Ammunition cap?

[Mad Catter]

Hello,

Just got the game for Christmas and it is GREAT!

Only question I have is why is there an ammo cap at 50?

Seems a bit ahistorical to have countries "ramp up" ammo production, yet have no means to stockpile it better.

Thoughts?

[Jestre]

Yeah I was kind of surprised when I noticed the cap, I am guessing it was done for game leveling purposes because it certainly doesnt make any other kind of sense.

[Gilmer]

I'm no expert, but I imagine it is to make ammunition scarce if you use it too much. From what I understand, they all had ammunition supply issues during the war especially early in the war. This makes it more likely for shortages to happen which I think happened historically.

[Mad Catter]

Perhaps the cost of ramping up ammo production should be lowered, if it cannot be actually stockpiled beyond 50?

I was badly burned in my first game (like everyone is), but it was made worse because I tried to be ahistorical and actually build up an ammo stockpile early in the war.

It is almost as if the game wants to "force" players to make the same mistake that was made historically (of not producing enough artillery shells).

Aren't we trying to avoid making those same mistakes?

Thoughts?

[Jestre]

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

I'm no expert, but I imagine it is to make ammunition scarce if you use it too much. From what I understand, they all had ammunition supply issues during the war especially early in the war. This makes it more likely for shortages to happen which I think happened historically.

The 50 cap doesn't effect early war shortages, you will still have shortages til probably 1916 at least, what it eliminates is the ability to stockpile for a massive continuous offensive.

[FOARP]

Realistically ammo and production storage should be capped to prevent gamey play but the cap should rise with added production with the min cap at 50.

Game-play-wise, it's quite possible by mid-late game to have two-three guns in continual action (two-three great powers producing 10+ rounds a turn), so a continual offensive is possible on at least one front.

[BYU 14]

Agree here, perhaps raise the cap at certain points - 60 in 1916, 70 in 1917 through the end of the war

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: Jestre

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

I'm no expert, but I imagine it is to make ammunition scarce if you use it too much. From what I understand, they all had ammunition supply issues during the war especially early in the war. This makes it more likely for shortages to happen which I think happened historically.

The 50 cap doesn't effect early war shortages, you will still have shortages til probably 1916 at least, what it eliminates is the ability to stockpile for a massive continuous offensive.

Kind of what I was getting at, but I poorly worded it. Continuous offensives is somewhat ahistorical, I believe.

[fodder]

I've run into this a couple of times now. I don't like it at all.

This cap of 50 has to go. There should not be any kind of ammo cap. Your ammo is limited by what you build.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: fodder

I've run into this a couple of times now. I don't like it at all.

This cap of 50 has to go. There should not be any kind of ammo cap. Your ammo is limited by what you build.

I think its there to balance the way artillery is modelled. If there wasn't an ammo cap, you could bank a hundred or so shells and basically vaporize any front in the game.

3 late game artillery strikes will wreck a top tier infantry unit in good trenches.
4 will literally vaporize it.

Letting you do that once, to simulate the launching of a major offensive, works as a gameplay mechanism (imho at least).
Letting you do that over and over again in the same tactical area though would be game breaking.. you could literally vaporize your way to victory.

[operating]

Why do the British "Shell Shortage Crisis" memo in the game, if your only limited to 50 shells at any one time? Now with the increased number of England's BBs (3 start 1914) (Germany 2 BBs), included in the 1.30 patch, make it even more of an enigma. Plus it is not an overnight ritual to build up to the cap, even at 10 shells per turn. Plus the investment to even get to a 10 shell turn, it takes alot of money management to accomplish, on top of that you cannot sell back your investments! If a player uses 1 gun and 1 BB per turn for 3 turns virtually depletes a very expensive shell stockpile, tack on 1 more turn for good measure to be completely broke. One might expect to get what you pay for, just like in Research Techs, RRs, or transports.

Why not be able to stockpile Railroads, or Transports that are not used?

Allright, take for instance you lost all your guns, so now you are going to be punished further by restrictions , while building new guns, THAT's BALONEY!

My final thought on this is; You are penalized for not using your gun(s) or BB bombardments, that's braindead!

[suprass81]

maybee an option to set how much pp you spend on research and on ammo stockpile at a time... Or when you want to sell research lab you return it to your stock from which you can transfer it to ammo production and same way in back dirrection (from ammo to research)...? Same rules for rail and sea transport. (but this is too much for game engine I think)

[operating]

ORIGINAL: suprass81

maybee an option to set how much pp you spend on research and on ammo stockpile at a time... Or when you want to sell research lab you return it to your stock from which you can transfer it to ammo production and same way in back dirrection (from ammo to research)...? Same rules for rail and sea transport. (but this is too much for game engine I think)

Yes, But what is so arcane about the game; Is that the Developers do not explain their reasonings to the customers. Such as Game Development Notes, or explain these crucial factors in the Manual. No, These people just let the customers go blindly through a game, to trip over numerous problems. Their attitude must be, screw them, we got their money, why tell the customers the details of the game, or explain abnormalities, that should be addressed!

Sorry, back to the issue at hand; There should be no "SHELL CAP", period.

[suprass81]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: suprass81

maybee an option to set how much pp you spend on research and on ammo stockpile at a time... Or when you want to sell research lab you return it to your stock from which you can transfer it to ammo production and same way in back dirrection (from ammo to research)...? Same rules for rail and sea transport. (but this is too much for game engine I think)

Yes, But what is so arcane about the game; Is that the Developers do not explain their reasonings to the customers. Such as Game Development Notes, or explain these crucial factors in the Manual. No, These people just let the customers go blindly through a game, to trip over numerous problems. Their attitude must be, screw them, we got their money, why tell the customers the details of the game, or explain abnormalities, that should be addressed!

Sorry, back to the issue at hand; There should be no "SHELL CAP", period.

I hope that you will not understand me wrong but I can't agree with you. For me Shell stock (gathering shells for an offensive) is the esence of this game. I can't imagine that there is no shell cap (cap= stock? sorry for my poor English ). Arty is very powerfull- there are almoust no chance to make a sucesfull offensive after enemy build trench if yo don't have arty (and large ammo stock). And emagine that your arty could shoot each turn as you want... After couple of turns there will be no ground units or enemy have to keep his infantry out of arty rang...
From what I know ammo stock was a big problem through all of war time. British had a Ministry of Munitions for example...
But I can agree that Manual is poor. Only baisic rules... that's a shame. CEAW has a great Manual (I'm talking about CEAW Grand Strategy)...

[operating]

You make a good argument, and for sound reasons, plus you express knowledge about the war. But, What I would like to hear; What was the formula to arrive at 50? Not all the nations had the same production capabilities during the war. Why were the CP subs sinking convoys? It was not to deny kids toys in London or Paris, there was war materials on those ships. Did you ever hear the expression; "London's Calling"? Yes they were calling North America to send them bombs, shells, bullets, you name it. Matter of fact, At Halifax, Nova Scotia a shipment of munitons blew up in the town, killing hundreds of people, take a guess where the ships were going....

Yes, I get a little heated about different aspects of the game, including the expense of management. If I am laying down more money for goods, ect., there should be more convoys to reflect that. It only makes common sense!

[operating]

Nova Scotia portal
History of Canada portal

The Halifax Explosion occurred near Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, on the morning of Thursday, December 6, 1917. SS Mont-Blanc, a French cargo ship fully laden with wartime explosives, collided with the Norwegian vessel SS Imo[2] in the Narrows, a strait connecting the upper Halifax Harbour to Bedford Basin. Approximately twenty minutes later, a fire on board the French ship ignited her explosive cargo, causing a cataclysmic explosion that devastated the Richmond District of Halifax. Approximately 2,000 people were killed by debris, fires, and collapsed buildings, and it is estimated that nearly 9,000 others were injured.[3] The blast was the largest man-made explosion prior to the development of nuclear weapons[4] with an equivalent force of roughly 2.9 kilotons of TNT.[5] In a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada in May 1918, Dalhousie University's Professor Howard L. Bronson estimated the blast at some 2400 metric tons of high explosive.[6]

Mont-Blanc was under orders from the French government to carry her highly explosive cargo overseas to Bordeaux, France. At roughly 8:45 am, she collided at slow speed (one to one and a half mph) with the 'in-ballast' (without cargo) Imo, chartered by the Commission for Relief in Belgium to pick up a cargo of relief supplies in New York. The resultant fire aboard the French ship quickly grew out of control. Without adequate and accessible firefighting equipment, the captain, pilot, officers and men were forced to abandon her within a few minutes following the accident. Approximately 20 minutes later (at 9:04:35 am), Mont-Blanc exploded with tremendous force [7] Nearly all structures within a half-mile (800 m) radius, including the entire community of Richmond, were completely obliterated. A pressure wave of air snapped trees, bent iron rails, demolished buildings, grounded vessels, and carried fragments of the Mont-Blanc for kilometres. Hardly a window in the city proper survived the concussion. Across the harbour, in Dartmouth, there was also widespread damage.[3] A tsunami created by the blast wiped out the physical community of Mi’kmaw First Nations people that had lived in the Tuft's Cove area for generations. There were a number of casualties including five children who drowned when the tsunami came ashore at Nevin's Cove.[8]

When I first recalled this explosion, I thought it was a British HMS ship, even more compelling, it turns out to be a French bound ship, full of munitions.

[operating]

The war
began for corporate America long before it started for the common
man. Within two months of the conflict's August 1914 beginning,
Charles Schwab, president of Bethlehem Steel, one of the world's
largest arms merchants, took a profitable trip to London. There,
he secured orders from the British government for millions of artillery
shells, as well as ten 500-ton submarines. Though the construction
of such foreign vessels broke the law, Bethlehem proceeded with
it and the Wilson administration did not stop them. The company
earned $61 million in 1916, more than its combined gross revenues
for the previous eight years.

"The
Bethlehem story is a pithy summary of the evolution of the United
States into a branch of the British armament industry during the
thirty-two months of its neutrality," writes historian Thomas
Fleming in his powerhouse book The
Illusion of Victory: America in World War I. "Wilson
talked – and talked and talked – about neutrality and
apparently convinced himself that he was neutral. But the United
States he was supposedly running was not neutral, in thought, word
or deed, thanks to Wellington House (the engine of British government
propaganda) – and the international banking firm of J. P. Morgan
in New York."

By the
time America declared war on Germany, Morgan was having a bang-up
war of its own. The company had already loaned Britain and France
$2.1 billion (around $30 billion by 2004 standards), and had cleared
$30 million – around $425 million in 2004 dollars – in
profit.

Fleming
summarizes a very effective partnership: "As British and French
orders for ammunition and other war materiel filled the books of
U.S. companies, the pressure for financial assistance to pay for
them grew more and more acute." In other words, the more intense
the fighting, the more arms, ordnance, and supplies the British
and French ordered from American manufacturers, and the more money
they borrowed from American banks.

Some parts of this quote I highlighted, to point out the excess munitions some countries recieved, outside of their own production.

[operating]

Googled this;

U.S. Trade with Belligerents, 1914 - 1916
(Millions of Dollars)
Nation 1914 1915 1916 percent change
Great Britain $594 million 912 1,527 + 257%
France $160 million 369 629 +393%
Italy $74 million 185 269 +364%
Germany $345 million 2 9 .2 9 - 1,150%
What is the trend of U.S. trade from 1914 to 1916? Why?

The WHY; increased trade in armaments and ammunition....

[kirk23]

Ok what do you guys want, limited ammunition or plentiful, whatever it is, its an easy fix just by editing the scripts.The number next to the red arrow can be set to a high or low number its your choice.

Please tell the game designers what you want to see in game, virtually anything is possible.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Ok what do you guys want, limited ammunition or plentiful, whatever it is, its an easy fix just by editing the scripts.The number next to the red arrow can be set to a high or low number its your choice.

Please tell the game designers what you want to see in game, virtually anything is possible.

At least one thing that you point out, is that the amount of the Stockpile can be adjusted and could be adjusted by those who program the stock game.

Personelly, I do not think it would be too much to ask the game designers, that the Cap be set at 70, at least as a compromise, as opposed to NO CAP, IMO.

Kirk, you can do stuff with this game that I don't know how to do, but I'm not saying I cannot do it. Basically I am leery of losing the stock game that I have, and end up in some kind of programming limbo, that does not mirror another MP's program, MOD is what is coming to be called. I am not ready to gamble with what I have, for I tried it with a HPS game that I cherished France 1940, because I started editing, slipped on saving stock, which ended up being a pain in the neck. Hey! You are gifted at what you do, I am not.