BTS, "HUNT" movement option wanted and NEEDED for three units.

[Maximus]

The Hunt command really should be included for the SPW251/16, the Flammpanzer 38(t) and the Wasp Flamethrower Carrier. Too many times I try to use these units to do just what the Hunt command does and I can't because it is not available for those units.

Backed-up Reasoning:

Mortar units have the Hunt command, so why don't Flamethrower units?

This really shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Should it?

[Pvt.Tom]

Please, Please, Please, this would be great in CM2, the armor on the Wasp is so weak if you don't fire as soon as you see someone you get killed.

Pvt.Tom

[Jarmo]

What hunt does, is to stop the vehicle as soon as an enemy AFV is visible

and have the hunter target the enemy AFV.

So, let's suppose a wasp spots a stug 200 meters away.

I can see a problem here.

Certainly this could be implemented and it would be cool.

But it wouldn't be trivial.

[Maximus]

But Flamethrowers only have an effective range of 50m.

Most of the time, you're either hauling ass with these units to get them near targets or away from danger. But when you're near targets and you want to move to keep up with them or "move to contact" as some may say, and then stop and fire, then yeah, they need a Hunt command.

In a PBEM game I had a Flammpanzer. It was near the enemy. It had already spewed about 3 times, but the next turn I was wanting to advance it a little bit. The Hunt command came to mind, but it is not available. Therefore I used Fast Move and it dicked around and never fired another shot and in the process got wasted by a 'zook round.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

But Flamethrowers only have an effective range of 50m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point exactly.

The Wasp would stop. And stare at the stug with murderous intent.

But it wouldn't be able to do anything besides staring, so it would die.

[:USERNAME:]

Ive seen lots of footage of wasps at full speed giving a hedgerow or a tree line a running squirt. These were open top and wouldnt want to stop at such close proximity.

[MadmaN]

yeah this would be good in the next path (if there is one) or CM2.

[David Aitken]

I'm with Jarmo and Lewis.

Flamethrower vehicles are not tank hunters. They cannot go toe-to-toe with anything that fires AP (or HE in the Wasp's case). As such a Hunt command is redundant. If you want your flamethrower to sneak up on another AV, you need to set up an ambush, or advance on a small scale (ie. pop round a corner or emerge from hiding), rather than expecting it to seek and destroy the enemy. Nine times out of ten the Hunt command would result in a dead flamethrower, because his only hope is to kill quickly or keep moving, and the Hunt command would facilitate neither.

This of course fails to address the issue of whether flamethrowers were used in the anti-armour role at all. Maybe someone can provide evidence one way or the other, but in my understanding they are infantry support weapons, and would not survive long in another role.

David

[M Hofbauer]

Jarmo: And stare at the stug with murderous intent.

ROTFL...!!

I agree with Jarmo, Lewis, Aitken. Especially, the latter beat me to the aspect of "what do you think FTs were used for?". Because, they were not meant as AT assets, but as area suppression / demolition and fortification engaging assets.

CM models this very well...almost to well..ever wondered why the flamethrower is so terribly ineffective vs infantry in CM?

because fire does not really hurt troops in CM - it only makes them want to get away. You can try this out yourself. Go to the scenario editor and make a map composed entirely of burning tiles. Place some infantry square in the middle of this burning hell.

What you'll see is that the infantry will walk through all this fire as if they were on an advanced management course walking coals, reaching the edge of the map after several hundred meters of fire - totally unharmed.

Back to FTs vs Tanks:

That is not to say a wasp can't kill tanks in CM. All I am saying is it's pretty poor at it in CM. And that's ok IMO.

I think the demand for a hunt order is much more valid w/r/t exclusively .50cal - equipped AFVs.

------------------

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

Backed-up Reasoning:

Mortar units have the Hunt command, so why don't Flamethrower units?

This really shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Should it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to hear you have backed up reasoning. Seems like a case of two wrongs making a right.

My name is Elmer J Fudd. I am hunting Elephants with a mowtah. hehehehehheh.

[Maximus]

Well OK I agree with all of your following arguments, however as Aitken said, Flamethrowers weren't really meant as anti-armor rolls. That's what I meant is that they usually haul ass to get soemwhere and then when they are near targets, namely infantry, they need a HUNT command to "hunt" the infantry in every sense of what the command normally does.

And as Hofbauer said, a HUNT command would also be good for MG armed vehicles like haltracks and carriers, because tanks use it also don't they. Example, when tanks are on Hunt they will stop and engage first with MGs before engaging with main guns too don't they? Or do they fire their MGs while on the move? Can't remember right off hand.

[Lord Dreaman]

Tanks can fire both their machine guns and cannons on the move. I think some work has to be done on the hunt command because infantry should have a modified hunt command to stop and engage infantry. Of course with units like infantry, flamethrowers and flame tanks they would have to be modified so they wouldn't stop to engage a target they had no chance of destroying, i.e a wasp stopping to engage a King Tiger or something like that but I see where this guy is coming from. His idea has promise.

[David Aitken]

Lord Dreaman wrote:

> infantry should have a modified hunt command to stop and engage infantry.

The Sneak command used to be a 'move stealthily' order, but it was changed to more of a 'move to contact' order. In other words, try using the Sneak command.

[Colin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I'm with Jarmo and Lewis.

Flamethrower vehicles are not tank hunters. They cannot go toe-to-toe with anything that fires AP (or HE in the Wasp's case). As such a Hunt command is redundant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right! So obviously the hunt command should be removed on the StuH42, Hummel, Wespe, Sherman 105's, Churchill AVRE's and others with 95mm guns and German HT's with 75mm's. Also regular Sherman 75's are meant not for AT work but for anti-personnel work so they shouldn't be able to hunt either.

------------------

And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh.

-Steve

My website!

A major source of Wild Bill scenarios!

[David Aitken]

Thanks for that well-reasoned response Colin. Maybe you should consider that (1) two of the flamethrower vehicles in question are light armoured vehicles which don't stand a chance against tanks, and (2) the vehicles you mention are more heavily armoured and fire AP or HC, giving them a chance of killing tanks at a distance, which the aforementioned flamethrowers do not. Spot the difference?

David

[Maximus]

OK, maybe I'm not making myself totally clear.

Let me try it this way. Say like you have a Flammpanzer 38(t) in scattered trees and looking for suspected enemy infantry. Now what I want for the Hunt command is that when it spots the infantry, for it to stop and fire it's damn flamethrower. Because as it is right now, all we have for that unit is Fast Move and Move. Granted, Move works somewhat, but not really.

But I understand what some of you are saying that a Hunt command in general would make a vehicle stop and attempt to engage a target at any range. Well, in this case, the knowledgable person would only use this such command when he is near a "suspected" enemy infantry concentration. Which goes along with what I said above that usually you're hauling ass with these vehicles to get them *near* expected enemy infantry.

[David Aitken]

You send AVs prowling around scattered trees on their own? That sounds like a sure way to get them killed. How about having them tag along with your infantry, so when you make contact with the enemy, you can bring up the flamethrower for support? That's the concept of an infantry support vehicle. Without infantry you're just asking for an AT team to pop up and nail it.

I'm not telling you how I think you should be fighting, I'm telling you how such units would normally have been used. BTS is unlikely to consider adding features to the game specifically to allow you to do inadvisable or ahistorical things with your units.

Now what Lewis mentioned – running area-fire – is a feature which would make flamethrower vehicles much more useful. Kind of the same issue as sweeping area-fire for MGs and such, but that's another story.

David