Ammo problem ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Rokondo -> Ammo problem ? (1/16/2002 2:29:00 PM)

How I load ammo on tank & artillery & rockets?
If there is dump of ammo near them?
How I upload ammo on trucks? Thanks



Resisti -> (1/16/2002 3:40:00 PM)

First you cannot load ammo from an Ammo dump to trucks (guess you wanted to do so in order to bring them nearer to the front..)
Your units can be reloaded both by Ammo dumps or ammo carrier(trucks).
all units which are in the same hex or adjacent to the ammo supplier will receive extra ammo every turn up to when they reach their max allowed or you move them away.
Ammo dumps reload faster than ammo trucks. [ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Resisti ]



Rokondo -> (1/16/2002 3:44:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Resisti:
First you cannot load ammo from an Ammo dump to trucks (guess you wanted to do so in order to bring them nearer to the front..)
Your units can be reloaded both by Ammo dumps or ammo carrier(trucks).
all units which are in the same hex or adjacent to the ammo supplier will receive extra ammo every turn up to when they reach their max allowed or you move them away.
Ammo dumps reload faster than ammo trucks. [ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Resisti ]
Wow thanks



Jacc -> (1/16/2002 6:16:00 PM)

And this causes a lot of cheating: just buy an ammo dump and a Wurfrahmen platoon, and you have unlimited amount of fire rocket firing superkillers - which, accidentally, are SP units, so their reaction time is slower than in OB artillery... This situation has been discussed here earlier.



challenge -> (1/17/2002 12:05:00 AM)

Why is the above described action cheating? Is it a question of it not having been done in reality (historically)? I'm not trying to be sarcastic; it just seems that any tactically successful logistic would be acceptable. I'm sure no one told Rommell that using 88 mm AA guns as AT weapons was cheating.



achappelle -> (1/17/2002 12:29:00 AM)

I think cheating may be a bit too strong a term. But I do think that it is unrealistic given what we know about history. So, if you want a strictly historical simulation, that is rigid, then Wurf's with unlimited ammo isn't right. I do agree with you about Rommel in the "innovation" sense, but using 88's in an AT role is historically "correct", where the first example isn't. What it comes down to is what kind of game do you want, and what do you enjoy?



challenge -> (1/17/2002 1:01:00 AM)

So a purist would not use any innovation in a game that was first used after the date of the scenario being played. I can't use the 88s in Poland; I can in Afrika; France would be up for grabs because it was during that invasion that Rommell pulled this one off. My brain hurts. Innovation helps win battles. I don't really stop to consider whether the tactics I'm using were actually used in the battle I'm fighting because I'm too busy trying to win the game. I guess I'm just not a purist. My idea is that I am trying, in many cases, to do better than the actual commander did: I want to WIN at Stalingrad, I want to TAKE Moscow. I think taking advantage of a bug, or purposely building in a situation that wasn't possible (like using Panthers in Italy) would be cheating. Using available equipment in a better way would not be cheating to me. I understand the point of those who want as acurate a rendition of a battle as possible, I just think that once you deploy those completely historical units, you remove the accuracy -- unless you put them exactly where they were at the time, make the exact same moves and achieve the exact results. Historical accuracy is good in re-enactments, but in simulations I think it stops with the unit mix and terrain reresentation. Ammo is a big issue for me as well. I have pulled units out of the line to reload and turns later they still don't have even one more round than they had when I moved them next to the truck. This is most annoying when I want to get that SP mortar back into operation. I have not been abe to get consistant results, even with artillery next to an ammo dump. I have yet to move an empty AFV next to an Ammo truck and get it back into operation before the game ended. Drat!



Scharfschütze -> (1/17/2002 1:18:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by James Coscinu:
And this causes a lot of cheating: just buy an ammo dump and a Wurfrahmen platoon, and you have unlimited amount of fire rocket firing superkillers - which, accidentally, are SP units, so their reaction time is slower than in OB artillery... This situation has been discussed here earlier.
Let´s add some water to the wine: IMHO this tactic will not work against a HUMAN opponent. In order to completely reload Wurfrahmen or Katyusha launchers every turn you do not need just one, but several Ammo Dumps. In close vicinity. With the launchers next to them. Any opponent who realizes what is going on (two turnsn or two volleys I´d say) will nuke the smoke coming from that area. To avoid this, you could move your launchers to a different spot each time they have fired, move back to the Ammo Dumps, reload, reposition, fire, move back and so on. This reduces your effective rate of fire to one volley every 3-4 turns. Countermeasures are air attacks, infiltrators, speculative artillery fire, especially a combination of these. Summing it up, I´d say buying three Ammo Dumps at 150 Pts each, and at least 3 platoons of self-propelled launchers to make that expenditure worthwhile is just not cost effective.
Go offboard!



Resisti -> (1/17/2002 3:48:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Challenge:

I think taking advantage of a bug, or purposely building in a situation that wasn't possible (like using Panthers in Italy) would be cheating.

I know it's out of the topic, but Panthers WERE used in Italy...



Svennemir -> (1/17/2002 7:10:00 AM)

As I see it, the problem is that the price of rocket launchers depends heavily on the amount of ammunition stored on them. Thus, they are not meant to be resupplied, making rockets+ammo dump an exploit. Buying ammo dumps would increase the firepower of rocket batteries MANY times, and that was (I guess) not intended.



valdor17 -> (1/17/2002 8:02:00 AM)

The main problem is that real ammo trucks are finite--they carry limited ammo of limited types. SPWAW ammo trucks carry infinite ammo of every possible type. Large 'Ammo Dumps' were never located that near the enemy--you could never hide them (or the transport required to move that much ammo forward.) What the game calls ammo dumps would actually be small stocks of limited types of ammo. Finally, Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRL) use a lot of ammo very quickly and are generally slow to reload. In reality, once their initial load was fired, they should take several turns to reload. Also, the Germans, usually short on transport, could not move enough ammo forward to allow them to fire continously.



panda124c -> (1/17/2002 8:07:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Challenge:
Why is the above described action cheating? Is it a question of it not having been done in reality (historically)? I'm not trying to be sarcastic; it just seems that any tactically successful logistic would be acceptable. I'm sure no one told Rommell that using 88 mm AA guns as AT weapons was cheating.
It's only cheating if you are English, procdures will be followed regardles of the situation. "I say old chap that's not quite cricket." (With apologies to our English friends). Oh yea the Germans thought it was cheating when the Americans used their 105 SPA's in a direct fire mode to take out Sigfield Line bunkers. If you are playing against a human you best keep those Wurfrahmen platoons moving or you will not have them to play with. And if you keep them moving you can't reload them. Six rounds every three to four turns is a very low rate of fire.



panda124c -> (1/17/2002 8:09:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Challenge:
So a purist would not use any innovation in a game that was first used after the date of the scenario being played. I can't use the 88s in Poland; I can in Afrika; France would be up for grabs because it was during that invasion that Rommell pulled this one off. My brain hurts. Innovation helps win battles. I don't really stop to consider whether the tactics I'm using were actually used in the battle I'm fighting because I'm too busy trying to win the game. I guess I'm just not a purist. My idea is that I am trying, in many cases, to do better than the actual commander did: I want to WIN at Stalingrad, I want to TAKE Moscow. I think taking advantage of a bug, or purposely building in a situation that wasn't possible (like using Panthers in Italy) would be cheating. Using available equipment in a better way would not be cheating to me. I understand the point of those who want as acurate a rendition of a battle as possible, I just think that once you deploy those completely historical units, you remove the accuracy -- unless you put them exactly where they were at the time, make the exact same moves and achieve the exact results. Historical accuracy is good in re-enactments, but in simulations I think it stops with the unit mix and terrain reresentation. Ammo is a big issue for me as well. I have pulled units out of the line to reload and turns later they still don't have even one more round than they had when I moved them next to the truck. This is most annoying when I want to get that SP mortar back into operation. I have not been abe to get consistant results, even with artillery next to an ammo dump. I have yet to move an empty AFV next to an Ammo truck and get it back into operation before the game ended. Drat!
All fair in Love and War War is unhealthy for die-stamped cardboard and other paper products. And now for little electrons.



challenge -> (1/17/2002 9:56:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Resisti:

I know it's out of the topic, but Panthers WERE used in Italy...
I thought I read somewhere that they weren't... Oh, well, maybe it was just not in large numbers and I mis-remembered... At least they have enough ammo to keep shooting for awhile.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625