Puff the Magic Dragon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Andreas, one thing that I think would change my mind is if I could come up with evidence that flamethrower teams in the US Army, SS, Heer, CW, or Russian army were organic as squad level elements, instead of special weapons teams assigned to platoons.<hr></blockquote> I have ordered the book 'Deutsche Pioniere im Einsatz' (German engineers in action) one minute ago. Maybe we find someone else who can provide us with informations faster. Hey Slapdragon, I would expect that you have - like me - a natural interest to support other flamethrowers. [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: That's what I thought - in that case I simply disagree. What you want is to remove the possibility for the opposition to take care of a major threat to their position. That I feel is unrealistic and should not be done. FTs were prime targets. If you want them to be covered, do it with another squad/tank/whatever through suppression. As for them working as AT weapons - no I don't, but I don't find it a major stretch of imagination that they disable vehicles or cause crews to bail. Someone posted here about the episode related by Belton Cooper in which Shermans caused KT crews to bail with WP rounds. Same principle. As for Jason's points. Yes for some of them in QBs (I absolutely disagree with the claim that there is not enough of a morale effect). No for well-designed scenarios. This indicates to me that it is a QB problem, and not an FT problem. What needs fixing then is the QB system, which should probably include a city only setting in CMBB (although I am not sure if the auto-generator could handle such a map), and not some way to make FTs stronger than they already are (if used correctly).<hr></blockquote> Andreas, you could bring the same argument about Panzerfausts. They are also a major threat, maybe even more then any FT, when I think how much damage they can do and how much points they make for me when they kill a tank. And Fausts are for free! I also didn't meant to make them a stronger weapon (or a magic bullet, as Slapdragon says). The protection problem is, I can not order cover against multiple targets. In reality, the squad MG can cover a large area, the rest of the squad can cover another area, the next squad etcetera. The game works different, and beside that, the TacAI often make it's own decisions, so a efficient protection of another unit is very difficult to organize. IMO it would make things just easier, but NOT on cost of realism. Why do you think the FT would become an ueberweapon when they are part of a squad? It wouldn't change them. They still would be a weapon with short range, and they still would have the same number of attacks then before.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Oh yes, and I forgot. A point about their effectiveness. In another Der Kessel game I playtested against the AI, a flamethrower killed a King Tiger with three shots (ambushed it from inside a house), other FTs killed numerous HTs with single shots, and the morale effect Jason mentions is definitely in the game - the Germans who were treated to the tender attention of a flame-thrower were very eager to surrender. I had squads with just one or two casualties throw in the towel. To claim that all this is not in the game is just plain wrong.<hr></blockquote> Andreas, first, I play mostly QBs, because I play mostly PBEM. But don't let as discuss personal taste It has been pointed out that FTs were historically used against fortified positions. I didn't knew that they were an AT unit. Do have some sources, I would like to read more about that.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Err, bit of a conundrum here - so they should be prefered targets, but not? Sorry, but the logic behind that bit I don't understand at all. I just can't see how this 'cover' is supposed to work. ...<hr></blockquote> Cough, cough . How should I explain... The FT now: slow, defensless because of short range. Anyway, the TacAI selects it as a primary target, similar to Bazookas AFAIK. This causes that this slow and on longer range defenseless unit is regulary slaughtered. The FT as part of the squad: The TacAI don't aim an infantry squad as primary target. Especially not under FOW. The FT is not longer 'THERE THIS FT MUST BE KILLED', it is only one man* in a squad of 10. So the chance to be the one who is killed in the targeted unit falls from 100% to 10% - please don't nail me on the math , but I hope you get the idea now. IN REALITY they are an important target - IN GAME as part of a squad, they can't be aimed as a single target, only the whole squad can be aimed. In princip this abstracts that the important FT is protected by other squad members. *(BTW, still unanswered, why is a FT team two men?) JasonC Thanks, I already feared I made a complete fool of me

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: The consequence of this would be that the engineer squad would be horrendously slow though. Which is a bit unrealistic in itself - I guess people would then want to be able to split them off, and you are back to where you are now. Also, for the German engineers this would lead to something very unrealistic, because they were supposed to be more like line-infantry (or at least got used that way), so they would not always have flamethrowers handy. I am not sure what you think is broken that needs fixing? They are slow and become a target for everyone and their second cousin. If you merge them with the squad, the squad becomes slow and becomes a priority target. Also, since CMBO does not model the individual soldier, how would you handle the fact that the two guys manning the FT would be the prime target in the squad?<hr></blockquote> Please excuse my silly question, but if the engineers are only line-infantry (or at least got used that way), what is the sense of a special engineer squad? Let me think: They have a demo charge (or two), and they can clear minefields. The use of DC don't need to be discussed here, but clearing minefields falls - IMO - under the things that were mentioned by Slapdragon and Andrew. It is time consuming, and usually not done during a battle. (I mean CM battle, I have never seen someone doing it, I don't know if it was done in reality) Maybe I should say it different. My idea was not only to make flamethrowers better to use, it was also to make the engineers to a unit with special abilities. Maybe I'm completly wrong informed about engineers, I have always the picture of 'Sturmpioniere' in my mind, a unit that is trained to attack fortified positions or fights in a special terraine like cities, for example the battle of Stalingrad. Well, it was just an idea, when I think about it, I guess CM is not able to realize things like that, because the infantry units in general are, ehm...just infantry, the only difference is that each squad has different handguns. Well, maybe that was what I think is broken, but on the other side, maybe this goes beyond the scope of CM. To answer your question: to merge them with squads should negate that they are a primary target. But NOT, because they are not a prefered target - indeed they were. This should only simulate the cover they get from the rest of the squad. Well, I already said in my initial post, no one things that it is a good idea, except me. Forget it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: Flamethrowers are pretty realistic as they are now modeled in CM: in real life, they were very vulnerable, and were often specifically targeted by enemy troops. They also did not have a long range. The reason that they are something of a marginal unit in CM is because they had something of a marginal role in CM type battles. This is essentially the same point that Slappy made. Flamethrowers excel against troops who can't fire back, essentially, but who are in a defensive location that makes it difficult to dig them out without suffering casualties. This would include troops in bunkers if you approach the bunker from an oblique angle, or troops barracaded in buildings, or troops in caves. In most, although not all, cases, these uses of flamethrowers were sort of "second-wave" weapons: i.e., the marines have cleared part of the island, but there are still a lot of caves with troops in them. Or soldiers have mostly taken a city block, but there are some holdouts in fortified buildings. Occasionally FTs did have "first-wave" application, as when a particular pillbox or fortified building was holding up an advance.<hr></blockquote> Ehm, I said they are very vulnerable and didn't have a long range, haven't I??? The primare target thing you said is right, and indeed they were slow, but in the game, this factors seem to multiplicate each other, so the vulnerabilty gets IMO a bit oversized. What I had in mind is mostly the city fighting where they have a more offensive role. As you pointed out, Flamethrowers are not important in CM:BO battles. Partialy because city fighting in general is not important in CM:BO. But all I have heart yet about CM:BB make me believe that the BTS folks has paid much more attention on city battles. Maybe my idea makes more sense when is this kept in mind.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: You are somewhat right, but flamethrowers are more useful than you think if you use them historically. They were rarely used to charge MG nests without covering fire and spoke. They usually worked hand in hand with infantry. You can make engineers more sturdy by buying elite or veteran forces, depending on what your game is like.<hr></blockquote> Ehm, I have said they need cover, haven't I??? But as team they are still exposed, because they can be aimed as specific target, and as a team the have (AFAIK) a much higher target priority then an infantry squad - that is the problem I see. As part of a squad they are not longer exposed, and the wouldn't have a higher target priority, so this would simulate the cover IMO better. Troop quality can not always be free selected, especially in QBs it's restricted. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The biggest problem with engineers is that battles with them in real life where slow motion affairs designed to get the engineers in position to assault the target without coming under prolonged machinegun fire. This could take hours, require large amounts of arty and smoke, and often needed a sustained fire MG or two. The game does not always leave you time to do all that.<hr></blockquote> Yes, but real battle can't be generally compared with a CM game, I guess BTS has once said something about it. There were often hours without much action, while troops waiting for support or supply. I see it this way: when the CM battle starts, all the hours needed to get a formation into position are already past, in CM we only have a 'full action part' of the battle. So we have our engineers already in position.

Just some thoughts I had in the bathtube I have noticed that Flamethrowers are mostly useless, because they are very slow and have only a short range, this makes it difficult to move them into a fireposition before they are killed. So would it be a good idea to merge them with the engineer squads? My thoughts: - Flamethrowers were (AFAIK!) part of engineer or other special troops. Maybe I'm wrong here, I couldn't find a source about it. At least in CM they are only part of engineer formations (when you select a large formation). - Because they are so vulnerable, they need infantry cover. - Merged with a squad, they are not longer an exposed target. This would reflect the cover they get from the rest of the squad. When they are close enough to fire, they can do this similar to rifle grenades or Panzerfausts. - Of course it would be necessary that squads with flamthrowers move much slower than normal squads. Squads can only advance as fast as the slowest member. But I think troops with flamthrowers are anyway specialists for close combat situations like housefighting, so they move in relativ covered terrain. They could even run, but get much faster tired, like a Panzerschreck. Just on a distances that's necessary to cross a road. - Engineers in CM has currently only limited efficence. They are only a medium quality infantry with some demolition charges. That's a pity, cause they were highly trained and, when operating in city or similar terrain, a very hazardous opponent. Maybe this could be reflected a little bit better when they have 'integrated' Flamethrowers? Okay, I'm sure most people think that it is not a good idea. I only wanted to get this out of my head. BTW, why has a Flamethrower team two men? Does it mean two Flamethrowers, or need a Flamethrower a two men crew? [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

LOL, you boys are always so funny, I really love this board. But sometime I believe you mean it all serious... Just imagine: The textures and unit names would be taken from a sience fiction movie, while all the rest is the same - we all would be simply happy to own one of the best computer games in the world, and give a damn about the rest .

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Uh, because BTS has a business, and as such these formulae are their intellectual property, and a good part of the value of their business? They are not a public research laboratory funded by taxes, last time I checked.<hr></blockquote> I guess he doesn't meant to publish the source code...but before you program a calculation you must have a mathematical formula. I don't believe that this formulas make CM so unique that they must be secret. Other companys like Talon (Campaign Series) show them in the manual, too.

When we are already talking about realism... I read somewhere (don't nail me down on the facts) that the Russians had produced ~40.000 T34 of all types, bud the average lifetime of a T-34 were only ~7 days, while the Germans had only 30.000 PzIII (including StuG), PzIV, PzV, PzVI & PzVI KT together, bud the German losses were not so extreme. This looks like: the Russians had high casualties, bud the Germans were simply outnumbered. The Russian loose more tanks per battle, but they still win. In general, the Russian casualties were extraordinary, as we all know. The only important thing were to succeed in the mission - casualties were secondary. Is this right? If so: With the current way to calculate the CM victory (all I know about it), is this impossible. If both sides has equal casualties, the result will be a draw. If the Russian forces are cheaper to reflect their masses, the Germans has no chance - maybe German tanks are better (I mean things like Tiger vs T-34) but take one Tiger vs 5 T-34, and I assume the Tiger will be toasted most times (because of math, more shots = higher chance to hit = higher chance to damage/kill). I believe it was not so in reality, bud better ask an expert.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: The most unrealistic thing is CMBO is that the player seens everything, knows extact all ways to knock a tank out and can redirect any troop on the battlefield to do whatever has the best chance to kill the tank. We are missing all the guys who stayed away from the tank, or didn't even know there is a tank, or could identify it as non-friendly. Even greep and conscript troops in CMBO behave like: OK guys we are one, none of us is an idividual, we'll kill that tank with whatever has best chances, then with what has second chance and so forth. The troop quality only matters for the outcome after one selected group has been sent out - bad troops has a much lower chance on that level. On the game-wide level, CMBO forces behave like super-determined telephatic year-2025 US Marines in a training contest against some French cavalry guys.<hr></blockquote> Oh, yes, I have completly forgotten to mention the borg spotting!

Hey folks, I'm no heretic! All stats count of course only for the specific units in this special time frame. Beside that, no situation can be compared with another situation, because everything is unique in our universe :cool: , and a game can not be seriously compared with reality! I wonder why so many people try this - me included. [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Puff, you are not running around in a light-green Jersey suit, are you? Inquiring minds want to know <hr></blockquote> No, I'm currently running around in high heels and fishnet stockings, but please don't tell anyone - especially not my girlfriend! [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish: Perhaps, but your missing a very important bit of information: The number of actual weapons systems that achieved those kills. Only by comapring the ratio of German tanks to SPs can you determine how effective they were. IOW, If the German tank fleet outnumbered the Stugs by 4:1 then the Stugs were just as efficent as tanks, and cheaper to build and maintain to boot. BTW, the 21st Panzer was a regular Heer formation, not SS.<hr></blockquote> I only said 'it seems' . You are right, and here are the stats (for all forces in the West, 10. Jun 1944) Pz. III = 39 Pz.IV = 758 Pz.V = 655 Pz.VI = 102 StuG = 158 Beutepanzer: 179

I found this stats in a book (T.L.Jentz, in US 'Panzertruppen', in Germany 'Die deutsche Panzertruppe). Maybe you find it interesting. Allied tanks, destroyed from the landing til 3rd July. (the stats include number from the 17th SS, 2nd Pz, Lehr, 12th SS & 21th Pz division) destroyed by tanks : 227 StuG & selfprop. PAK : 61 PAK & FLAK : 105 Artillerie : 36 Infantry with hand held weapons : 108 I think this is for some reasons interesting. It seems that the StG in CM are much effizienter then they were in reality. BTW, the text describes the the PzIV as much better than any StG and sp. AT, mostly because a)the turret and b)the higher mounted gun. So it seems 'silhouette' is not evrything we must know about the size of a tank. Hand held weapons were as efficient as PAK. This would have been interesting for the discusion about infaantry vs tanks some days ago. To bad, I should have made some stats about my experience in CM to compare it. [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

I just throw in some stats, I leave it up to you to give them sense. Casualties of Panther (on all fronts together!!!): Jan 44 : 130 Feb 44 : 127 Mar 44 : 19 Apr 44 : 247 May 44 : 117 Jun 44 : 138 Jul 44 : 373 Aug 44 : 290 Sep 44 : 692 Okt 44 : 294 Nov 44 : 133 Dec 44 : 243 Jan 45 : 252 (Further numbers are not available) Taken from Thomas L. Jentz, Die deutsche Panzertruppe (issued in the US as 'Panzertruppen') Just my five pence about realism & tanks in CM: We should not forget that the 'typical' - especially QB - CM battle is a completly unrealistic situation, and a CM battle is IMO in general mostly unhistoric. a) equal forces meet on the battlefield air superiority, the most important thing in the late war, doesn't matter (not realy) c) tanks didn't meet in close combat every day - and close combat for tanks means everything below 500m. Tank guns were not without reason build for lang range accuracy. d) when a commander meet a superior force, he usually tends to retreat and call for support. This is not possible in CM, so casualties are always extraordinary. I'm pretty sure that the US had reconsidered their engagement if they had all the time casualties like on Omaha beach or in Huertgenwald.

Bumped with the dragon's tail

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: ... it sounds to me like the TacAI decided that using the PF was not worth it, for any number of reasons...<hr></blockquote> oh, one I have fogotten e) ...the PF is fired, but misses. The squad dies. Well, I guess we can talk to whole night long without changing positions. I just prefer to know that I have ordered the **** that happens. You don't want to be made responsible and blame the TacAI for the **** that happens. Two worlds collide

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Not all soldiers are heroes, in fact, most of them are not. They just want to go home alive.<hr></blockquote> This is of course correct, but now it's me to asked you: what would be different? a) I order my squad to shoot the PF on the tank. The tank dies, the squad lives. ...the PF misses, the tank target the squad, the squad dies. c) I can not not give the order. I can only order to stop hidding. The engine set the target priority on a Bazooka 150m away and decides that the PF will not be used. The tank noticed the squad and target it, the squad dies. d) I don't order to stop hidding. The tank moves on and destroy some of my vehicels or guns. The squad lives... Mmhh...

The silver award was instituted in March 42, but the gold award not before Dezember 43. This let me assume that the rate of destroyed tanks strongly rised after the PF reached the troops. I guess this makes sense. Well, this thing with the tank on the hill is indeed not the best example. But what I hate is my squad hidden in a foxhole. A tank is close enough to be destroyed with a PF. Now I order to stop hidding. But instead of targeting the tank, the troop fires on some units far away, because the game-engine set the importance of a target. I'm not able to tell the squad that the tank is the primary target, not the Bazooka or MG 150m away. IMO that is something beyond natural uncertainty, it's a programed obstruction of my tactics.

Well, at least we know now that CM:BB can not be expected before 28 Febuary, the official end date of the contest. And if BTS want to include even the latest transmissions, not before end of March. Damned, how can you be so cruel. That's three additional month I most stay at the damned western front.

Award Criteria The tank destruction badge was awarded to soldiers who destroyed an enemy tank single handedly by a hand held weapon. Anti-tank units were not eligible for this award. Silver Award: The single handed destruction of an enemy tank by use of hand held weapons such as a hand grenade, panzerfaust, satchel charge, etc. Gold Award: The single handed destruction of five enemy tanks using hand held weapons such as a hand grenade, panzerefaust, satchel charge, etc. Well, if a gold award was necessary, I assume it was not extremly rare that someone had killed 5 vehicels. Sorry, I can't find a number of total awards. BTW, the award was granted for confirmed kills. [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

I had better said 'that rare' instead of difficult. An additional command will not hinder the random use of a weapon. But I think it would clear things and offer new and realistic possibilitys. For example, how about PFs fired on a pillbox or a satchel charge thrown into a building? The 'chase vehicel' would be indeed BS and unhistoric.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Were the guns themselves under fire? Suppressed? Panicked? <hr></blockquote> Nothing of this. Perfect conditions. They just didn't followed their orderes in this turn. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As for 'searching' - I did not need to search for any special way, it all works beautifully as it is...<hr></blockquote> Well, then you had more luck then me. I needed several month til I found out that the AT weapons are only used when I give no target order. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>...namely that there was a reason medals were given for single-handed (!) tank destruction. IMO that was because it was a rare thing that took some special courage.<hr></blockquote> Well, the soldier with the most badges had destroyed 21(!) enemy tanks with hand weapons. So it doesn't seem to be that difficult. Anyway Andreas, I still don't see why you are so against a clear command. If you think you don't need it, don't use it. I for example have never used the 'retreat' command in the year I play CM.