Matrix Games Forums

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!War in the West Wacht am Rhein AAR Deal of the Week Panzer Corps: Allied Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ammo

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Command Ops Series >> Ammo Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ammo - 3/18/2013 9:52:51 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
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.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 3/18/2013 9:57:33 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Ammo - 3/18/2013 9:54:02 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Next attack

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




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 3/18/2013 10:02:09 PM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 2
RE: Ammo - 3/18/2013 10:11:47 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/18/2013 10:12:43 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 3
RE: Ammo - 3/18/2013 10:38:19 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
deleted double post

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 3/18/2013 10:44:36 PM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 4
RE: Ammo - 3/18/2013 10:40:08 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 5
RE: Ammo - 3/18/2013 10:41:53 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Edit:
Deleted double post

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 6
RE: Ammo - 3/18/2013 11:21:54 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 7
RE: Ammo - 3/19/2013 9:51:20 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 8
RE: Ammo - 3/19/2013 11:18:13 AM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 9
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 1:25:54 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17792
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 10
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 3:02:56 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/20/2013 3:09:09 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 11
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 3:50:06 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 12
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 4:04:06 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/20/2013 4:06:09 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 13
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 6:06:02 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 14
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 7:49:07 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I think if a coy is surrounded and out of ammo it should be an auto surrender after a set time.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 15
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 8:15:38 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by phoenix -- 3/20/2013 8:16:33 PM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 16
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 9:00:54 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/20/2013 9:03:40 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 17
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 9:11:30 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2950
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
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...

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 18
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 9:16:03 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
esp difficult to model in built up areas..


quote:

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...


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 19
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 9:20:55 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 20
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 9:22:36 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2950
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
...
Hand to hand combat was quite rare but mass surrender wasn't.
...


Ohoh..my friend, that statement (HtH combat frequency) alone could evolve into a very lengthy discussion! But I agree that surrender code needs to be looked at. An unsupplied, ammo less unit and surrounded would either surrender readily or in case of "fanatic" troops, all would be killed. Maybe there´s some grey zone, but I´d assume there´s either one extreme or the other. Not to forget, "disbandment" of a unit which also would fit between, with most troopers POW/killed and very few remainders escaping (at night, bad weather, good cover terrain) and beeing absorbed by nearby friendlies.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 21
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 9:50:33 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Disbandment maybe away around it. Maybe I was hasty about the hand to hand stuff..I had it in my head after someone saying it was rare in WW2 on the CMBN forum. Though going by my own research\reading material it happened alot esp on the Eastern Front. I was silly and listened to someone else rather than go by my own knowledge. Hate that when it bites you on the backside.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 22
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 9:55:42 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix



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.


Thats why i think it should vary as I said between one hour to maybe even a few hours..unless they are under attack..I expect most will throw up their hands.The first hour is the time the Officers are discussing what to do..a weak low moral unit surrenders quickly after the hour is up..a stubborn\fanatic or elite unit could take upto a few hours after..but it is coded if not rescued the unit will surrender before a set time is up say four hours. We already have units auto surrender and disband now..we don't choose it it happens automatically..this would be no difference your just putting a time on it to stop any silliness like surrounded units with no ammo sitting there for 12 hours etc waiting for what??

Or disband as Harry says which is an even better idea..as it then is away to show they tried to split up and make a run home..some made it and are taken in to other units..others killed or POW>.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/20/2013 9:57:19 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 23
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 10:11:09 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Ah. See what you mean. Sounds better now. But shouldn't we allow for soem units being so fanatical that they will NEVER surrender, just die instead?

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 24
RE: Ammo - 3/20/2013 10:16:10 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2950
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Disbandment maybe away around it. Maybe I was hasty about the hand to hand stuff..I had it in my head after someone saying it was rare in WW2 on the CMBN forum. Though going by my own research\reading material it happened alot esp on the Eastern Front. I was silly and listened to someone else rather than go by my own knowledge. Hate that when it bites you on the backside.


I know these CMBN threads very well, believe me! Thus I´d started to become quite sick of this particular topic. Some devs and their fanboi followers prefer to declare certain things to be "rare", cause these do not fit into the game design or otherwise are unwilling to make homeworks better and admit it. Sometimes understandable, but more oftentimes...sad.

At the eastern front CQC was daily bread and butter so to say. On the western front, well depended much more on the opponents involved (WSS, paras ect.) and variety is bigger, particularly in 1944/45. However, CQC was anything but rare in general.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 25
RE: Ammo - 3/22/2013 12:23:28 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17792
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Well guess what I just found? I was reviewing the rate of fire code this morning to see how I could tweak this to reduce the rapid consumption of ammo and by accident I double clicked the wrong function. Instead of going inside the GetRateOfFireType() I ended up in the GetROF()and noticed this little gem under small arms:

// ALERT - FUDGE FACTOR - Dave 23 Feb 10
// added to increase rates of fire across the board rather than changing all the estab values
// applies to small arms fire
rateOfFire *= pf(2.0);

The trouble is we did completely revise all the rates of fire for each of the estabs. So in the end we are doubling the ammo expenditure for small arms fire. My bad. Removing now.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 26
RE: Ammo - 3/22/2013 12:57:36 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna


Well guess what I just found? I was reviewing the rate of fire code this morning to see how I could tweak this to reduce the rapid consumption of ammo and by accident I double clicked the wrong function. Instead of going inside the GetRateOfFireType() I ended up in the GetROF()and noticed this little gem under small arms:

// ALERT - FUDGE FACTOR - Dave 23 Feb 10
// added to increase rates of fire across the board rather than changing all the estab values
// applies to small arms fire
rateOfFire *= pf(2.0);

The trouble is we did completely revise all the rates of fire for each of the estabs. So in the end we are doubling the ammo expenditure for small arms fire. My bad. Removing now.


Good to see you fresh and alert

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 27
RE: Ammo - 3/22/2013 8:48:37 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna


Well guess what I just found? I was reviewing the rate of fire code this morning to see how I could tweak this to reduce the rapid consumption of ammo and by accident I double clicked the wrong function. Instead of going inside the GetRateOfFireType() I ended up in the GetROF()and noticed this little gem under small arms:

// ALERT - FUDGE FACTOR - Dave 23 Feb 10
// added to increase rates of fire across the board rather than changing all the estab values
// applies to small arms fire
rateOfFire *= pf(2.0);

The trouble is we did completely revise all the rates of fire for each of the estabs. So in the end we are doubling the ammo expenditure for small arms fire. My bad. Removing now.


Nice find mate

That should smooth things out a bit

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 28
RE: Ammo - 3/22/2013 10:12:01 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Hurrah!

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 29
RE: Ammo - 3/22/2013 1:06:13 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Until the fix comes, does this mean we should reduce ROF to min in order to get a more or less normal rate of small arms fire?

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Command Ops Series >> Ammo Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.145