Ammunition consumption under 4.4.258

[BigDuke66]

Well I now in my second scenario with the latest build 4.4.258 and besides some minor things found the big thing for me at the moment is the consumption of ammunition.

Just to understand what is going on I pulled some values out of the game & editors and put them into an excel file to get a clear view, for this I used the 1. Kompanie of the 27. Füsilierregiment in the "Elsborn Ridge" scenario.

Weapons of this company:
74 Kar 98K(7,92mm)
24 MP 40(9mm)
10 leMG 42(7,92mm)
4 sMG 42(7,92mm)
11 Panzerfaust
10 Panzerschreck

Ammo of this company:
15906 7,92mm
3357 9mm
11 Panzerfaust
22 Panzerschreck AP
14 Panzerschreck HE

Now the ROF(Min/Med/Max) for them:
Kar 98K(4/8/12)
MP 40(8/16/32)
leMG 42(20/50/100)
sMG 42(20/60/100)
Panzerfaust(0,5/2/3)
Panzerschreck(0,5/1/2)

Now lets do the math for the main ammo & weapon type the Kar 98K & MG 42s with the 7,92mm ammo:
The total amount of ammo used per minute when using Min/Med/Max settings and what each weapons used of this:
Min 576
Kar 98K - 296(51,39%)
leMG 42 - 200(34,72%)
sMG 42 - 80(13,89%)

Med 1332
Kar 98K - 592(44,44%)
leMG 42 - 500(37,54%)
sMG 42 - 240(18,02%)

Max 2288
Kar 98K - 888(38,81%)
leMG 42 - 1000(43,71%)
sMG 42 - 400(17,48%)

Now how many minutes the ammo would last with constant use:
Min 27,61(27 minutes, 36,6 seconds)
Med 11,94(11 minutes, 56,4 seconds)
Max 6,95(6 minutes, 57 seconds)

So you see that when using Max ROF the ammo can literally burn away, even Med seems very short but may be enough for a single action.
Now while checking all this a saw 2 things, first the ROF is twice of what is listed in the editor, not sure but I think it was changed with a patch.
Second the amount of ammo is the same as in the editor.

So while having twice the ROF we still have the same ammo level, it doesn't surprise that units can run out of ammo in combat very often depending on the ROF setting used and how fast ammo can be resupplied.
Resupply can be a problem too as the scenarios often start with the artillery barrage over leaving the artillery completely empty and sucking away ammo but also because some higher formation like the regiment bases are coming in as reinforcements, this leaves the complete drain for ammo only on the shoulders of division & corps bases.

My current situation is that both division bases and the corps base are empty while some regiment bases especially those arriving later still have supplies left, sometimes even a lot.


Now to soften all this a bit up some ideas of me:
-Review the Estabs and depending on the day of the offensive raise the ammo level by up to 50%.
The ammo levels should be higher on the first day to show preparations for this offensive but later starting scenarios should still also get a bit more to soften the effects of later arriving supply bases.
Furthermore as the ammo level seem to be low anyway I'll check the usually ammo for each weapon/soldier to so how that compares to the ammo levels used now.

-Let the ammo amount have impact on the combat power level, weapons without ammo should be taken out of the CP calculation so the player knows how strong/weak the unit is without ammo. Also a message for low & zero ammo of the 2-3 main weapon/ammo types of a unit would be good, it would catch the attention of the player.
Both should give the player a clue when something is not going right, usually the player just wonders much too long why something isn't really getting ahead till he checks to unit details and sees that it has run out of ammo, usually it's by know much to late to do something that still has impact in the current action.

-Allow newly arrived units to perform there resupply events instantly so that new bases get incorporated into the supply chain immediately but also to readjust the supply bases of battalions already on map but using the higher division/corps base for resupply.
What is used on the "no orders delay" for newly arrived units could also be done for the resupply.

-Introduce a system of supply redistribution where units attacking, moving, etc. together redistribute there supplies to units running low on ammo, fuel & basics.
What was done at a very small scale by for example by moving ammo crates from the left flank of a company to the right because the ammo consumption was so high there could maybe also be doe on a bigger scale, as this is mainly battalion level game a redistribution between companies close together would be my idea, this could soften up effects of companies running out of ammo in battalion level attacks.

-Ultimately a "backup plan" could be brought into action to move units that ran out of ammo further back(maybe change places with the reserve unit?) till resupplied, this should ideally not have a complete replan as a result but more a "on the fly" rearrangement to continue the current action.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Well I now in my second scenario with the latest build 4.4.258 and besides some minor things found the big thing for me at the moment is the consumption of ammunition.

Just to understand what is going on I pulled some values out of the game & editors and put them into an excel file to get a clear view, for this I used the 1. Kompanie of the 27. Füsilierregiment in the "Elsborn Ridge" scenario.

. . .

So you see that when using Max ROF the ammo can literally burn away, even Med seems very short but may be enough for a single action.
Now while checking all this a saw 2 things, first the ROF is twice of what is listed in the editor, not sure but I think it was changed with a patch.
Second the amount of ammo is the same as in the editor.

So while having twice the ROF we still have the same ammo level, it doesn't surprise that units can run out of ammo in combat very often depending on the ROF setting used and how fast ammo can be resupplied.
Resupply can be a problem too as the scenarios often start with the artillery barrage over leaving the artillery completely empty and sucking away ammo but also because some higher formation like the regiment bases are coming in as reinforcements, this leaves the complete drain for ammo only on the shoulders of division & corps bases.

My current situation is that both division bases and the corps base are empty while some regiment bases especially those arriving later still have supplies left, sometimes even a lot.




Now to soften all this a bit up some ideas of me:
-Review the Estabs and depending on the day of the offensive raise the ammo level by up to 50%.
The ammo levels should be higher on the first day to show preparations for this offensive but later starting scenarios should still also get a bit more to soften the effects of later arriving supply bases.
Furthermore as the ammo level seem to be low anyway I'll check the usually ammo for each weapon/soldier to so how that compares to the ammo levels used now.

This would only realistically apply to those scenarios where there is a build up of strength before a planned offensive.

Many of the game's scenarios start times are after a degree of maneuver and combat has depleted stockpiles assembled before the campaign started.

In HttR, XXX Corps is operating on an increasingly stressed supply line from the time it breaks out from Joe's Bridge to the end of the scenario and the Airborne troops are on a thin thread until XXX Corps opens the highway to their bases.

In BftB, German forces are operating on a stressed supply line after the initial attack.

In addition, those German forces were committed with a shortage of optimum fuel for mechanized forces. Part of the strategy for the attack required taking American supply dumps assure successful completion of the operation. That particular lack of fuel not only harms the ability of mechanized units to maneuver toward their objectives, but also limits the amount of ammo that can be sent from the rear areas to forward troops as those troops advance.

. . .

-Ultimately a "backup plan" could be brought into action to move units that ran out of ammo further back(maybe change places with the reserve unit?) till resupplied, this should ideally not have a complete replan as a result but more a "on the fly" rearrangement to continue the current action.

This is one of the key issues a combat commander has to address -- how long does a unit stay in combat before it needs rest and recovery? Most combat is not all units fighting at once, but a rotation of units between high activity phases (generally offensive operations), medium activity phases (maneuver / probe) and low activity phases (generally defensive / rest operations). Resupply is generally conducted during a unit's low activity phase.

I think I've noted cases where the AI will mount an battalion attack by assigning a company or two to take the objective while the remaining forces either provide fire support, maneuver to new locations, or remain in reserve.

It serves as a reminder to me of how to be a good commander with my own forces [:)]

[BigDuke66]

Of course it has to be adjusted to the initial scenario setup, but especially units for BFTB on the first day seem to have been out of action for a longer time, and I'm also sure that the Wehrmacht scratched together any supplies they could get their hands on as this was such an important offensive.

I now checked the usual ammo loadout for the German company, makes your yaw drop:

These are "early" values, meaning they are from the early phase of the warm the MG numbers are surely for an MG 34 so an MG 42 maybe had even more with its high ROF:
98K: 60 + 5 in the rifle
MP 40: 192 + 32 in the MP(Some sources say the MP wasn't usually loaded as it could go easily off, so we may only have the normal 192 rounds with an empty weapon)
StG 44: 180 + 30 in the gun
leMG 42: 2500
sMG 42: 4750

Now do the math for the unit above:
74 Kar 98K(7,92mm) = 4810 rounds
24 MP 40(9mm) = between 4608 and 5376
10 leMG 42(7,92mm) = 25000
4 sMG 42(7,92mm) = 19000


3357 9mm is about 72,85% to 62,44% of what was normally assigned.
15906 7,92mm is about 32,58% of what was normally assigned.

So it makes clear that when going into combat with not even 1/3 of the main ammo type your in deep trouble, this counts especially for the German units as they are "MG heavy" meaning that they relied more on the MG and saw the 98K as a support weapon for the MGs.
And so observations like a company of Parachute infantry running into a tiny platoon and being out of ammo after a while is really not surprising anymore when you look at these figures.

I will now see and check the general ammo situation and see if I can find something about the preparations of the offensive, I hope so of these stock values don't make a sense at all and have to be adjusted.

[wodin]

Seems very quick indeed.

Now how many minutes the ammo would last with constant use:
Min 27,41
Med 11,85
Max 6,90

Though there are only 60 secs in a minute...

[BigDuke66]

I changed that in my first post now.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Of course it has to be adjusted to the initial scenario setup, but especially units for BFTB on the first day seem to have been out of action for a longer time, and I'm also sure that the Wehrmacht scratched together any supplies they could get their hands on as this was such an important offensive.

I now checked the usual ammo loadout for the German company, makes your yaw drop:

These are "early" values, meaning they are from the early phase of the warm the MG numbers are surely for an MG 34 so an MG 42 maybe had even more with its high ROF:
98K: 60 + 5 in the rifle
MP 40: 192 + 32 in the MP(Some sources say the MP wasn't usually loaded as it could go easily off, so we may only have the normal 192 rounds with an empty weapon)
StG 44: 180 + 30 in the gun
leMG 42: 2500
sMG 42: 4750

Now do the math for the unit above:
74 Kar 98K(7,92mm) = 4810 rounds
24 MP 40(9mm) = between 4608 and 5376
10 leMG 42(7,92mm) = 25000
4 sMG 42(7,92mm) = 19000


3333 9mm is about 72,33% to 61,99% of what was normally assigned.
15793 7,92mm is about 32,35% of what was normally assigned.

So it makes clear that when going into combat with not even 1/3 of the main ammo type your in deep trouble, this counts especially for the German units as they are "MG heavy" meaning that they relied more on the MG and saw the 98K as a support weapon for the MGs.
And so observations like a company of Parachute infantry running into a tiny platoon and being out of ammo after a while is really not surprising anymore when you look at these figures.

I will now see and check the general ammo situation and see if I can find something about the preparations of the offensive, I hope so of these stock values don't make a sense at all and have to be adjusted.

I don't have figures on what the German initial loadout was for the Von Rundstedt Offensive, but do know once the forces assigned to attack were in place the supplies to support the effort were scratched together by diverting resupply for combat units on Germany's three fronts that weren't assigned to the attack, with the commodity in least availability being fuel.

Lack of fuel not only affects a mechanized unit's capability to advance, but also denies advancing units the transport necessary to conduct resupply beyond the step off point.

If more supplies were available for the initial assault, the lack of fuel has to be factored into any resupply planning at least until the Germans capture the allied fuel dumps which were among their early objectives necessary to sustain the attack.

[BigDuke66]

Indeed fuel is a good point but you alway have to think of the backup for every motorization, horse drawn wagons.
Check this out this as an example:
http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn149v1sep44.htm
Your see how many horse wagons are used at the Troß where usually also the ammo reserves could be placed if the motorized elements like the RSO ran out of fuel.


I tried to check the ammo situation and although I didn't find exact figures I can say that the ammo situation wasn't good for infantry weapons despite production being raised and raised again with a peak in September 1944 because the consumption raised even more.
So a lower load-out even at start seems OK, the big BUT here is that the units already use a lowered percentage for ammo(usually around the same percentage as used for personal) and the other big BUT is that the 100% figures seem to be way off.
Take the figure for 7,92mm ammo, the company here should have 48810 rounds of it but has only 15906 but still it's listed has having 78% of ammo what means 100% ammo would be about 20392 and still that isn't even half of what the unit should have.
To make sure I get everything right I also checked a SS tank company, that unit uses 200% and after halving these numbers you see that the 100% ammo numbers are close to what each tank should have as combat load, so it seems there is no "game abstraction" of ammo all numbers should be close to what historically was used.

Now of it had 78% of those 48810 it would have about 38072 that that should really help to let the unit not run out of ammo in the first hour of combat.

Maybe someone can point a different light on this problem but for now I can only advise to adjust all small arms ammo and than check again if we are still close to the historical casualty figures so other values like ROF etc are also confirmed this way.

[BigDuke66]

Slowly but surely I get to the bottom of the problem.

Further checking of the Estab shows that the normal ammo load for the weapons are:
98K: 60
MP 40: 180
StG 44: 180
leMG 42: 1000
sMG 42: 2000

You can argue if another 5 rounds are already in the 98K but MP 40 and StG 44 look OK, real problem is the low ammo load for both MG types, this is in my view the explanation of the drain on the 7,92mm ammo with high aggro & ROF settings.
High aggro will lead to firefights starting on great distances, that means first the sMG 42 at 2000 than the leMG 42 at 700 meters will open fire, both have a high ROF and in combination with the high distance the enemy will spend a lot time in their fire, maybe even without ever reaching the range for smaller arms like the 98K(500 meters), StG 44(300 meters) or MP 40(150 meters).
This combination may lead to 7,92mm ammo being literally burned away leaving the unit without ammo for most of their weapons.

First the load must be adjusted for the MG types, but that is not enough the MGs have to get their own ammo type so that a unit can still rely on its rifles if the long range MGs run out of ammo.
Of course the problem is that the ammo was interchangeable but I doubt that any CO would scratch every bullet from every rifle soldier just to allow some MGs another burst on a long range.

I guess I will simply test this, didn't use the editor beyond checking some values but if I'm right the only thing that has to be done is adding the extra ammo MG type simply by copying the values of the normal 7,92mm ammo and change the name for that entry, after that the new ammo type has to be used on the MG weapon entries and that seems to be it unless I missed something.

Has anyone already toyed around with the Estab editor?

[wodin]

Yes Harry has changed it so the MG's draw from their own supply...

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
I guess I will simply test this, didn't use the editor beyond checking some values but if I'm right the only thing that has to be done is adding the extra ammo MG type simply by copying the values of the normal 7,92mm ammo and change the name for that entry, after that the new ammo type has to be used on the MG weapon entries and that seems to be it unless I missed something.

Has anyone already toyed around with the Estab editor?

You're on the right track, BigDuke regarding the necessary operations on the estabs. And I do think this is an interesting thing to investigate.

EDIT: You will need to revise the Minimum Order Qty's Ammo and the Weight object attributes. As the Estab Editor manual says, this number is used to determine the minimum number of rounds that can be delivered when resupplying (and has an impact on the supply throughput). The weight is also quite important to keep in line with amounts listed in the minimum order quantity.

EDIT #2: Linked with the above. Another thing to make sure of is that supply bases have enough vehicles able to transport and deliver these supplies these minimum orders. Check the Payload Capacity of vehicles to get a hold on this.

However, if you add new types of ammo in the Estab, you'll need to revise the scenarios accordingly.

On the other hand, I'd recommend you to change the name of the Estab so you always have the original version for reference. Then, you'll need to bind the scenario to the new estab. I can do this for you and check that everything is in order. Just PM me with links to the Estab and the scenario you want change and I'll get back to you.

Last, but not least, you might want to contact simovitch and ask him for a rationale of the scenarios supply conditions and the estabs (I think he coordinated most of the work on the BFTB estabs and scenarios).

[Lieste]

Supply isn't really a huge problem as even a full strength complete resupply of small arms for a company is less than 2 tonnes. (for your figures of ammunition quantity and my values for packaged weight this is 1435kg...)

Adding support weapons; mortars, PzF, PzShreck, Pak/Flak type weapons increases this, but still usually less than a single light truck or two wagons. (with the AT ammunition I get 1731kg for a 100% resupply).

Weight of food and water is usually between half and one tonne depending on multipliers and personnel quantity. *Worst case* is that two trucks will be used to deliver supply.

[BigDuke66]

Thanks, for now I have only added an MG ammo version for the .30, .303 and 7,92mm without changing any other value.
These ammo types are now used by all the various machine guns(vehicles too) so that rifle/carbine type weapons should still have ammo left even if the MG ammo is used up.


Something else is worrying me more, what about the strange 50/50 ammo loads for almost all tanks, tank destroyer, etc.?
Except for the vehicles that are obvious used in an anti-personal role I would expect an anti-armor vehicle to carry a lot more AP rounds than HE rounds, especially as there is almost always an anti-infantry weapon on board(usually an MG).

BTW maybe I mix that up with another game but aren't the HE rounds capable of penetrating armor too?
But in the Estab I see only zero armor penetration for for HE rounds.

[Lieste]

50% AP is possibly optimistic... and by far the most common target type is infantry, both in game and in the real world...

I suspect that you'll find that rifle ammunition is what runs out fastest ~ ISTR this was the case when this experiment was tried previously.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Indeed fuel is a good point but you alway have to think of the backup for every motorization, horse drawn wagons.
Check this out this as an example:
http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn149v1sep44.htm
Your see how many horse wagons are used at the Troß where usually also the ammo reserves could be placed if the motorized elements like the RSO ran out of fuel.

I understood that the Axis and Soviet armies made significant use of horse transport throughout the war, and the Allies used them to support light unit operations and some artillery movement, but from a logistician's planning standpoint you're substituting a demand for hay to avoid a demand for fuel [:D]

Feeding horses is probably not that significant in the timespans covered by BftB scenarios, but I'd expect transitioning supply operations from trucks to horse drawn wagons would increase response time to satisfy pull demands from units running out of ammo.

I tried to check the ammo situation and although I didn't find exact figures I can say that the ammo situation wasn't good for infantry weapons despite production being raised and raised again with a peak in September 1944 because the consumption raised even more.
So a lower load-out even at start seems OK, the big BUT here is that the units already use a lowered percentage for ammo(usually around the same percentage as used for personal) and the other big BUT is that the 100% figures seem to be way off.

Keep in mind there's an organic "designed to" capacity for supplies. Once a unit is built up to 100 percent of all capacities in that "design to" specification, altering one quantity results in lowering another to account for the space and weight of the added equipment.

Also, units might step off with the "design to" capacities at 100 percent early in a mission, but attrition and supply response to demands during the operation result in less equipment being available at a point in time than what was optimum while the unit was being refitted for the operation.

It's not unrealistic that a unit 12-hours into a battle could be added to a task group for an attack on a key position at a time it had only 33 percent of its "design to" ammo amount available.

Places a bigger burden on the commander to analyze his situation before the attack and make decisions on how to use units in the attack to husband the remaining supplies until a resupply demand can be completed.

The beauty of BftB for those interested in the command and control aspects of combat is it exposes a player to those dynamics.

That said, I used to plus up the magazines on aircraft carriers to 100 percent of all weapons in Harpoon because I didn't like the idea that my task force had to defeat a Soviet Backfire-launched anti-ship missile attack with what I considered "too few" Air to Air missiles [:)]

Take the figure for 7,92mm ammo, the company here should have 48810 rounds of it but has only 15906 but still it's listed has having 78% of ammo what means 100% ammo would be about 20392 and still that isn't even half of what the unit should have.
To make sure I get everything right I also checked a SS tank company, that unit uses 200% and after halving these numbers you see that the 100% ammo numbers are close to what each tank should have as combat load, so it seems there is no "game abstraction" of ammo all numbers should be close to what historically was used.

Now of it had 78% of those 48810 it would have about 38072 that that should really help to let the unit not run out of ammo in the first hour of combat.

Maybe someone can point a different light on this problem but for now I can only advise to adjust all small arms ammo and than check again if we are still close to the historical casualty figures so other values like ROF etc are also confirmed this way.

This might be because "other" ammo was included at more than "standard" for unit's designed carrying capacity, and something had to be reduced to allow the unit's organic transport to handle the added ammo.

Or, it could reflect that the unit was included in an operation after it had been pulled from a non-modeled operation that reduced the amount of available ammo at that point in time.

Assuming the original designer had a reason to set ammo at less than optimum for the start of the battle, and if one is interested in retaining the scenario designer's intent (I'd assume modeled under the "historical" setting for the game start options), any changes in supply capacity should be triggered by a "more supply" option in SceneMaker instead of a plus-up for the historical setting.

Bottom line is noting the discrepancies between ideal and existing situation is a healthy exploration of the issues affecting military decisions.

Changing the parameters to get more desirable outcomes should be documented as varying from original design (e.g. a variant to the original design or a trigger under supply or reinforcement options that acknowledges the player wants to alter the scenario designer's intent to seek a different outcome).

Hope this helps.

[BigDuke66]

I guess the problem with the horse drawn wagons could only really be solved when smaller bases would be in the game like bases for battalions.
But I'm also not sure that the transport columns of the higher bases do only use trucks, at least in the game there is only "vehicles" mentioned so it may also be that some form of lower & slower transport capacity was folded intot the supply system.

I'm not sure what you mean with "organic "designed to" capacity", as far as I can see it wouldn't matter for the unit itself if I simply would double all the ammo, things like speed don't seem to take these changes into the calculation as such values are set in the Estab of the unit itself.

It may not be unrealistic for the unit to be lower on ammo but as said the infantry units have already a lower ammo value, they seem to use % around the same % as their personal uses.

I don't see an intended reduction in ammo, many infantry units don't have any organic transport in there TOE in the game, the unit I took as example only has 2 bicycles not very likely that these are used for ammo transport, it seems some very very general values where used for the ammo loads of each weapon, that can already be seen when comparing the allied & Axis ammo loads they almost always seem to be the same but I bet the loads differed usually, why would an Allied MG team carry the same amount of ammo when first the allies didn't focus their infantry around MGs and second the ROF of the weapon was much lower compared to the MG 42, this is just one example where I'm very sure that the loads were not the same.

Of course there is always the chance that the unit was in combat before but the point is that the "standard ammo load" has to be corrected so the player can us that as base for adjusting the ammo values up or down depending on the state of the unit. 80% of a value that is totally off is still totally OFF.

The real odd thing for now is the while we had seen "historical outcomes" mentioned in the patch threads again and again, these were all achieved with a totally a-historical ammo load, so adjusting these values and retesting the scenario will show the real picture and will show if the outcomes are still historical or not.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I guess the problem with the horse drawn wagons could only really be solved when smaller bases would be in the game like bases for battalions.
But I'm also not sure that the transport columns of the higher bases do only use trucks, at least in the game there is only "vehicles" mentioned so it may also be that some form of lower & slower transport capacity was folded intot the supply system.

I'm not sure what you mean with "organic "designed to" capacity", as far as I can see it wouldn't matter for the unit itself if I simply would double all the ammo, things like speed don't seem to take these changes into the calculation as such values are set in the Estab of the unit itself.

"Organic" refers to what's authorized to a unit in terms of troops and equipment to accomplish its intended mission. "Design to capacity" is engineering jargon, in this case referring to how much weight and space is expected to be available in a unit's organic structure to haul supplies after the troops, their weapons, and towed equipment are accounted for. For a unit to be mobile, those supplies would include rations, fuel, and ammunition. If a unit is asked to haul more ammo, unless more equipment is assigned to haul that extra ammo, then the unit has to leave something else behind to remain inside its "design to capacity" for carrying things.

It even applies to marching troops. Tell them to carry 5 kg more ammo per trooper and they either drop off some other gear they're hauling or move slower because they're carrying more weight.

Now, having a soldier walking slower because more weight was added to their pack may not be modeled in the game, but it's a real life consideration that should be considered for its impact on game play "realism."

It may not be unrealistic for the unit to be lower on ammo but as said the infantry units have already a lower ammo value, they seem to use % around the same % as their personal uses.

I don't see an intended reduction in ammo, many infantry units don't have any organic transport in there TOE in the game, the unit I took as example only has 2 bicycles not very likely that these are used for ammo transport, it seems some very very general values where used for the ammo loads of each weapon, that can already be seen when comparing the allied & Axis ammo loads they almost always seem to be the same but I bet the loads differed usually, why would an Allied MG team carry the same amount of ammo when first the allies didn't focus their infantry around MGs and second the ROF of the weapon was much lower compared to the MG 42, this is just one example where I'm very sure that the loads were not the same.

Very definitely there were different amounts of ammo available for units based on their design, and the design of their support system. Allies on the Western front relied heavily on firepower, and thus significantly increased use of ammo, to support their tactics. As a consequence, Allied line units historically had more organic transport assigned to move the unit and the larger "standard load" of ammo supplies necessary to sustain the higher firepower rates. Allied supply support units that responded to pull requests for resupply also had more assigned transport to speed up the process of replenishing depleted units.

It's modeled into the Estabs as best I can tell.

Of course there is always the chance that the unit was in combat before but the point is that the "standard ammo load" has to be corrected so the player can us that as base for adjusting the ammo values up or down depending on the state of the unit. 80% of a value that is totally off is still totally OFF.

Again, a "standard load" for a maneuver unit is dependent on how many transport assets, how much space those transport units provide, and how much weight they can haul. In the case of the unit with two bicycles, it means that the "standard load" can't be any larger or its pieces heavier than what each soldier can carry on his back.

The allies on the Western Front accounted for it by assigning more trucks than necessary to simply move troops and pull towed weapons.

The real odd thing for now is the while we had seen "historical outcomes" mentioned in the patch threads again and again, these were all achieved with a totally a-historical ammo load, so adjusting these values and retesting the scenario will show the real picture and will show if the outcomes are still historical or not.

I recall some discussion about adjusting firing rates and / or ammo loads, formations, and unit cohesion and morale sensitivity to create "more realistic" casualties.

The release notices describing each of the last two beta patches should contain some reference whether adjustments were made to impact casualty counts and how those adjustments were accomplished.

[BigDuke66]

Indeed but I still wonder if the engine really slows a unit down, applies more fatigue or what ever to account for a too small transport capacity, as said the speed of a unit is entered in the editor, it doesn't seem to be based on the speed of vehicles, men or horses, also the load of what has to be transported doesn't seem to play a role but maybe I misunderstand the engine here.

The problem now is that while it's realistic to base the amount that can be transported on the transport capacity, the amount of the ammo is purely based on the weapon itself, so while a unit with a small transport capacity would obviously load less ammo in reality it does not so in the game, here it's just a matter of how many weapons the unit has and what load each weapon is assigned in the editor.

But still I would go for a standard load to cover the majority of units, the company I used as example was a bad choice, on of the strange units that may have to get an extra Estab entry to simulate it better, it's a Füsilierkompanie of a Füsilieregiment of a Volkesgrenadierdivisiosn but the Estab shows the layout of "WF - ID - Gren Coy" what seems to simulate a normal grenadier company of a normal infantry division, this may or may not be correct I can't verify that but at least that its transport capacity is nonexistent and purely based on that the man can carry looks strange.

Anyhow other companies like the ones from the 990 Gren Regt are a better choice as example, here you see a lot transport capacity(3450kg) but the strange thing here is that while I don't see that the Bn HQ plays any part in supply distribution its transport room is even bigger with 3900kg, although it needs less transport capacity it has more allocated for what ever reason.
As the heavy MGs of the 4th company are spread across the 3 infantry companies the transport capacity of the 4th co should maybe also be spread across the other companies, this way I'm sure the ammo could be raised without changing the units behavior, if the additional weight of the ammo would do that at all.
If it would have an impact extra weapon types should be added to the Estab to make versions that only have a very low ammo load to simulate units without transport capacity.

@Lieste
Tried to find any evidence but the only clue I got for now is a look at "Theatre of War" were detailed ammo loads are listed and to my surprised almost all tanks and AT-guns have more HE rounds than all the different AT capable rounds together, so it seems that we are even better of with the usual 50/50 load.
But I wonder how the engine handles all this, I mean if it is as easy as target as armor so AP is used than we might still have to raise AP ammo, usually the light armored targets were also attacked with HE rounds or some sub-version of HE, for example a normal AP round would simply go thru the transport compartment of a halftrack and would only leave a hole behind, a HE round would have done better as the small armor was never ment to stop more than infantry bullets or light shrapnels.
Maybe Arunja can tell how the engine is handling all this.

[simovitch]

I haven't read through all the posts here but I have noticed that ammo expenditure has gone crazy with the recent builds. While testing the COTA scenarios last week I noticed that units were now firing off their last rounds just a couple of hours into the game, and I have never seen that before.

I would caution anyone who is modifying ammo loads to suit a condition based on the current build, becuse it may change. In fact it definitley needs to be looked into IMO.

The scenarios were designed with a more conservative agressiveness built in, as were the current estab ammo loads and supply settings.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

I haven't read through all the posts here but I have noticed that ammo expenditure has gone crazy with the recent builds. While testing the COTA scenarios last week I noticed that units were now firing off their last rounds just a couple of hours into the game, and I have never seen that before.

I would caution anyone who is modifying ammo loads to suit a condition based on the current build, becuse it may change. In fact it definitley needs to be looked into IMO.

The scenarios were designed with a more conservative agressiveness built in, as were the current estab ammo loads and supply settings.

I tend to go the other way around. Trying to limit ammo wasting, by decreasing/increasing effective ranges for various weapon systems and seperating small arms ammo, so that game engagement ranges better coincide with RL ones. That means way shorter ER for SMG and Rifles and somewhat longer ones for MG. Yet still the rifles do most of ammo expenditure and the AI is somewhat hesitant to use MG´s more. I´ve yet to find the right balance, but tendency is for the better already. Can´t tell about the standard (unedited) ESTAB, but with non seperated small arms ammo, it´s hard to tell who burns most of it.

Another personal edit is to make Fausts non single shot and increase ammo load from 1 to 2. So 10 men could actually carry 20 and no extra men need to be deducted from the fighters with small arms.

HE/Aper effect for Fausts is gone as well. Only gives shrapnel (and little actual blast) effects when something is hit, that provides this shrapnel (trees=wood splinters, walls=rocks and bricks splinters ect.), but otherwise does little in this regard.

This quarantees that the anyway low Faust allocations aren´t wasted as poor mans Arty, when they should be rather preserved for use vs. armor.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

@Lieste
Tried to find any evidence but the only clue I got for now is a look at "Theatre of War" were detailed ammo loads are listed and to my surprised almost all tanks and AT-guns have more HE rounds than all the different AT capable rounds together, so it seems that we are even better of with the usual 50/50 load.
But I wonder how the engine handles all this, I mean if it is as easy as target as armor so AP is used than we might still have to raise AP ammo, usually the light armored targets were also attacked with HE rounds or some sub-version of HE, for example a normal AP round would simply go thru the transport compartment of a halftrack and would only leave a hole behind, a HE round would have done better as the small armor was never ment to stop more than infantry bullets or light shrapnels.
Maybe Arunja can tell how the engine is handling all this.

While the 50/50 loads are a good base most the time, I sometimes wish for more bias towards AP or APer. A good example is the Stug III G, which more and more was used in the anti armor roles and supplemented with the StuH42 to take over the part in fighting soft targets. Also Stug crews almost always removed the shell mountings in the field, to enable carrying up to 70-80 rounds, with a ratio favoring AP.

Edit: I see that the Stug loads in 258 are already changed this way. [:)]

With regard to HE vs (non thick) armor, it was common (german) practice to use a delayed fuse (Aufschlagzünder mit Verzögerung), vs anything that does not necessiate using true AP (39/40). So I too would be interested in how the AI decides on this particular ammo usage.