Is setting fire to things 'gamey'?

[rvalle]

I saw a post by Treeburst155 that said he thought setting areas of the map on fire was gamey.

I've never used the tactic or had it used against me... but it seems like a valid use of fire in the game. I'm reading a book on Rommel right now and it states in two places so far were he did similar things. Once he set fire to a row of houses to provide light so that he would be snuck up on. Another time he set row of houses on fire to provide a smoke screen for a river crossing.

The one case where I can see it being gamey is setting fire to houses to prevent the other side from targeting them with area fire. But, setting fire to them to deny the other side access seems ok.

rvalle

[Snake Eyes]

Those gamey Russians, using their scorched earth policy! Didn't they know that wasn't fair play. And those gamey Germans, using the same tactic when they retreated. They're all gamey SOB's.

[Andreas]

Setting houses on fire - not gamey, I have a number of references of Crocodiles doing just that.

Setting landscape on fire, that is different, I can see how that would be seen as gamey. Never encountered it though.

[rvalle]

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

Setting houses on fire - not gamey, I have a number of references of Crocodiles doing just that.

Setting landscape on fire, that is different, I can see how that would be seen as gamey. Never encountered it though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see setting a patch of woods on fire for the same reason of setting a row of houses on fire... denying their use to the other side.

I guess I could see that getting out of hand. If someone sets the whole board on fire every game it would get tiring. On the other hand, while the crocs are targeting the woods they would be vulnerable to a tank popping up and getting a first shot on it.

rvalle

[Ex Bellator]

I think I may have read the same source as Andreas about the Crocodiles (Ken Tout I believe) and recall that a troop of Crocodiles systematically burnt a whole large French village which was suspected of housing the enemy.

IIRC the job was so thorough it took 6 years to rebuild the village. The supporting infantry thought the Crocs had done a wonderful job, but I doubt the residents felt the same way.

[Nick Panzer]

Why would you WANT to give your opponent a field advantage? I just played a scenario in which the allies were advancing towards a town on the other side of a river. At the start I had a couple flame throwers on the other side of the bridge and had them toast every building on the rivers edge before the allies showed up. This forced the infantry to occupy the river banks and were subsequently made into fish food by 81 and 120mm mortars.

[Ricochet]

I think, perhaps, there’s a limit to setting things on fire. Treeburst was referring to someone buying a nest of Wasps and going around setting the whole map on fire. Gamey or just weird I don’t know. It certainly would seem to be a little outside the realm of reality.

Now a flamethrower team sitting on a reverse slope setting fire to an adjacent two story building which would give the enemy a line of sight to it’s position, well, been there done that. That seems within that realm.

Actually, it seems like a waist of resources if my opponent decided to waist Wasps by burning down the woods instead of me

[Steve McClaire]

Like all things in CMBO, I think it depends on whether you are using it, or abusing it. Setting fire to a couple of buildings is not necessarily gamey, but setting fire to large parts of the map is, IMO. CM's fire is very predictable -- all fires are exactly 20x20 sq. meters, the fires never burn out, they never spread, the smoke never blows downwind, etc. This is fine in small doses, where the affect on the battle is minimal (which I assume was the standpoint the developers approached their design from) but becomes unrealistic if you are dealing with large doses.

As an extreme example, imagine buying a large number of flamethrowers and setting a wall of fire across the map, leaving your opponent only a few narrow paths (or maybe even no paths at all) through the flame, which you can now easily defend. Wouldn't that be fun?

[rvalle]

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

I think, perhaps, there’s a limit to setting things on fire. Treeburst was referring to someone buying a nest of Wasps and going around setting the whole map on fire. Gamey or just weird I don’t know. It certainly would seem to be a little outside the realm of reality.

Now a flamethrower team sitting on a reverse slope setting fire to an adjacent two story building which would give the enemy a line of sight to it’s position, well, been there done that. That seems within that realm.

Actually, it seems like a waist of resources if my opponent decided to waist Wasps by burning down the woods instead of me<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking of using it more on defence. Say you are defending and have two patches of woods in front of you... on on the far left and far right. Instead of trying to defend both patches and the gap between them, you can defend one patch and the gap and set the other patch on fire. It would limit the attackers choices.

In fact, you could setup at guns/tanks behind the patch of woods to be burned and have a nice angle of fire at the gap and other patch of woods.

rvalle

[Ricochet]

Rvalle

It certainly seems like an effective tactic.

But if you were attempting to “funnel” the attacker on a restricted map that does seem a bit gamey to me. After all in real life the attacker could continue to go around a flank but in CM would be forced into what would surely be a killing zone.

[GenSplatton]

Did the person in question consider destroying the Wasps as opposed to letting them run around the entire map unmolested setting things on fire? The go up fairly easy. Sounds like sour grapes that he couldn't stop them.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve McClaire:

...As an extreme example, imagine buying a large number of flamethrowers and setting a wall of fire across the map, leaving your opponent only a few narrow paths (or maybe even no paths at all) through the flame, which you can now easily defend. Wouldn't that be fun? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must agree. Why wouldn't you do something like this in the real world? I'm sure you could come up with several reasons, not the least of which is the possibility/probability of the fire spreading to area(s) you wouldn't want burned. When playing CM you don't need to concern yourself with this possibility. Creating a wall of flame or any mass burnings is an attempt to manipulate the game system to your advantage.

However, using fire as a weapon is a legitimate option and should be allowed. The problem with calling a tactic reasonable or gamey is where do you draw the line? At what point has a player stepped over the line? Wargames will never reach a level of sophistication that mimics real life, thank goodness. As such they will always contain gamey elements. All I can suggest is to PLAY ON and not worry about it.

[Andreas]

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

I can see setting a patch of woods on fire for the same reason of setting a row of houses on fire... denying their use to the other side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I should explain where I am coming from. I have read an awful lot of Commonwealth stuff, not quite as much as some people here, but I am sure I am in the upper quintile. I have read a lot of references of crocs going around burning houses on general principle. I have never read anything about them burning woods on general principle. I can not consciously recall them burning a wheat field, and I somehow doubt that happened, but yesterday I saw a US Marine throw a WP grenade into a sugar cane field to flush out a sniper on Okinawa. Not quite the same, but close.

That is where I come from - burning houses, yep. Read about it, happened quite frequently, good in my book. Burning woods/fields - if someone can point me to references, fine, otherwise I would think it is based on an exploitation of the limitation of the game engine's treatment of area fires, hence by definition gamey. I have an open mind about it, but if in doubt I am thinking it is gamey. YMMV.

[rvalle]

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

Sorry, I should explain where I am coming from. I have read an awful lot of Commonwealth stuff, not quite as much as some people here, but I am sure I am in the upper quintile. I have read a lot of references of crocs going around burning houses on general principle. I have never read anything about them burning woods on general principle. I can not consciously recall them burning a wheat field, and I somehow doubt that happened, but yesterday I saw a US Marine throw a WP grenade into a sugar cane field to flush out a sniper on Okinawa. Not quite the same, but close.

That is where I come from - burning houses, yep. Read about it, happened quite frequently, good in my book. Burning woods/fields - if someone can point me to references, fine, otherwise I would think it is based on an exploitation of the limitation of the game engine's treatment of area fires, hence by definition gamey. I have an open mind about it, but if in doubt I am thinking it is gamey. YMMV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is interesting. Burning houses was done but not trees or other 'ground' spots. I wonder why? A house fire can get out of control as well as a 'terrain' fire can (I would guess, me not being a fireman). It can't be because we were trying to save the environment... not with us carpet bombing areas of France.

Being an infantry guy I would defiantly feel better about a patch of woods that was burning merrily knowing that the other side would not be sneaking up though it.

rv

[olandt]

Setting fire to ANYTHING is neither gamey or even new. Sun Tzu has everyone in WWII beat by 2000 years. He has an entire chapter devoted to "Fire Attack" in "The Art of War". Some of it's pretty obvious like; don't set the fire upwind of you position.

Unfortunately, much of it is not applicable in an environment where fire does not spread, and the wind is ALWAYS at a dead calm. And therefor it might be gamey if you are taking advantage of the game engine, which some have already suggested. As it doesn't spread, I don't personally see too much harm in it. As for using it at the edge of the map, well I think the map edge itself is more to blame than fire. There are plenty of ways to abuse map edges not using fire.

[JonS]

RV

I would suggest that it is harder to get a patch of trees/pines/shrubs/wheat/insert-your-favourite-natural-vegetation-here burning merrily in nice little discrete clumps than it is to torch an isolated village building. Vegetation tends to spread out in all directions, leading to the spread of the fire - as has been pointed out - into areas not especially useful to you. Like, onto your own positions.

Buildings, on the other hand, tend to come with their own built-in firebreaks - the external walls. This is especially so where those walls are stone or concrete. Sure, fire can spread out of a building, but I would contend that it does so relatively slowly (read: takes more time than the length of the game.

But, a building will become fully involved fairly quickly, making the building un-tenable (not least due to contained smoke)

Vegetation doesn't have the contained smoke problem (making it easier to move through), and does have the ability to spread fairly easily.

Aw, shoot - I'm rambling. Where's a fireman when you need one?

IMHO:

burning knowingly empty buildings = acceptable

burning knowingly empty vegetation = not acceptable

Regards

JonS

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Simon Fox]

I think I would be right in saying what Andreas is talking about is burning houses on the attack as a way of flushing out the defenders. Certainly the British of all the combatants made the most extensive use of flamethrowers and their infantry very much came to appreciate the support of the 'crocs'. I am not so sure that they would have used the same tactics when on the defense.

As for terrain fires I am sure that in reality they don't burn the same way as in the game, having a nasty habit of getting out of control. Furthermore the most reasonable step of sitting back and letting them burnout is not available in CM.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

... Andreas is talking about is burning houses on the attack ... I am not so sure that they would have used the same tactics when on the defense...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point - I'd overlooked the attack/defense distinction.

[YankeeDog]

Hey all. I'm pretty new to this forum (and the game), so I've mostly been lurking around catching up on what's been said, but I happen to have an acquaintance who's a fire chief in a small city in Connecticut. I'm sitting bored at work, so I gave him a call. He loves to talk about fire (a little too much if you ask me. . .), so he was more than happy to give me some information about building and brush fires.

My own unscientific experiences with the terrain and climate of Connecticut and Western Europe suggest that they're pretty similar. Anyway, what he said seems to pretty much confirm the general sentiment the way things have been going in this thread. Except in unusual weather conditions or other strange circumstances (i.e., high wind, etc.), a fire in one building wouldn't likely engulf an adjacent building in the time frame of a CM game unless the two buildings are extremely close (like row houses in a city) or extremely flammable (like a dry thatch roof).

Brush or Forest fires are kind of a different matter. In Connecticut it rarely gets dry enough for long enough to really build up a 'carpet' (his word) of dry, dead leaves and twigs to get the kind of out of control wildfire like what you get sometimes out west. Obviously, he has no experience with fires started by 105mm HE rounds or Flamethrowers, but he did say they had a fire started in a hay field by the explosion of the gasoline tank on an overturned car. It was very dry at the time, so the grass caught quickly. The fire burned through a couple of acres of hay before they got it under control. Apparently, grass fires also burn out quickly, too, though - there just isn't that much fuel around. About 20min. after the thing started, as long as you were wearing heavy boots you could walk around the area close to the car even though the far edge of the field was still burning.

So for limited fires, CM's model seems to do pretty well. With large set fires, though, things change a bit. Apparently, the physics of the whole matter really changes when you talk about some firebug (or Tommy in a Flame Tank), lighting up a whole row of buildings or a large area of forest at once. Large fires generate so much more heat that they spread exponentially faster, and much less predictably that small fires. The updrafts will send large pieces of burning whatever up into the air, where it eventually falls back to earth and starts it's own blaze. From the way he described it, I sincerely doubt an attacking or defending force would want to be anywhere near a blaze like this.

Another interesting tidbit I got from him: The smoke from fires is often much more dangerous than the blaze itself. This is why even a relatively small fire in a building quickly makes the building uninhabitable. Also, a fire in one building can make the one next to it uninhabitable if the wind is blowing in that direction. The same goes for wild fires - being downwind of a large forest fire can kill you in seconds from lack of breathable air. In contrast, with relatively small brush fires, as long as you stay on the upwind side and are wearing fairly heavy clothing, you could probably run *through* the fire for 20-30 feet or so and get nothing more than boodshot eyes and very warm feet. Not that I'd want to try it with grenades and ammunition pouches strapped to my body. . .

The whole 'gamey' debate is a little bit beyond my ken as I'm still learning how to set up a proper bounding overwatch, but I guess setting a large number of fires would seem to a bit unrealistic unless the commander setting them was planning on getting all of his forces well out of the area, and quickly.

Last random tidbit from my friend: Large explosions can actually extinguish fires as well as set them. Blows the oxygen away from the fire. Apparently, that's how they got all those oil rig fires in Kuwait put out after the Gulf War. . .

[Darwin]

I was on a firecrew in my early 20's. Living in Southern California we have decent brush fires almost yearly.

Unfortunately, although my father is a just retired fireman working out of Los Angeles, my work was all with the department of forestry and have no building fire experience. Nor have I fought fire in large forests.

Nevertheless, I have fought fires with flames over 40 high. Some trees basically explode at high enough tempuratures when their superheated sap all flows to the top and alights

Too bad I've never been to Europe or I might be able to give some insight into this

I would assume that on the western front commanders would avoid the risks of creating an out of control wildfire lighting large tracts of the countryside.

Although firebreaks are easy to construct (depending of course on terrain) a local commander wishing to employ such tactics would possibly endanger neighboring sectors with such tactics except in very specific situations.

Also, as mentioned above, fires in light terrain tend to be a flash bang kind of affair. At it's edge the fire might be intense but it burns quickly and is inhabitable again shortly thereafter.

For the most part, fire is a one shot deal. You can only burn **** once. CM isolates one battle. So where in CM the enemy might not be able to push through In reality there would be gaps throughout the buring space and in a short time the area as a whole could be passed through with your ace card spent.

Tactically, I can see myraid possibilities for fire. In smaller scale conflicts I assume fire is used extensively offensively and defensively. I also see fire used as a tool, in specific terrain situations, to dislodge dug in enemy at CM's scale in larger conflicts. Strategically also, look at the gulf war...

But again, on the western front WWII, wouldn't local commanders generally be at loath to burn down the countyside for, in the long run, so minimal gain?

I am under the impression that, although deadly and brutal, some semblance of gentlemanly war was still being upheld in the west and that such a level of ruthlessness was not in effect. Am I wrong on that count insofar as officers are concerned? (I am aware of Dresden and Malmedy, etcetera but consider such acts on the west front as out of place. Always believed in the idea that americans and europeans for the most part are too similar to see as subhuman making horrendous acts difficult for the average joe.)

I guess I'm rambling, I, er, agree

[Doug Beman]

A fire that denies access to an area of the battlefield to your enemy will also deny access to you. I'd only consider this tactic (in real life where there are winds etc) if there were ZERO chance that I'd need to move through that area before the fire burnt out. If it were the last act before I pulled back from that area etc it would be an option. But if there were chance that I'd need to move through there, whether to retreat or make a local counterattack, I'd refrain from playing firebug.

DjB

[Wreck]

It is most definitely gamey. I always ban flame vehicles in my games. Foot flamethrowers are harder to really abuse right simply because they lack ammo; and in any case they are so fragile as to make it much less of a worry.

Here's an example of abuse for those interested. One time I played Ghost342 (who loves this tactic). My Heer vs his Allies.

w -- woods square; F -- flag.


The woods was more or less centered.  I could not afford to run right up to the edge with the flag on it, because of his wasps and an M8 HMC.  So I hung back at my edge of the woods, while I maneuvered around the edges of the woods on both sides with Hetzers, trying to get LOS behind the woods.  This took time because I had to lead with infantry, because of all the PIATs that he had.   


While I was doing this, he proceeded to set my side of the woods on fire.  Not just one or two squares -- practically all of it.  Wasps start with 60 shots or so, and it takes maybe 5 on average to set things on fire.  I managed to kill one of his wasps as he moved it into the little pocket in the woods, presumably trying to extend his wall of fire entirely across it.  It ended up something like this:

w -- woods square; F -- flag; X -- fire.

Two things to note here. One is, fire fully fills the square, meaning you cannot move catty-corner across a corner with fire on a diagonal. Two, you have to have LOS to flag to be able to control it -- I was able to get within 30m of it on the other side of the fire wall, while seeing it as controlled by him.

At this point, I was screwed. Of course once the fire was there to cover, he moved in a platoon immediately to the right of the right flag. To get around that edge of the fire, I was going to have to run across open ground in LOS of at least two platoons including point blank to the one, along with some MGs placed further back. I tried manuevering there but got a lot of arty, and finally sent some men around hopefully (I had not seen his platoon move in; LOS was blocked of course) and got them smeared.

Giving up on that side, I hoped that my infantry maneuvering over there would lead him to expect another try. I took most of my forces to the left, to try to force my way through the woods there. But he was not fooled. Most of his force was lined up in the pocket on the left. I confronted with my own forces mostly to hold him there while I blasted with my own arty (which could see that side). I was never near being able to charge there, and so I did not. By flag rushing on the right with a Hetzer, I think I was able to neutralize that flag, leading to a merciful draw.

[Snake Eyes]

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

...I always ban flame vehicles in my games...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you learn to deal with Croc's and Wasps, etc. if you never face them? How do you learn to use them if you never have them? IMHO, too much worry over gamey tactics is self defeating.

[GenSplatton]

I agree with Snake. If you told me flame vehicles were banned, I simply wouldn't play you. In fact, I'd probably suspect you of setting me up for some gamey tactic that a Wasp might defeat. Realize, in my experience (a whopping 30 games or so), I've bought exactly ONE Wasp ever. And it died fairly quickly. So I'm not a big Wasp fan. But to just start banning every weapon you consider gamey is wrong. Fact is, you shouldn't ban them, you should just be sure to refrain from ever playing that PARTICULAR fellow again because HE is gamey. Don't blame the game, blame the player.

[pilgrim]

Lest we forget our manners, a big thanks to YankeeDog and Darwin for shedding some very helpful real-life-experience light on the subject.

Pilgrim