Bulletpoint

Thanks for sharing. So much for my hypothesis about maximum/effective range. But I continue to be puzzled about this vehicle. Why are these two "large" flamethrowers restricted to pretty much the same range as a small portable one? And why are there two projectors on the same vehicle? Why bother having an extra small one on the back? I'm starting to wonder if it was actually more intended to be a terror weapon than to be used on a real battlefield. Going down the main street of a Russian village, it would have been able to torch all buildings on both sides of the road very quickly in one go...

Which is also odd. At least according to this site: "The idea of installing a flamethrower in the T-34 originated in 1939, but work on designing the flamethrower itself did not start until November 1940, when the GKO issued a specification for a weapon with a range of 90 metres. A number of designs were submitted. After trials in May 1941 Factory No.174’s design was judged to be the winner and was given the designation ATO-41. This had the required range of 90 metres" http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_OT-34_flamethrower_tank.html

Not everyone has that option, pending the type of Nvidia card (like me for example on my laptop). My desktop Nvidia card has that option. That is why I suggested using Nvidia Inspector to select the half refresh option, as it's not an end all if it's not in your Nvidia Control Panel. That's interesting. I am also playing on a laptop, but I do get the option (which then doesn't work..). Maybe the Nvidia Inspector would allow me to force the driver to do it?

Thanks, sounds good. Perfect antidote for the huge scenarios I have been playing lately. Too bad it came a bit late for my weekend gaming session, but will look forward to play it ASAP and report back how it went.

Maybe it's all down to a confusion between effective range and maximum range? If most flamethrower ranges are measured by how far the furthest drops of fuel will go, and then this one is measured by where most of the fuel hasn't burnt in flight yet... then that would be two different yard sticks to go by. That might also explain the very limited range of the machinegun given by the same source.

@Swant @37mm Thanks, I'll try your suggestions and see if it works after a restart....

No, it's in the Nvidia control panel.. under the 3D settings for the specific game

That would explain it, but in that case, why does it look so different on the halftrack?

Yep, already read it... Same source gives the range of an MG42 "as much as 440 yards"

Yeah they were pretty incompetent.. While the British had their halftracks equipped with Ronson and Wasp flamethrowers with 80m range, the Germans thought 33m was probably more than enough to win the war... Either that, or somebody made a typo somewhere in a historical source, and 33m should be 83m

Even if it were 40m, that's very short range for a vehicle flamethrower. Wondering how they came up with the idea of an open top vehicle that had to get into hand grenade range to flush out enemy infantry...

I used to be able to select vertical sync: fast (half refresh rate) to improve performance in CM, but it no longer works. The game runs with variable FPS up to my monitor maxium, and I get plenty of tearing. Did something change in the latest Nvidia drivers?

I'm a bit puzzled that the German flame halftracks (Spw 251/16) in CMFB have a range of only 33 metres? Not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm no expert. Just wondering how such a big vehicle mounted flame projector can have a range comparable to most WW2 infantry carried flamethrowers. For example, the British "Lifebuoy" flamethrower had a range of 36 metres, and the German Flammenwerfer 41 had a range of 32 metres. WW2 vehicle mounted FTs usually had ranges of well over 100 metres. So what kept the halftrack flamethrower back? Was the design inefficient or was it because of the fuel?

Well... designing a reasonable AI attack is as difficult as trying to parallel park a stick shift car without first learning how to drive stick. At first it seems impossible, but after you've learned how to do it properly, it becomes second nature. Not talking about using the editor tools, I got that. But designing a believable and reasonably effective AI attack without massively stacking the deck in favour of the computer is very difficult to say the least. I've played this game for about 6 years now, and I played many campaigns and scenarios made by some of the best designers, such as Paper Tiger. But even they can't quite make a convincing AI attack against the player as defender. This game works way better with the player as the attacker, taking out static positions, with maybe a fallback trigger or two.

I would also like to see more nuanced/flexible infantry combat, including better ways to use grenades to clear buildings and trenches. Hopefully one day..

I guess another SOP could be that everyone ducks down behind whatever cover they can find - in ditches, behind/under vehicles, then fire back blindly with everything they have in the general direction of the enemy. Throw grenades too. Some ambushes are hit and run affairs, so if you could survive the first minute there's a reasonable chance the enemy might withdraw once fire starts coming their way too. Also, if you're travelling in a long column, you might have more friends coming to help out. So time would be on your side and you'd have little to gain by rushing forward in a situation where the enemy already has established fire superiority from concealed positions. But that's my non-military background take on this. You're free to tear it apart with actual experience

I met one fellow way back when I was in college. he was in Vietnam (infantry) and had been caught in a ambush and they did just that. Turned into it and assaulted. Thanks for sharing, +1. Interesting. I thought walking into an ambush at 50m range would be certain death to most of the ambushed party within a couple of seconds, but of course reality is not always like I imagine.

I wonder if anyone ever managed to pull that off. To me, that sounds a bit like those old Duck and Cover plans to surviving a nuclear attack. When you see a bright flash, duck under your table and hope you surivive. Would have had little effect, but it gave people a sense that they could do something in case the worst happened.

Actually there have been complaints about it. Depending on the map and AI plans you find the AI gets stuck and commits a weak attack. Folks tend to design around that but in an urban map your options are really limited and vehicles have a real hard time pathing. Vineyards are another area of complaint. Same issue. I think it's more of a general issue with the way AI works/doesn't work in this game. Designing a reasonable AI attack is extremely difficult. Just ordering an AI group to "attack" towards a specific area won't work - obstacles or not. But most designers customise such maps extensively to minimise things that can cause pathfinding trouble.

Range is about 30 metres maximum. When it works, the LOS tool will be grey. Doesn't matter if there's a small rise in elevation or a wall, but I don't think you can throw over a building. Here's Bil's page that explains it much better: http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2017/05/battle-technique-throw-grenades-over.html

I picked it up from Bil's battle blog long ago, and recently finally found a chance to use it in a PBEM

They already do. You can order a team to target a spot on the other side of a tall wall, and they will throw across grenades even though there's no LOS. However, they only throw about 1-2 grenades every turn, which is usually not enough.

Dekorationsobjekte wie z.B. tote Kühe, Zeichen, Telegraphenmasten... dass haben kein Funktion zum Spiel, aber machen die Karte mehr interessante.

I thought I came up with this joke, but, this being the internet and all...

Wie viele Dekorationsobjekte benützt du?