TZEENCH Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 How are the flamethrowers going to be modled in the game? Will you be able to set terrain on fire easier? Is there going to be Tank versions? ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrodi Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Apparently they are being modeled after me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Flamethrowers are modeled as they should be. Two man teams with very limited fuel. We do have flame tanks as well. Terrain can be set on fire. However, don't expect such units to be the "best" unit in the game unlike some other games out there Keeping a FT team alive AND getting it into combat, is VERY difficult. A flame tank is easier, but oddly enough the enemy tries pretty hard to knock it out Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Aye, there are going to be tank versions. As far as I know, Churchill Crocodile for Allies and Flammpanzer for Germans. I haven't seen any screenshot from a flamethrower yet (well, I read an AAR in which two FT teams were involved but Fionn... er... well... lost them before even being able to use them ) So we'll have to wait. It would be a hell of a good update in CMHQ, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TZEENCH Posted December 15, 1999 Author Share Posted December 15, 1999 Any idea on what the range is going to be? 4 to 10 meters? or are we talking less? any chance of geting madmatt or fionn to post a pic of one in action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 The 'Ack Pack' British Flamethrower has a max range of about 45 m. The Churchill Crocodile's had a range of 185m... So yes, expect some relatively long range burning... I would also love to see Fionn posting some shots of FTs... Perhaps for the next CMHQ update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 I've seen a pic over at CMHQ of a flame team moving, ie there's a guy infront with 2 big tanks on his back. But he isn't firing. Regs Fen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 I've got a picture of a little two flamethrower AT ambush I made in response to your requests. I lost a pic of one of them surrendering when things didn't work out though but you get to see the burst of flame. Should be going up soon. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 I forget the range of the maned flame thrower, but take that 185m thing with a grain of salt. When we researched this a while back Charles found exact equations for fuel consumption depending on range. It goes up substantially for each meter out. I don't mean 100m uses twice as much fuel as 50m, but more like 3 or 4 times as much (I forget). So basically you get one or two long range bursts, or several small ones. This came out of research we did based on "if flamethrowing tanks were really that powerfull, why didn't every rifle company have a couple?". The reasons became clear when we found the fuel consumption equations. These things were designed to take out one or two SPECIFIC emplacements, and then withdraw from combat. They were NOT supposed to go around flaming everything it could find. In fact, they COULDN'T. Plus, at the strategic level can you imagine how difficult it would be keeping more than a handfull of these vehicles fueled and ready for even ocasional combat? Pretty tough I imagine. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TZEENCH Posted December 15, 1999 Author Share Posted December 15, 1999 Thanks fionn, the pics are GREAT.... "is that gasoline i smell" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 What Steve is saying there is exactly what I read in a book about Spetznas. The russians invented a weapon that threw out a small container that ignited on contact in that way they didn't use up fuel to reach the target. This was a handheld weapon though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Neat sounding device there! The 45m range sounds about right BTW. As I have said too many times , I got to use a flamethrower once. Although I couldn't tell you at the time I was using it how far I was burning (man, the HEAT from one of those bastards!!!), the videos I took of other guys using them looks to be about 50m or so. When we got the numbers for various FT packs (US, UK, German) there was slight differences in range and burn time. One of the two flamethrowers I saw used was US vintage 1943, so that one I can attest to personally Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Well, probably that's why the Churchill Crocodile kept both the main gun and the co-axial BESA MG. It surely ran out of FT fuel quite early in the battle. What about the WASP mounted on the universal carrier? Are we going to have it? It had a smaller fuel capacity (358 l against the Crocodile's 908 l) but it was useful, too... And one last question: the WASP was mounted on a carrier and the manned FT was called 'Ack-pack'. What was the BADGER then? ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 The Wasp is in. The badger is a small burrowing mammal . Don't know what vehicle it stands for though. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SySShockeD Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Another question about sommething related that I couldn't find in earlier posts (I did search!): do burning turn into rubble after some turns? I saw building in Last Defence catch fire after an artillery shell hit it and burned for more than ten turns until the comp surrendered . It was of course a wooden building but after around ten minutes of burning there shouldn't be much left of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Have you ever seen a building burn SySShocked ? I have seen a few burn and the fires lasted for hours, no matter if they contained much wood or were mainly stone... I think it'd be really unrealistic, personally speaking, to have a building on fire go out within the length of a CM scenario. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Yeah, gotta agree with Fionn here. Buildings take hours to burn down, sometimes more than a day for biger ones. A farmhouse, would certainly take more than 10 minutes to colapse. Part of the problem with the way CM works right now is that we don't have intemediate graphics for various stages of building destruction. It is visually either standing or rubble, even though the code is more sophisticated than that. So while that building after might look perfectly A-OK, it isn't Buildings are on the top of our list for improvements for CM2 Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Fionn, I hadn't heard about the badger in my whole life (well, not about the flamethrower named after the burrowing mammal I mean ) But I saw it in the vehicle list. I ken the wasp and the ack-pack, but the Badger's new for me. Is it one of BTS' 'we won't add' gizmos? Perhaps a funny from the good old Percy Hobarts I'm yet to hear about? You ken, I can't imagine a bunch of burrowing mammals eating a Sturmgrenadiere squad... Perhaps in the Blackadder IV series, maybe a song from the Monty Python, but not in CM anyway... ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Tim: From what I read the greatest effect flamethrowers had (in the ETO at least) was their effect on morale. To such an extent that Germans would surrender at the sight of a Croc. Are these 'terror' effects modelled? Any details...(is a hit required for 'terror', or just LOS...)? ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 It is true that flamethrower equipped vehicles were to be feared. But you know, flamethrowers also burn... What I mean is that, despite of the fact a flamethrower generates both havoc and confusion, I wouldn't surrender to a croc at first sight if I had a Panzerfaust, and I would beg for more crocs if I had a Panzerschreck. If you're facing a lot of Germans advancing through a forest, then the Crocodile is the devil himself. But if you're well fortified and have adequate weaponry, the Crocodile is nothing but another allied tank... You have to get close to use a FT effectively... and sincerely, would you get close to a German infantry team with a Sherman? I wouldn't and I wouldn't do it with a crocodile either... My humble opinion, of course ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SySShockeD Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Thanks Fionn and Steve, it doesn't really feel right for wooden buildings (I agree 10 min is rather short) but I didn't saw one burn down so I take your word for it Fionn! [This message has been edited by SySShockeD (edited 12-16-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Actually, although FIonn will correct me if I'm wrong, at the Battle for the fortress at Metz the mere sight of the 3 British crocodiles that arrived and approached to engage is exactly what caused the Germans to give up. The battle had raged on for some time ferocioulsy, with no success for the Americans. The Americans, who If I recall used direct fire from 105 mm guns ( or maybe it was 155mm) to try and Breach the gates yet this was to no avail. Its beena while sinec I read this book so I f i'm slightly off someone plz feel free to step in. SS_PanzerLeader..........out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 I think you're right there as regards the Crocs.. One thing though.. I have actually read a book by a Crocodile platoon commander and a couple of other books by German company level officers and one Allied intelligence debriefing of a German General (I forget his name right now but he commanded a Corps facing the Brits in the Netherlands etc). Anyways, the platoon commander described how German troops in villages he had been sent to clear would set up a forward screen of schrecks which he had to fight through to get into the village and then they would often be subjected to faust barrages. He constantly came back to the point that the croc was being sent into action in unsuitable terrain against a dug-in enemy purely because the higher-ups : a) didn't want to lose more infantry due to the severe infantry shortage and wanted to buck up the friendly infantry by showing crocs in action. A German Company commander relates how his company wiped out a platoon (3 IIRC) of Crocs when they attacked a village his forces held. The General was asked about Crocs and basically said something along the lines of.. Good tanks and especially useful against conscript troops but almost useless when committed to a defensive position held by good troops (regulars). I think the general consensus would agree that while Crocs did sometimes scare the living s**t out of troops and cause them to surrender that mostly they were not the weapons they are made out to be when committed against good German troops in defensible terrain. If you put a couple of crocs up against a poor quality company in CM they'll wipe the floor with them and most of the conscripts or green troops will simply end up breaking and running but put those same crocs up against a company of veterans in the exact same situation and the crocs are toast. I LOVE Crocs though as I think they are the best flametanks of WW2. Keeping the main gun and the machineguns in addition to the flamethrower makes crocs a fearsome weapon to behold. I have knocked down houses with the 75mm gun, machinegunned running troops with the MGs AND fired the flamethrower at the foxholes of an enemy infantry platoon all at the same time with the same croc. It's pretty amazing to see ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Scott, SS PzLdr, and Fionn are all correct. The flamethrower had a special place in the section of the brain that kicks in fear However, we do not model this on purpose. Although flame attacks (so far as I remember) on a unit basically send it packing, we do not have a seperate routine that starts surrendering units that were not attacked. We leave the panicking up to the player. The reason for this is simple. In various battlefields there are conditions that are external, yet very significant to such large scale "surrender" decisions. The guys in Metz were under a load of stress and combat prior to the arrival of the Crocs from what I remember. When they showed up, it was simply the last straw. Especially because in that particular case, there was no where to run to (and they might have lacked adequate AT capabilities at the time). If the Crocs had shown up on the first day of the battle, and the Germans had a couple of Pak40s, they might have stuck it out. Likewise, US troops were likely to panic at the HINT of an oncoming Tiger. But what exactly would cause one unit to flee and another to stay is VERY subjective. Artillery often had the same effect if it came down the right way at the wrong (for the receive) time. Then there are the effects that the loss of some vital piece of friendly equipment might have, causing that side to pack it in when it became destroyed. All of these things happened, but to try and code up stuff like this that would be fair, realistic, and not piss players off is beyond what we want to tackle. Instead, we let the player decide if "Tiger" is going to cause a full pullback, whack all units for Global Morale loss, and have units do their own panic decisions based on their own composition and exact circumstances. We think this is the best way of doing it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 I guess a squad that has been attacked by a flamethrower will panic, at least... I'm not exactly a coward, but I wouldn't stay there... ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts