Ammo

[dazkaz15]

Another ammo related problem, this time to do with friendly Bn HQ AI.

The Bn HQ was given a move order with "Allow Attacks" ticked.

It put in a great attack, sending in one of his line units to vanquish the first enemy position, but then instead of swapping out the unit for one of the other two that still had full ammo load outs, It then sent the same, unit out on point duty, then made another attack on the next enemy position, with that unit, completely out of ammo, while the other two were left out of the plan.

This wouldn't normally be a big problem in other games because there is no orders delay, but in this game if you baby sit your Bn HQ's and remove the out of ammo unit from the formation, it will cause the Bn HQ to re-plan thus losing about an hour due to new orders delays, which kind of completely mitigates any advantage of keeping them attached to a HQ in the first place, you might just as well move them yourself individually they will get there quicker even with an overloaded on map boss.

[dazkaz15]

Next attack

Notice also how it never included the mortar in the attack at all, for indirect fire support.

[wodin]

Daz as the ammo thing is a new issue..the game has never swapped out units due to ammo loss..however it's something that now needs to be programmed in.

Your expecting the game to do something it never has done..so it wasn't really needed. Hopefully Dave will now see this is something that needs to be worked on.

I think the formations working properly now coupled with the new combat fixes which meant units engage twice as often have brought this issue to a head.

The mortar issue also needs looking at..though maybe it was worried about friendly casualties.

[dazkaz15]

deleted double post

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Daz as the ammo thing is a new issue..the game has never swapped out units due to ammo loss..however it's something that now needs to be programmed in.

Your expecting the game to do something it never has done..so it wasn't really needed. Hopefully Dave will now see this is something that needs to be worked on.

I think the formations working properly now coupled with the new combat fixes which meant units engage twice as often have brought this issue to a head.

The mortar issue also needs looking at..though maybe it was worried about friendly casualties.

Thanks for the reply wodin.

I didn't think it was a feature of the previous build, but was not really sure as, like you say ammo was never really an issue before.

That's why I posted it here instead of the Beta thread, because it is a needed new feature, that needs more discussion, time, and probably needs to wait for an expansion, for development cost reasons.

But unless we bring these things to Dave's attention he will never know [;)]

Or maybe he was just hoping no one would ever notice [:D]

[dazkaz15]

Edit:
Deleted double post

[wodin]

Daz oh it really does need to be brought to Daves attention.

I think sometimes we should head these things as urgent feature request or suggestion.

[Phoenix100]

Wodin has a point about mortars and friendly casualties. I've noticed that the AI does not seem to, as it were, uncheck the 'avoid friendlies' box, ever. This comes into operation at ranges which I'm sure are sensible, but I ignore them all the time when putting in manual bombards, without injuring any of my own (or rarely). So that may well be what is going on with the attack order in some circs. But not all. The mortars should definitely put in a prelim bombard and - as I said before - Dave has confirmed this and I have seen it happen in previous builds. It's something that's got broke, I think. I will need to watch and see if it ever happens in my games. Part of the problem with these things for me is that I still so rarely use Attack orders. Time is always pressing and though attacks go in quicker now, it still seems more efficient to use a variety of other strategies. For instance I've notice that an 'aggressive' Probe order (with aggro, ROF and losses maxed) seems to work very much quicker and often have the desired result. For better or worse I've got to never trusting the AI to put in a crucial bombard (on an actual attack, for example) because - due to the above mentioned caution on the part of the AI - it's always the case that I can manually put in something more effective, keeping it going right up to point of contact.

As to swapping out units low on ammo in order to effectively continue an assault I would have thought that should not be regarded as a new feature at all. Isn't that what the reserve is for. Or the rear gaurd? Or some units that hasn't taken an active initial role? Myself, I have no idea whether the AI would swap out units in previous builds. However, the game exists on the idea that you DO NOT need to micro-manage things like that, and I'm sure Dave would wish to know about it.

It's all good stuff, I think, Daz. It will help improve things - though maybe over a long time frame!

[navwarcol]

I have to double check with mortars, but I have seen my units in close contact(overlapping) with enemy, being bombarded several times.
As to the ammunition issue, I have had to work around it some in the recent two builds. I increased the amount of normally carried ammunition for pretty much all units by about ~20-25%, and begin most scenarios with at least the side that is attacking jumped up near to 200% ammunition level for scenario beginning. It is NOT a permanent fix, but it does give fairly realistic results in the meantime. Most armies that go on offense, stockpile somewhat before beginning it, so that their line units wont be running low already by the time it is a few hours old.
Doing this, as well as holding back a reserve to "plug in" as soon as the offensive seems to be wavering, or as soon as the defense begins to collapse.. has made the ammunition issue mostly disappear for me at this time. Just as in real life, I still have units running low, and need to pull them offline to re-arm, recover, etc...but it does not happen in the first hours of the offensive at least.

[Arjuna]

Hi all,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Just back to Canberra tonight. I'll read through most of the posts tomorrow and respond in turn.

Re Ammo. First off, I don't think it is realistic to just give units more ammo that their normal entitlements. They already get more if their supply priority has been increased via the order setting. Yes they do run out quickly and yes this can cause some problems. So far all that is pretty realistic IMO. What I do think is worthy of consideration is the suggestion that their should be some redistribution of ammo during reorgs - ie at the FUP and especially in the final reorg at the end of an attack. I also think that there may be room to tweak the priority share allocation for ammo when units are assigned to tasks.

Re redistribution. I am thinking that during the final reorg we determine the average ammo holding for each class of ammo and where units are low by a certain percentage eg by at least 10% less than the average, they should get some from those with a greater than average share. To be eligible the units must be within say 500m for foot and 1000m for motorised and be under command and all should be reorging and not retreating or routing.

[wodin]

Dave what about when say a coy starts running short during attack the HQ then swaps it out for the one in reserve..or ammo is sent from the one in reserve to the forward coy?

Dave Simovitch also thought it odd after playing the COTA scenarios from COTA to now playing them with BFTB he found his units running out within a few mins..which didn't happen at all in COTA. Mentioned in one of his posts somewhere.

Dave check The War Room..more ammo discussion there.

Maybe we need to re think our plans and tactics..holding more back in reserve to then swap out with frontline units running low..rinse and repeat when resupplied until fight won or retreat needed.

[navwarcol]

ORIGINAL: wodin

....

Maybe we need to re think our plans and tactics..holding more back in reserve to then swap out with frontline units running low..rinse and repeat when resupplied until fight won or retreat needed.

This is how I was doing most of mine, I think I had commented as much on a post somewhere before about the previous patch. I manually handled the reserves, pulling one company from each btn, and using them as a reserve behind their btn, to step forward as the frontline ones ran low to allow them to resupply, without cutting the legs out from under the offensive in terms of momentum.

@Dave, I agree my solution above was unrealistic, I think I also said it was not meant as a real solution, just was a way to move past this issue in play, so as not to have this one issue cloud the entire sky so to speak. In general, however, it is not unrealistic to add more than 100% supply to the side beginning an offensive, as most competent commanders would not begin an offensive without first stockpiling every spare part, every bullet, every last piece of whatever they think they may need, and then some.

[wodin]

Dave is thinking about how much a foot unit on the move\attack can carry nav...which means you can't really stockpile it onto the soldiers.

Also manually having to swap out coys is way to much micromanagement I feel. it should either be done by the HQ tac ai or ammo sent up from coys in reserve. You know a Coy could be in reserve formation and a runner comes back asking HQ for some more ammo..HQ send out a few soldiers from resverev Coy with ammo cases for frontline COY.

[dazkaz15]

Welcome back Dave.

Your idea sounds great, but like wodin says, unless you put in some kind of AI routine to allow for swapping out of the units as they run out, or ammo sharing during the assault, they will continue to push onto the objective without ammo, and won't get any more until they reach that objective to reorg or die trying.

I think as this ammo thing is such an issue now, you need to look into unarmed combat affects as well.
I have seen way to many times now, entrenched enemies completely surrounded by Coy's all out of ammo, and hardly anything happening. I have a screen shot somewhere of this with 2 Coy right on top of the enemy unit so that you can't even see it without turning of the line unit counters, and it still held out for about another hour or two.

[wodin]

I think if a coy is surrounded and out of ammo it should be an auto surrender after a set time.

[Phoenix100]

I don't think we should have anything 'auto', Jason. So many factors to make it different for each individual company and situation. The game's better than that, no? But I would - as Daz has suggested - like to see the close combat thing looked at, maybe. Is there any hand to hand fighting 'modelled' at the moment? I can't recall what's been said about this before. Might be even more important when we (hopefully) get a platoon level iteration with LOTB)

Peter

[wodin]

Really..well I think if a unit is surrounded and out of ammo surely they would surrender in real life? Hand to hand combat was quite rare but mass surrender wasn't. I very much doubt a Coy with no ammo surrounded by the enemy would still stand and fight bayonet to bayonet? Or actually bayonet vs small arms. So no, I think a auto surrender coded in that is set say anywhere between 1 hour and two hours after the ammo runs out..to give a chance for them to be rescued. If not they surrender..that sort of accounts for a discussion between the troops on what to do.

Otherwise you get the current situation..either the Coy will be wiped out to a man even though in effect they are unarmed..or they are dug in\fortified and they just sit there waiting to be killed or slowly get picked off one by one ..so surrendering in this situation I see no issues with at all. I think the player should either try and get the coy to make a dash for their own lines..or face the coy surrendering.

[RockinHarry]

Think just some the close range combat code has been tweaked so far. I´d to wish for "Nahkampf", or Close Quarters Combat/CQC to be implemented, but is likely somewhat difficult to resolve. I.e when to start any possible CQC mechanics, since there´s many variations possible for unit footprint overlaps. Should all of a unit be affected by CQC resolution, or just parts of it ect. Other factors are fairly "easy" to be determined, like mass, morale, experience and such...

[wodin]

esp difficult to model in built up areas..

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Think just some the close range combat code has been tweaked so far. I´d to wish for "Nahkampf", or Close Quarters Combat/CQC to be implemented, but is likely somewhat difficult to resolve. I.e when to start any possible CQC mechanics, since there´s many variations possible for unit footprint overlaps. Should all of a unit be affected by CQC resolution, or just parts of it ect. Other factors are fairly "easy" to be determined, like mass, morale, experience and such...

[Phoenix100]

Not saying they shouldn't surrender, at some point. Just that there's sophisticated code in this game that can take account of all the diffs involved. Waiting around for the auto surrender time period to expire wouldn't seem realistic by comparison, though I understand that you would like to see the code changed, sure. Myself, I have been quite happy with surrender and rout behaviour in this patch build. Haven't seen anything I would worry about (doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that others haven't come across probs, just I haven't seen any). Actually, I haven't had probs with ammo either (as I said before - I'm never really testing the game, just trying to play it). To me it's looking really good at the moment. Aside from the CTDs that are being dealt with, the only thing that has (only slightly) bothered me is that I have to take direct control of Bn indirect fire if I'm to get what I want because I haven't seen the AI doing anything useful with mortars etc prior to an assault. But that doesn't really bother me, to be honest because it doesn't - to borrow Bletch's phrase - offend against my 'sweetspot' for micro-management (even if it was fixed I'd probably play that way). That and the target/task boxes still appearing to be odd and inconsistent shapes (to me) - though that's a cosmetic issue ony, hardly worth worrying about. For me I'd be happy to move on and have the COTA pack. Not move on and forget all these things - I'm sure Dave will get to most of them at some point - but (CTDs aside) there's no show stoppers for me right now. None I've come across, anyway. And I play it - as in just try to play it and enjoy it and only notice if something goes wrong if it occurs in that context - almost every day for an hour or so at least.

Besides, I'd like to think that where it's a 'pig-headed' unit that surrounded and out of ammo (in terms of its attributes in the scenmaker tab), I have, say, quite a few hours more to rescue it before it gives in, than where it's, by comparison, a 'spineless' unit. So I wouldn't myself prefer anything auto like that.