differently is written about Soviet Union after it collapsed, eventually WW2 will also be re-written, how much is only debate we should have atm. Expect, not on these forums.
I can assure you that there is something yet to be said about WW2, when documentary about Frederic the Great, man who lived long before such nation as Germany existed, starts by talking about Hitler and what he did, something is wrong. That is an example, there are many many others. 

[67th Tigers]

 

  I would think quite opposite. Since from firing, any gun get hot. So usually you try to cool it ?

 

So what was the normal  load Inf man would carry?  I see from you link what they would use on average or  was given on average , or I misunderstood it?

"In perspective, this is a fairly high ammunition expenditure. 20 rounds per man was the expectation of a typical battle at the time."

But what would be normal load man carry with him ? 20?

 

When gunpowder ignites a lot of it isn't completely burnt, and the "carbon" (more like charcoal, but we always called it carbon in the army - happens with modern cordite weapons too) deposits on the barrel. The heat of the barrel actually bakes it on after a while. Cold water doesn't shift it, only hot water and a scour.

 

Because of this the barrel is constantly getting "tighter" and with every round the ramming becomes more difficult until ultimately the gun completely clogs. At that point it's a armourers repair. The weapon could become foul in fairly few rounds, and there are certainly accounts of Springfields fouling after as few as 5 rounds to the point of unusability.

 

Hall discusses this page 328-89: http://www.amazon.com/The-Stand-U-S-Army-Gettysburg/dp/0253342589

 

Troops had space in their cartridge pouches for 40 rounds. They were issued in packs of 10 and one of the rounds was a "cleaner" with a zinc washer, but these were so dangerous the troops threw them away and so usually had 36 rounds. Extra wraps were issued before marching, but these were invariably discarded.

 

The best coverage of this specific to Gettysburg is Bilby, but it's been give years since I read it: http://www.amazon.com/Small-Arms-Gettysburg-Infantry-Americas/dp/1594160546

[TheRomanRuler]

When gunpowder ignites a lot of it isn't completely burnt, and the "carbon" (more like charcoal, but we always called it carbon in the army - happens with modern cordite weapons too) deposits on the barrel. The heat of the barrel actually bakes it on after a while. Cold water doesn't shift it, only hot water and a scour.

 

Because of this the barrel is constantly getting "tighter" and with every round the ramming becomes more difficult until ultimately the gun completely clogs. At that point it's a armourers repair. The weapon could become foul in fairly few rounds, and there are certainly accounts of Springfields fouling after as few as 5 rounds to the point of unusability.

 

Hall discusses this page 328-89: http://www.amazon.com/The-Stand-U-S-Army-Gettysburg/dp/0253342589

 

Troops had space in their cartridge pouches for 40 rounds. They were issued in packs of 10 and one of the rounds was a "cleaner" with a zinc washer, but these were so dangerous the troops threw them away and so usually had 36 rounds. Extra wraps were issued before marching, but these were invariably discarded.

 

The best coverage of this specific to Gettysburg is Bilby, but it's been give years since I read it: http://www.amazon.com/Small-Arms-Gettysburg-Infantry-Americas/dp/1594160546

Interesting, this just improved value of bayonet a lot, and makes sense why commanders so often ordered bayonet charges. 

And another reason why cartidges are so superior, altough even without this issue they would be superior. 

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Not all Cartridge pouches were made the same. Some were worn on their belt others on a strap. Some were larger some were smaller. Some were handmade most were factory made. Some soldiers even carried two pouches. Especially the Confederates. No two Southern soldier were dressed in the same garb. The only uniformity was that there was no uniformity.

 

All these suggestions people keep rattling off all of them could be true if and when Game-Labs / Darth allow us to mod our own games. Say hello to every thing you asked for. Plus more.

[Tormidal]

All these suggestions people keep rattling off all of them could be true if and when Game-Labs / Darth allow us to mod our own games. Say hello to every thing you asked for. Plus more.

 

Considering we own the game on Steam, its more of a, "...when Darth allows us to mod their games."

 

Anywho, I doubt we'll see mod support until after a multiplayer pass. Which could be a while.

[MikeK]

The ammo issue was already addressed as a basic design matter up front in the guide thread - ammo is one of the things represented by Condition, which is bolstered most by attention from Corps level and replenishes best when a distance from combat. The absence of commanders represented on the field may reflect in part supply conditions in that scenario. As the commander on the field, protecting the victory point objectives is what protects the line of supply to the southeast.

 

I think that's all that needs to be said about the player as quartermaster.

 

A strategic level game would consider supply lines explicitly. A regiment or brigade commander game might get into the details of supply as well as other details of dispositions and defenses such as occupying and strengthening buildings for defense, clearing fields of fire, and controlling subunits.  

[Edgy]

*  The typical private carried 40 rounds in his cartridge box, and 20 in his haversack or pockets.

 

Civil War soldiers carried sixty rounds per man, not forty (forty rounds was what the typical cartridge box of the time was meant to hold), and the habit of carrying extra rounds in their pockets and haversacks stopped very early on.

 

As correctly stated in this thread, to re-supply, units (infantry & artillery) were rotated 'off the line'. Artillery did this while in action, but I cannot recall and instance of reading of an infantry unit doing it while engaged. There are a few instances where Infantry had to fix bayonets due to shortage of ammunition, but not many.

 

Confederate Artillery batteries had problems with ammunition supply, because their four gun batteries were usually a mixture of different guns, which was a logistics nightmare.

 

I can't see the sense in making supply a problem in game, simply because it was not a real problem during the actual battle. Chamberlains men on Little Round Top were the exception, not the rule. It sounds great in theory, but anyone who has played Scourge of War Gettysburg will know what a total nightmare it turns into when you have to start taking your units out of action to re-supply them.

[David Fair]

Edgy,

 

There are a couple of documented cases of infantry resupply on the line - but it was unusual.

I've found references to one or two examples of resupply on the line in about 30% of the major ACW battles.

 

At Gettysburg for example:

The Iron Brigade ran low on ammunition on Day 1.  

Ordnance Sgt. Bert O'Connor took three wagons with 6-mule teams forward to resupply on the firing line.

The CSA artillery opened fire on the wagons.

The three wagons dropped off 70,000 rounds and O'Connor chopped the boxes open with an ax.

A couple of his mules were killed, and one of the wagons had the rear wheels and axle shot off.

All of the wagons were hit by multiple artillery rounds - but they all escaped to Cemetery Hill.

The wagon with the missing rear wheels was pulled off the field by a 5 mule team on its front wheels with its rear end dragging.

 

Culp's Hill units were also resupplied while in action.  

The ammo boxes were dropped in the rear.  Regiments were assigned as runners to carry pocket-fulls of ammunition up to the line.

 

Bottom line - both sides managed to keep their front line units operational by rotation or resupply in unusual and desperate situations.

While some regiments did run low on ammunition - at the brigade level ammunition was reasonably well managed.

It doesn't make sense to make ammunition a factor in a game at this scale.

[Paul_KT]

Condition nicely represents lack of ammo, and it slowly recovering once your off the firing line represents resupply either from wagons or bodies.

I guess the only problem with artillery is the morale dropping when you loose condition, although I guess that makes sense in as much as you wouldn't want to be in the firing line if you knew you were shot on ammo.

[MikeC]

Already mentioned a lot but just to toss my 2 cents to the devs.

 

Why are you even considering this feature?  Everything about your game indicates that you are testing a player's knowledge and understanding of ACW army level tactics ie cover, use of artillery, when to concentrate troops and when to keep them dispersed, timing of attacks and not unduly committing units in combat to keep them fresh.

 

Ammo does nothing except test a player's ability to be a bean counter.  If this was Ultimate Quartermaster Gettysburg, I would understand.  The player, in the game, occupies the position of someone like a Longstreet or AP Hill on the map while the branching scenario options has the player occupying the role of a General Lee or Meade with respect to overall Army strategy.  These people did not typically concern himself with a brigade's ammo supply.  He drew up plans, issued orders and if a unit commander told him he couldn't go for whatever reason, the orders changed or he was told to make do.

 

Your game actually does this very well, the AI's shortcomings notwithstanding.  Don't ruin a good game with 'feature creep' like ammo just because its 'more realistic' in someone's eyes.  Adding ammo would actually make it less realistic as the people who's position you occupied didn't worry about such things, they had subordinates to do that.

[Yawgmoth]

The trouble with lack of ammo being integrated in condition is that you can see how much it effects and how fast it replennishs.

I rather have the over all condition with a sup indicator for stammina, constitution and ammo.

[deadmike]

i would say,make both options available to play,if doable.of does that mean you have something in the works for supply units?

[MikeK]

Having both options available is a big deal. It requires more code, changes tactics, needs an additional set of AI heuristics. 

[CSA Watkins]

....snip

 

I'm pointing out that you're adding elements that are already covered in the game.  Don't you think the condition bar handles "ammo"? 

 

AS PER THE GAME RULES and how it was intended by the developers :

 

"Your unit status is calculated dynamically. The summary of these parameters is visualized by their morale, condition (simulating fatigue and ammo replenishment), cover and reload bars in unit info panel. Unit status has an immense impact on a unit's performance and should always be considered when making decisions"

 

Voilà!  I don't see a need to separate and micromanage something already covered and factored into the game by those that created it.  Do I think ammo and supply is important in strategy

games like this? Yes. 

Do I think having direct sources for supply makes sense in a segmented time period battle game?  I do not.  I'm quite content with having to pull your men off the line once your condition

is beat to crap to resupply.....snip

********

I agree with soccercw here^^...

Now that I have played more 30 hrs+. I try to avoid a rout at all costs.

I have always assumed condition was a few things, with ammo levels being one.

But having Ammo/Resupply as a seperate condition, would be unnecessary IMO, As soccercw, and others have pointed out with

Condition, doesn't low Condition takes into consideration(Low ammo/fatigue)?

If possible I always have my unit fall back when condition and/or morale gets below 10%, to regenerate.

Than quickly order another unit forward to fill the gap...

 

Edit-\\\\\\\\\\From the online short guide

Condition: Morale directly affects (and is affected by) the unit's condition. This factor is a combination of the current physical state of a unit and an "abstracted" status of its supplies. The unit's condition is affected by its speed, terrain and the distances it has to cover. The usage of firearms increases unit fatigue and the need for resupply.////////