Ammunition Idea

[Civman33]

I was searching if people seemed interested in this idea, so I made this thread! It seems more "realistic" if they put ammo into the game for Civ5. The ammo feature could be turned on and off, or put in higher difficulties. Gunpowder, tank, archery, flight, and naval units could require ammo for attacks, or else they'll have to charge at the defender. Thus, the attackers strength would be reduced by half attack/combat odds. Ammo could be purchased for 5 for the earliest ranged unit, and 50 for the latest tank/modern armor. Ranged units will carry a maximum of 10 bullets.

 

[Tibur753]

I think this is well represented already in unit maintenance. That is, essentially, what unit maintenance is.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I think this is well represented already in unit maintenance. That is, essentially, what unit maintenance is.

That and someone has to clean the tanks, don't want your enemy to think your sloppy .

 

[Camikaze]

Ammunition could be a good idea to partly replace unit maintenance. Unit maintenance is supposed to cover food and other supplies, as well as ammunition, I think. This is why you still pay high unit maintenance if you're not actually using your ammo, i.e. going into combat. Perhaps unit maintenance could be slightly lessened (maybe -25%), and a Civilization could build Munitions Factories, to provide ammunition this way, rather than through unit maintenance. This would more accurately reflect the fact that munitions are a production, and not a financial issue. Also, it could more accurately reflect the transformation of wartime production, and a wartime economy, and divert production from building more units, showing that in war, units need to be drafted more than produced. This would also show that going to war means that you cannot expand your power rating as much (you have to produce munitions, not new units), providing a way to rectify (partly) the problem that war is overpowered in the game.

 

[Hail]

i like the idea, but i think that "ammution" should be introduced together with the "quantifyable resources" concept. so ammunition takes iron. 1 "ammution" (bullet, cannonball) is 1 iron. a unit type has same capacity for storing ammunition. once a unit is out it can no longer fire (bombard), but can engage in melee if applicable. a unit can resupply in any city belonging to yourself or any allied nation that has iron or from any supply truck belonging to yourself or any allied nation if, of course it carries iron.

 

[Ramesses]

i like the idea, but i think that "ammution" should be introduced together with the "quantifyable resources" concept. so ammunition takes iron. 1 "ammution" (bullet, cannonball) is 1 iron. a unit type has same capacity for storing ammunition. once a unit is out it can no longer fire (bombard), but can engage in melee if applicable. a unit can resupply in any city belonging to yourself or any allied nation that has iron or from any supply truck belonging to yourself or any allied nation if, of course it carries iron.

I think it will just add an unnecessary element of micro-management.

 

[exhile]

I think it will just add an unnecessary element of micro-management.

If ammunition, fuel, maintentance can be automatically controlled then sure. Chess & Xiangqi never had so much detail on the pieces. The strategy of the game itself and the rules of the pieces is more important.

 

[Ramesses]

I just realized something: if ammunition was in fact a separate system, that would allow better players to make more attacks per turn with their Gunpowder+ units. But I'm still against the idea of separate ammunition. So instead, I think there should be an option to pay extra maintainence on a unit to provide it with extra moves for the turns in which it receives extra maintainence. Also, units can receive an infinite number of maintainence injections in a turn, but each subsequent provision in the same turn costs more. So a unit that normally consumes 5 gold per turn can gain an extra move during a turn for 20 gold. It can get another move for 75 gold, still another for 200, and 300 for all additional moves until the end of the turn. The player will then be made to choose whether to keep units cost-effective and allow them to move at their normal rates, or to accelerate their movements for increasingly exorbitant rates.

 

[exhile]

I just realized something: if ammunition was in fact a separate system, that would allow better players to make more attacks per turn with their Gunpowder+ units. But I'm still against the idea of separate ammunition. So instead, I think there should be an option to pay extra maintainence on a unit to provide it with extra moves for the turns in which it receives extra maintainence. Also, units can receive an infinite number of maintainence injections in a turn, but each subsequent provision in the same turn costs more. So a unit that normally consumes 5 gold per turn can gain an extra move during a turn for 20 gold. It can get another move for 75 gold, still another for 200, and 300 for all additional moves until the end of the turn. The player will then be made to choose whether to keep units cost-effective and allow them to move at their normal rates, or to accelerate their movements for increasingly exorbitant rates.

How does extra gold apply to exerting military units to their farthest extent in the real world? Food for the population and food for the military is reasonable. Fuel for transportation and fuel for military units is okay. Ammunition is a sticky point because it has no productive civilian use unless it is for defense. Militarily, ammunition is used for attack therefore munnitions should be engaged during a Nationalism civc.

 

[Ramesses]

How does extra gold apply to exerting military units to their farthest extent in the real world?

Spending gold buys more ammo and more fuel for a unit.

I thought it was pretty basic, really.

 

[exhile]

Spending gold on 1 unit for ammo & fuel is similar to upgrading a unit. Unless you are referring to a higher cost per unit per turn.

Spending a large amount of gold to upgrade can cost from 20-200 gold for that 1 turn alone. Ammo, fuel & maintenance would have to cost less than 10 gold to be reasonable from my perspective.

 

[Hail]

no. as i see it, adding the concepts of ammution and/or fuel not by themselves, but with the idea of support lines. if a gunpowder unit runs out of ammo it cannot attack, so it must be supplyed by the supply truck(s). what you are proposing is just to make gunpowder unit maintenance cost more. if gameplay stays the same why bother and code?

 

[Ramesses]

Spending gold on 1 unit for ammo & fuel is similar to upgrading a unit. Unless you are referring to a higher cost per unit per turn.

Exactly. It starts out inexpensive, but if used repeatedly within the same turn, it can ultimately end up costing the player even more than an upgrade. The cost is reset to the lowest level each turn, so when the feature is used in moderation, it can be a strategic decider. The increasing cost within a turn is just to maintain gameplay balance.

 

[MosheLevi]

I think that making players purchase ammunition for every unit is unnecessary micromanagement.
However, CIV 5 can offer alternate special ability for certain units that require special ammunition, and that will be totally optional.
For example, players can choose purchasing grenades for their infantry units where grenades cause 50% extra damage against other infantry units.

It will then be up to the player if to purchase such ammunition or not.
Players who like micromanagement can go that route.
Players who don’t can just play with normal abilities.

Other special ammunition can be sticky bombs for infantry units to use against armored vehicles, and machine gun ammo for tanks, tech infantry, and helicopters to use against infantry units.

 

[Shackel]

... So you want to increase the maintenance of the gunpowder unit?

 

[MosheLevi]

... So you want to increase the maintenance of the gunpowder unit?

No, I am not a supporter for unit maintenance, not at all.
All these maintenance costs are usually hidden and are money trap.

I believe in paying for such maintenance in advance, like purchasing special ammunition like Grenades or sticky bombs.

There are some games that increase the cost of units the more units you train.
This is another form of maintenance in advance.
This way the player is more aware of the cost of having too large of an army.

 

[Shackel]

Wasn't talking to you, Moshe.

However, and once again, "special weapons" would just streamline and overpower any unit that allows it.

 

[Big_I]

I think an idea of supply lines would be more favorable than ammunition. Hail presented the idea of supply trucks, that might be too much. I think that if there is a reasonable route between your unit and your country or an allies' country, then your unit would be properly supplied with food, ammo ect. However if your unit, be it either an archer or a tank, has no reasonable line of supply, i.e. it's surrounded by enemy units, its strength becomes progressively less. It seems that the current system of unit maintenance allows you to supply units who have no real logical way of being supplied. So in this new method you wouldn't have to pay for those units you can't supply, but they wouldn't be able to get supplies, which would decrease their strength every turn, until they are either wiped out by the enemy or perhaps even surrender.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I much prefer the computer-determined supply lines thing, without actual micromanagement. It would be pretty annoying to actually have to physically supply your units, but defending supply routes (you could choose which one of multiple to defend) would be pretty good. And I like the surrender idea, but there would need to be some way of making it more advantageous than attacking suicidally, other than not giving the enemy XP. Perhaps at the end of conflict, surrendered units could be returned to their own civ? This would certainly stop the futile infanty vs. longbowmen massacres, and allow vassals to regain some military strength after a war.

 

[Shackel]

other than not giving the enemy XP

Wouldn't that be a massive advantage already?

You don't want that Longbowman to hit City Garrison III, now, do you?