Fire (the flames kind): what's it good for?

[Migo441]

First, let me stipulate that I want flames and flame effects in CMx2. But my reasoning can pretty much be reduced to, "it's cool." I think a little flame does a lot for the atmospherics.

Is there another reason?

From comments here and there, I gather that flames and flame effects in CMx1 were utilized in a gamey bastage manner? Is that an actual thing? CM players zeroing in on "burning stuff" as a key component of the tactical toolkit?

[sburke]

First, let me stipulate that I want flames and flame effects in CMx2. But my reasoning can pretty much be reduced to, "it's cool." I think a little flame does a lot for the atmospherics.

Is there another reason?

From comments here and there, I gather that flames and flame effects in CMx1 were utilized in a gamey bastage manner? Is that an actual thing? CM players zeroing in on "burning stuff" as a key component of the tactical toolkit?

flamethrowers in assault, be a lot easier to force defenders from buildings.

[Rocky Balboa]

Where there's fire there's smoke ... Smoke on the battle field can obscure targets or screen approaches even when set inadvertently ....

[umlaut]

In CM1 you could deny the enemy passage of a highly flammable area - like a wheat field in the summer - by setting it ablaze. Luckily, it wasn´t a very effective tool as the flames spread rather slowly - and not in a totally predictable manner.

That is my recollection of it - and because of that I´m looking forward to having fire in CM2 and not too nervous about the gamey aspects. But apparently other people have other experiences.

[BLSTK]

Where there's fire there's smoke...

That's it! All this time I've been intentionally allowing my tanks to burn so as to create a smoke screen for my troops.

Or at least that is what I'll tell them.

[BLSTK]

Rocky, I have a favour to ask you.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Fire, huh, yeah

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing, say it again, y'all

[Dadekster]

All of the above and who doesn't think buildings on fire in the background as your tanks rumble by isn't more immersive? It's just part of the battlefield.

[Ithikial_AU]

Area denial is main reason I used fire in the CMx1 days, followed close behind by trying to dig opposing infantry out of buildings and fortifications. The latter was a touch harder as it usually meant exposing your flamethrower teams or armoured vehicles to short range weaponry. Can't see that changing in CMx2 now following the latest update.

There's always the risk of players being 'gamey,' that's always existed. For instance, there's nothing stopping people from blasting the opposing player's deployment zones with off map support if they really want to. You can always set up gentleman's agreements before a MP game if you have concerns. Area denial with flame weapons doesn't appear gamey for me at all, especially if it's unpredictable and could move in unintended directions or burn itself out over time.

[Bergerbitz]

Fire, huh, yeah

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing, say it again, y'all

Dammit....I was just going to write that.

Er, I mean: FYAH! HUH!! YEAH!

[Fenris]

Fire and smoke for confusion, obstacle and assault weapon.

-F

[Sardaukar]

Ampulomet in CMBB is great in setting wheat fields on fire. That was about only thing it is good for..

[Baneman]

Ampulomet in CMBB is great in setting wheat fields on fire. That was about only thing it is good for..

You have GOT to be joking. That thing is so overpowered in CMBB !

I quail every time I hear that "tzwunk" sound in a game - I've lost loads of tanks and HT's to it at ludicrous ranges.

I must agree with the original post though, I'd like to see houses and so forth on fire, but I've never gotten much utility out of flamethrowers.

I imagine it's hell to code AI to deal with though.

[Erwin]

"never gotten much utility out of flamethrowers."

Gotta disagree with you there. One does need to know how best to use em. (Less for assault, where in CM they can die easily, but more for mopping up quick when the enemy is pinned.)

[Migo441]

Good stuff. Looking forward to seeing how it looks and behaves in CMx2!

Everything people are saying makes sense. But I'm still missing how people were ever really gamey with flames. As umlaut states, you could make an effort to set things on fire but it was unpredictable and slow. Seems like a risky tactic to waste ammo and assets shooting terrain (for uncertain effect) rather than the enemy.

My experience with flamethrowers in CMx1 was pretty spotty. Often, I wished I had practically any other team type instead. But when they worked, they REALLY worked and it was very satisfying.

[Vark]

Flamethrowers were only effective if,

a) They were vehicle mounted

They were used against pinned units

I spent ages trying to perfect the correct engineer tactics, which boiled down to

1. Unload everything fireable on a building so the engineers can close

2. Throw demo charges at max range

3 Your FT teams then are given a fire command with pause and then a sneak back, so they don't empty the tanks

4. A couple of squirts and then several teams assault with the others firing and flaming (You could not be harmed by friendly flames).

5. Rest of the team follows, FT teams trailing as the platoon expands into a building/BUA.

If it was timed correctly and the charges hit home it was devastating, if the AI threw a wobbly then scratch most of a platoon of engineers

I seem also to recall that FT's were savage in forests and broken ground when in hiding (lost some elite recce teams in the Kharkov Zoo scenario to them).

Play a Normandy scenario with a Crocodile and then ask if they make any difference!

[MikeyD]

Flamethrowers are basically a 'terror' weapon. People have an atavistic horror of burning to death (not surprisingly) that goes straight to the reptile brain. You might have equal luck clearing a building using grenades and a Tommy gun but you wouldn't generate the same level of panic. Three guys in your squad shot by a pistol from 20 feet is unfortunate, three guys set on fire from 20 feet away is the stuff on nightmares.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Flamethrowers are basically a 'terror' weapon. People have an atavistic horror of burning to death (not surprisingly) that goes straight to the reptile brain. You might have equal luck clearing a building using grenades and a Tommy gun but you wouldn't generate the same level of panic. Three guys in your squad shot by a pistol from 20 feet is unfortunate, three guys set on fire from 20 feet away is the stuff on nightmares.

>MikeyD comments on flamethrower post...

>Flames confirmed for Bagration :cool:

[Broadsword56]

(You could not be harmed by friendly flames)

Wha?? I don't like that at all and I hope that BFC will make flames equally dangerous to all whenever they're implemented again.

I can just imagine the ridiculous gamey tactic of setting everything ablaze and then charging through the "friendly" flames to the cowering and burning enemy.

[YankeeDog]

Burning terrain was "agnostic" in CMx1 -- neither side could enter burning terrain or buildings, no matter which side set them on fire initially.

However, the actual flame blast from the flamethrower was "friendly" and did not affect friendly units of the same side.

Best I can recall, the big "gamey" tactic wrt flame weapons people used to complain about in CMx1 was using high-capacity, long range flame vehicles to create large "firewalls" to restrict the enemy's movement. For example, in an ME, you could potentially rush a flag with a Wasp, and then use it to put up a large firewall on the enemy's side of the flag, which would to make it difficult for him to approach the flag. IRL, a tactic like this would be fraught with danger, since large terrain fires tend to take on a movement of their own.

[Vencini]

This is a classic:

Please give us some news!Thanks!

[Buzz]

This is a classic:

Please give us some news!Thanks!

It took a while but I knew Arthur would would get the Hot Shot Spot

MikeyD. "Flamethrowers are basically a 'terror' weapon. People have an atavistic horror of burning to death (not surprisingly) that goes straight to the reptile brain....."

I would have to agree that the horror of burning to death is something most folks understand and have an almost reflexive "run away" response.

Do modern militaries us Flamethrowers and if so how often and when?

[YankeeDog]

Do modern militaries us Flamethrowers and if so how often and when?

Not much; they've mostly been replaced by thermobaric warheads and white phosphorus.

[Vark]

One Crocodile commander suggested his FT tank was the most humane weapon around. His reasoning was that most occupants of bunkers and fortified buildings surrendered, without firing a shot, when they fired 1-2 rods close to the structures. Chillingly though, the SS often had to be burned out of their fortifications, which he said was a ghastly business.

[womble]

However, the actual flame blast from the flamethrower was "friendly" and did not affect friendly units of the same side.

The code for various levels of immunity is already there in x2, too. Flame could be like "friendly" small arms fire, and not hurt any friendlies, or it could be like "friendly" grenade (etc) fire, and not hurt the firing element, but have the potential to hurt other friendly elements. I suspect the second would be a compromise that we players could live with, while making the TacAI problem tractable, as it does now for "small arms" HE.