17 replies to this topic

[Martin Jerred]

What happened to ammo depletion?I know there is a limit on Rapid Fire, but I can't find any limitations on main and secondary (or AA - I'm considering something Crete based where the depletion of AA ammo was a major consideration) batteries.I can find replenishment rates for restocking ammo based on X game-turns worth per hour. But cannot find any indication on how many game-turns worth of ammo a ship has...have I missed it somewhere? Torpedoes seem to be covered by default as it's a limited use weapon system.I know the GQI/II ammo limits were fairly abstract and came in for some criticism but we have found they consistently added a nice extra depth to campaign based engagements. I'm expecting the morale rules will offset the tendancy for gamers to keep wrecks in the fight as long as they have guns. However the real judgement calls we found being made were about whether to take long distance pot shots or close to a more effective range. Without ammo limits there is no disinsentive to extreme range firing. Also in actions where resupply is unlikely before future engagements we have found ammo supplies to be far more important than fuel (we play mostly Med based games...I'm sure fuel gets much more important in the Pacific ;) So any suggestions?Zippee

[Lonnie Gill]

ZippeeGood questions, as always. Thought I would wait a few days on this question to see if others wanted to weigh-in. Tracking ammo useage in a tactical battle is one of those love-hate relationships. It certainly can have an impact on tactics - especially long range fire, but adds a lot of bookkeeping and is tedious to track. Further, while many ships carry about 100 - 120 rounds per gun, there are a wide range of variances, not to mention determining the mix of shell types. We tried using ammo expenditure for seveal years of play testing. On balance, I found that most captains don't accuratly track it, don't like the burden and don't all that often get into excessive ammunition expenditure situations. Hence, I switched to only the limited tracking of rapid fire. This seems to work well for most scenarios and players.The previous GQ Part 2 limit of 18 Game Turns of firing is still a reasonable, if abstracted, optional rule to employ for tactical engagements where you think this is a key factor.You raise a good point for campaigns. Without detailed ammunition expenditure bookkeeping, a simple rule is needed for knowing when a ship needs to replenish. I'd suggest using a model of 18 Game Turns maximum ammo. A ship engaged in three - ten Game Turns of gunnery during a tactical battle would be considered to have expended half her ammo, 11 - 15 Game Turns expends 2/3 of her ammo, and 16+ Game Turns means she has only one Game Turn of ammo left after the engagement until she replenishes. That's abstract, but provides a general indication. AA ammunition is even more complex and difficult. As you know, frequent air attacks could deplete a ship's ammo in two or three days as the RN found in the Med. For campaign purposes, you would need to model this based on the number of air attacks and Campaign Turns in your campaign "day." If you use an extended campaign day with two daylight Campaign Turns, a ship is unlikely to be involved in more than two or three AA attacks a day actually simulated. That would suggest a capacity of six to eight AA attacks. If you are using one hour Campaign Turns,as in a Crete one day campaign for example, I'd suggest using a capacity of 18 AA attacks. Lots of room for other thoughts here. I invite others to share their ideas as well, so we can develop a good universal rule for this. OK, mates, what do you suggest?Finally, there are areas you stress and others you don't to keep a simulation moving. One of General Quarters' strengths is that you can customize it to key on your areas of interest.

[Martin Jerred]

Thanks for the response.Whilst I absolutely do not want to go down the path of rceording actual shells expended, some abstract restriction to prevent what would in reality be seen as wasteful long odds shots has, we feel, a considerable impact on decision making - which is the important bit from a game pov.For example in our (just completed) Operation Hurry mini-campaign (1 hour turns on a 10nm hex base) saw Hood acting as a covering force for the CVs, she was nagged by Italian heavy cruisers continually, without the consideration of having to reserve her ammo for use over 2 days she could have happily concentrated on the cruisers, instead she had to use sparing salvos to force them to keep distance and respect, whilst the cruisers nipped at her (they also managed to sink Arethusa and 2 H class DDs) but mostly they could keep her in sight...for once the RA actually did the damage :ohmy: We'll try keeping the 18 rounds - this was our first thought in any case, just wanted a designer's thoughts.cheersZippee

[Lonnie Gill]

Zip,I'll be interested to hear how the simple limits on ammo useage work out in your campaign. The balance between playability and detail is often a tough call, especialy when it involves bookkeeping. Thus, my inclination is toward a simple rule which puts reasonable limitations on the respective commanders to avoid the old western movie 50 round six-gun - without adding the need for a paymaster commander to each side to track ammo.Don't need a full AAR, though that would be nice. Just let us know if this causes players to act in a reasonable manner. As always, the acid test of gaming will help us determine if this is sufficient.

[Martin Jerred]

Thanks Lonnie, I think we are in accord here. I actually see an overall ammo limit as the natural corollary to your ruling on ineffective secondary batteries - without these rulings excessive game time is wasted in speculative (and a-historical) gunfire. On the handful of games played thus far I think the 18 round per battery is about right. We still only allow 6 rounds of RF (ie 1 RF = 3 ammo). Actually we find that the habit of recording all ammo is quicker in play than remembering to record the RF only - it becomes an integral part of the turn. The campaign was actually played under our final evolution of GQI/II so not sure what use an AAR would be. However I can testify that even in one off scenario games the restriction of ammo effects player behaviour: 1) It adds a tactical decision (which is what the games are about). 2) It encourages players to close to effective / invulnerability ranges which is historical. 3) It speeds play as excessive time is not lost on long-odds gunfire - although importantly the option remains IF the player considers it the best tactical option. 4) The simple marking off of 18 ammo boxes per battery is not particularly time consuming - helped no doubt because it is already habit from GQI/II. 5) It adds interest to campaign play; again players have to make judgement calls on what is a profitable expenditure of ammo. Overall our opinion is that it is worth the minor extra workload. Naturally others mileage may vary. As we get more games under our belt I'll feedback on whether 18 rounds "feels" right - but that will take some time. Thanks again for taking the time. Cheers,Zippee

[Martin Jerred]

The most recent take on this that we have tried is to only mark ammo loss when an actual "Hit" is scored. The rational for this being that if no Hit (on target salvo/bracket) is achieved this probably only represents ranging shots with much reduced ammo expenditure. But with an actual on target bracket or "Hit" the battery fires at full rate for the rest of the 5 minute turn - hence ammo is expended in a volume worth recording - and gets to roll for Equivalent Hits (or actual Damage Hits if you follow my drift).ZippeePS see comment on Equivalent Hits thread

[Lonnie Gill]

Zip,Intriguing approach. This makes some sense and would reduce the amount of bookkeeping a bit. It will be interesting to see how this works out in your campaign. Do you still stick to the limit of six Game Turns of rapid fire with this approach or try to integrate rapid fire for "Hit" Game Turns as a greater multiplier of ammo expended?

[Martin Jerred]

We have stuck to the 18 "boxes" of ammo, crossing one off each time a battery scores 1 or more hits. This seems reasonable, in that we haven't had any really skewed results from it. However we have vacillated like a demented yo-yo between 6 and 9 rounds of rapid fire (ie 3 boxes per, or 2 boxes per).Zippee

[Jim O'Neil]

well if we assume that 'rapid fire' is 8 rounds per minute for 3 minutes per tube (gun), that's 24 rounds per minute and some 144 rounds in 6 minutes. Not many ships carry more ammo than that for 6" guns and the 5 inchers shoot faster.I think that employing your rule, it is fair (and historical) to say 6 turns.

[Lonnie Gill]

Bravo,I read your comment to mean 3 x 8 = 24 rounds/Game Turn. Six Game Turns x 24 rounds = 144 rounds, which would be a maximum potential for most ships. You're right; a similar logic was used to come up with the six Game Turn limit for Rapid Fire. It was assumed that there would be momentary gaps in the 3 minute Game Turn cycle over the course of a scenario in which a ship would slacken fire or cease fire for a bit which would allow some latitude for other Game Turns of fire at the normal rate. Specific limits would, of course, be determined by the ammo load of a given ship. But as you've noted, the general rule of a maximum of 6 Game Turns of Rapid Fire is, if anything, generous for many ships. In playtesting, it was found to be a reasonable compromise, providing a sensible constraint while limiting the need to bookkeep ammo expenditure in a scenario which many find burdensome.

[Nicola Prandoni]

Marking off an ammo box only if a hit is scored makes sense as explained;nevertheless, it will not stop the players from firing at maximum range, as if no hit is scored, no ammo cost is payed.That's a pity.any solution?to me only one comes to mind, but I am not pleased myself with it:on "no hits" results, a 50% chance (odd die roll) of spending an ammo box, may act as a deterrent, while preserving the low intensity logic.

[Nicola Prandoni]

Another field where ammo limitation made itself strongly and inexpectedly felt during WWII, was AA ammo.The first tastes of it was during the norwegian campaign, where RN had to resupply ships for lack of AA rounds after a couple of days in the fjords.this should be a much more important consideration in all WWII campaigns.Any idea on ammo turns of AA fire?

[Martin Jerred]

Well it's a compromise. In practice we have found that it does prevent the worst of the extreme range firing as at the end of the day ammo is limited and player's would prefer not to run out latr in the game. However it also allows for those long stern chases without over penalising ships firing half-batteries specifically looking for that one hit.On AA I agree, we impose a similar 18 rounds of fire (we only use the campaign quick air attacks), expending 1 box for each CT of air strikes, for each vessel involved whether actually acttacked or not. We also expend a box for each GT in which a vessel ues it's AA (against FP or whateer). It's crude but works.We completely ignore the fact that oft times it is the same batteries firing. the end result seems to work though.Zippee

[Jim O'Neil]

Lonnie,Yes, 24 rounds per gun per turn was the assumed maximum. I don't write well when tired.Given the idea of turns with out hits not counting, I think the six turns is more than fair.

[gregoryk]

All,We are looking for additional ideas, interest, and current house rules on ammo usage rules for the current edition of General Quarters.Gregory

[William MacGillivray]

We've been playing Cruiser/DD actions in the Med, and we've found that without an absolute ammo limit, the 6 turns of "free" rapid fire gives the Brits a huge advantage over the Italians.The Italians often have to get in close to be able to penetrate but in doing so they must come close enough for the Brits' to use rapid fire. Without any overall ammunition expenditure rule, the Brits can hapily wait all day firing at longer ranges without penalty until the Italians finally decide to close, then the Brits usually don't need the full 6 turns of rapid fire to make a real mess of the Italian force.If there was an overall ammo limit, the the Brits would have to make the choice between keeping firing at long range hoping to chip away at the enemy or reserving some ammo for the rapid firing.

[gregoryk]

Bill,Has your group tried any ammo limits?Gregory

[MatthewB]

I realize this is coming late to the game.

But the site Naval Weapons includes how many rounds of ammunition were carried by every ship that mounted any given weapon.

For instance, the IJN 40cm/45cal on the Yamato and Musashi had 100 rounds per gun. The given ROF for the 40cm/45 is given as 1.5 - 2 RPM.

With a 6 minute turn (even with what people are calling "Ranging shots" that is still 1/30th of the ammo used in one turn) that is 1/8th of the Gun's ammo used in that turn.

This indicates that MAYBE the suggestion that only counting the turns with "Hits" isn't such a good plan, as all of the reading I have done seems to indicate that HUGE numbers of shells were fired in engagements, even where the gunfire did not produce much of a result from the hits.

For Instance, at Cape Esperance, the USS Helena (one of the ships which was known for being able to execute sustained Rapid Fire with her 6"/47-Mk.16 guns - which had 600 rounds per turret/200 per gun) was said to have used around 1,000 rounds during the battle. That is almost 1/2 of her ammunition supply (as told in the book Neptune's Inferno, by James D. Hornfischer).

And in AA Actions, 5"/38 DP guns and 5"/25 DP guns, which tend to have significantly more ammunition per gun (5"/38: 420 - 460 rounds/gun in Atlanta-class CLAA, 500 rounds/gun in other CL/CA ships, and 420 - 460 rounds/gun in DDs; 5"/25: 200 rounds/gun in CAs and around 20 - 50 rounds/gun more in BBs) if one looks at the typical AA action, where these guns are firing as fast as they possibly can, they will fire around 15 - 20 rounds (1/10th of their ammo supply) in each Air Phase in which Long-range AA fire is conducted by a ship.

This means that these weapons only have roughly 3 Game Turns worth of AA ammo, and maybe around 5GT worth of ship-to-ship ammo.

But this does give us an idea of how much Ammo is shipped by each ship, and how much needs to be re-supplied.

And, it turns out that the number of game-turns of ammo is much lower than many people expected.

In his book Japanese Destroyer Captain, Tameichi Hara talks about the urgent need to rearm after just one battle, and not just Torpedoes (although, being 魚雷先生 - Gyoyai-Sensei(Torpedo Doctor/Professor) this was an area where Hara-san was especially concerned). 

This seems to be why after every battle (in the Pacific at least), the ships went to re-supply immediately after the battle, and why Captains worried about encounters, and running out of ammunition, when they carried only about 10 - 30 minutes of ammo per gun (save for Destroyers, which seem to have been armed with considerably more ammo/gun than larger ships, giving them the ability to fight longer without rearming -strange considering their range was so limited compared to the larger ships).

I think the 6 rounds of Rapid Fire is REALLY generous given the amount of ammo these ships carried.

But.... Given the data at the website I have linked to, it should be trivial at this point to create a chart for all of the ships to list their ammo supply, and how many turns of ammo they have at normal ROF and with RF (and if they use AA fire, which is equivalent to Rapid Fire for DP guns).

I would be willing to put together such charts, if needed.

I am one of those guys who worries about Logistics in Campaign games, thinking that the Tactical Game is just a side-show for the Logistics game (coming from a family of CPAs tends to do that).

MB