Is setting fire to things 'gamey'?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with Snake Eyes here, although he is wrong in his statement on scorched earth - that was not a tactical, but a strategic denial of infrastructure to an advancing enemy.

Banning all flame vehicles is grossly unfair to the Commonwealth players, and has no basis in reality at all.

Anyone who thinks that deliberate setting alight of buildings did not occur should read a history of 79th AD or any of the Croc regiments. Setting ground alight, as I stated is different. But to make that a reason for an outright ban is crippling to the Commonwealth player.

One of the tournament participants should maybe direct Mike to this thread, so that he can re-evaluate his position on flaming buildings if he wishes.

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

How do you learn to deal with Croc's and Wasps, etc. if you never face them?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you never face them? By definition, you don't, do you?

If for some reason you feel the need to learn how to deal with them, then you play against a master like Ghost, and watch him slime you. (Or play me -- yes, I know how to abuse them as well as the next guy.)

Or perhaps you play games only against people who will not use them to their fullest, and learn how to play against people that don't use them to the fullest. That's fine, as long as you stick to playing only people that will not use them to their fullest.

Pretty simple, really.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

How do you learn to use them if you never have them?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you never have them? By definition, you don't, do you?

If you want to learn to use them anyway, you go up against some whippersnapper that rejects the idea when you propose banning them. Of course then you take a flame vehicle or two and show him why they are banned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

IMHO, too much worry over gamey tactics is self defeating.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too much worry, by definition, is too much. But is worrying about flame vehicles too much?

Flame vehicles are a well defined category and easy to ban. They were extremely rare, especially beyond the invasion beaches. And flame itself is not, IMO, particularly well modelled for the situation which it was designed for -- assaulting bunkers.

BTW when I talk about banning them, I am talking about MEs primarily, and also, defenses. In both case I think it would be extremely rare historically for there to be a flame vehicle involved. And also these are the two cases where flame abuse is easy (defenses especially) and likely to be very powerful.

I think it is fine and realistic for assault forces to have flamers. Although it is possible in this case to abuse them, it is a lot rarer and less likely to affect the outcome of the game.

[Andreas]

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

They were extremely rare, especially beyond the invasion beaches. And flame itself is not, IMO, particularly well modelled for the situation which it was designed for -- assaulting bunkers..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all incorrect - what are your sources? They were certainly not any rarer then King Tigers, probably not even than ordinary Tigers, certainly not than Pumas, or any other 8-wheeler.

[rvalle]

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

Yeah! Thanks guys.

rv

[Andreas]

Lest anyone misunderstands my intent. I don't care what rules are being played to by players. Des Menschen Wille ist sein Himmelreich, as they say. I am concerned when someone is totally bereft of or making up history to go along with those rules though, and I am quite certain that is the case here.

[Priest]

I agree with Germanboy (don't hear me say that often ) People can play with any rules they want but it is when folks start making wild claims that worries and frustrates the rest of us.

[Andreas]

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

I agree with Germanboy (don't hear me say that often ) .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My God, what happened, what did I do wrong?

[Snake Eyes]

800 Churchill Crocodiles were produced, 250 for the Far East. 550 for the ETO is not an insignificant number. I'll see if I can find info on Wasps later.

During the American's advance across NW Europe, they had to request support from British Crocodile flamethrower tanks to reduce German fortifications. Of course mixing forces like that was considered gamey by the Germans.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Snake Eyes ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

During the American's advance across NW Europe, they had to request support from British Crocodile flamethrower tanks to reduce German fortifications. Of course mixing forces like that was considered gamey by the Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think that the only Americans with access to Churchill Crocs were 9th US Army, who were part of 21st Army Group. 79th AD (who held all the Crocs) were an Army Group asset. As such, their Crocs were parcelled out according to need to units within the constituent armies, 1st Canadian, 2nd British, 9th US (I think it was 9th US). So it would be correct to have a scenario showing 9th US doing somefink in Holland with Crocodiles, but it would not be correct to have a scenario showing 7th US Army attacking in the Vosges with Churchill Crocodiles.

Wasps were organic on division level, AFAIK, and therefore quite common. TO&E was (I think) six per infantry division. In the attack across the Leopold Kanaal, two BNs of 7th Canadian Brigade were supported by 27 Wasps, but that was extraordinary.

Crocodiles were parcelled out in units starting with half-troops, 2 tanks. This would indicate a very wide distribution of the active tanks, and a decent likelyhood to actually see them as part of a Commonwealth attack.

[Username]

havent read the whole thread but..

Setting buildings on fire that ARE objectives is a little gamey.

But in real life, as others have probably posted, US used WP specifically, along with tracers, etc., to burn down buildings after surrounding a town. Any building giving a height advantage was targetted.

Ive read of woods being set on fire to trap defenders, flush them out, etc.

Guess it depends on what you think gamey is and what effect reality has on it.

[rvalle]

To summarize:

Setting fire to buildings weather attacking or defending is 'ok'.

Setting fire to terrain while defending is 'gamey'. (What was that whole setting fire to the ocean thing the British were working on? )

Setting fire to terrain while attacking 'to flush out defenders' is ok. Since the fire does not spread it is if limited use as a tactic anyway.

rv

[Kingfish]

I remember reading about the russians, during the 1st Panzer army's drive on Grozny, used several hundred bombers to set alight the forest which the Germans were trying to push thru. What followed was a flurry of radio calls from divisional commanders to Army group 'A' headquarters, complaining about 'Those gamey russian bastards' and threatening to withdraw from the war altogether (although keeping open the option of fighting other countries 'just for fun').

Not to be outdone by the russians, Kleist ordered a huge fleet of Kubelwagons to blitz forward in order to reveal the russian AT guns, while the entire 17th army marched single-file down the Black sea coast in an attempt to flank the russians, all the while having their flank protected by the map edge.

Damn, I can't remember where I read that...

[Dirtweasle]

I'm thinking that though gamey, forest fires in CM are very effective becasue they do not spread, thus making them even more unrealistic in dry - very dry conditions. A forest fire here in the Western US is a very serious thing, they are dangerous, spread faster than you can run. Never read about any wild fires in Europe, and don't know if the forests are much different, less debris on the ground and so on.

[Andreas]

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

I'm thinking that though gamey, forest fires in CM are very effective becasue they do not spread, thus making them even more unrealistic in dry - very dry conditions. A forest fire here in the Western US is a very serious thing, they are dangerous, spread faster than you can run. Never read about any wild fires in Europe, and don't know if the forests are much different, less debris on the ground and so on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad you asked Forests in Europe are very different. IN NWE, they are usually not dry, which is why you don't get large fires. The only major fire problems I can think of involved drained moors. In Southern France the story is different.

Also, nearly all forests in NWE (well, make that ALL forests) are managed, i.e. they are an economic resource. There is very little stuff lying around drying out (drying being hard in the first place, since it is perennially wet), because it is removed. So I would suspect that your average US forest and your average European forest are very different beasts. In a lot of forests in NWE, you get ferns as ground shrubs. These keep the ground moist, thereby preventing spread of fires.

[Marlow]

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

I would think that the only Americans with access to Churchill Crocs were 9th US Army, who were part of 21st Army Group. 79th AD (who held all the Crocs) were an Army Group asset. As such, their Crocs were parcelled out according to need to units within the constituent armies, 1st Canadian, 2nd British, 9th US (I think it was 9th US). So it would be correct to have a scenario showing 9th US doing somefink in Holland with Crocodiles, but it would not be correct to have a scenario showing 7th US Army attacking in the Vosges with Churchill Crocodiles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy," four Crocs from Squadron B, 141st Tank Regiment was in action with the 29th Infantry Division's 116th Infantry in the reduction of Fort Montbarey outside of Brest.

[Andreas]

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

According to Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy," four Crocs from Squadron B, 141st Tank Regiment was in action with the 29th Infantry Division's 116th Infantry in the reduction of Fort Montbarey outside of Brest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah - had forgotten about them. Weren't they used in Metz as well? Or were that Sherman Crocs.

Anyways, I stand corrected.

[GAZ NZ]

At the end of the day, if one chooses to use that as a tactic with the equipment he buys good on him/her.

Smoking areas i think reduce LOS (actually i havent checked this;hmm interesting) and deny the enemy that area as cover.

Its all ligit to me.

In war anything goes and if u are one to moan about this and that.

BOO HOO to you. LOL

If someone really wnats to be an arsonist go for it. Burn those fields, i dont care as long as me guys ant in em.

Im not the one wasting my time flaming everything and flamers ant cheap.

And we all know what gets targeted by our artillery and guns very quickly.

Yes u guessed it flamers and exposed wasps etc.

Personally im sick of hearing about 'gamey' things.

Using different items in different ways is fun and different.

Get the most out of CM!!!!!

You get the most out of your game and more punch for that dollar that u spent buying the product.

And as for complaining about opponents who use 'gamey' tactics.

If u dont like there way of doing things dont play with em.

There are many opponents around who see the game differently.

Try them all!

I mean if me mate were to play flamer boy everygame id tell him hes a wanker for having no variation.

As it would seem a boring repeditive tactic to me with lack of tactical variation and not 'gamey'.

But every game we all ways do somefink different. Too keep the other player guessing. SO im not going to get bored i guess LOL.

But yeah summing up BURN BABY BURN !.

Actually i hope me mate does it, the game will seem more real with everything buring.

[Darwin]

One of my favorite pbem's games yet was when someone sent me a conscript QB for around 2000points and in a tif I spent almost all of it on wasps and 5.0 spotters (teach him to send me a conscript map) He eventually stopped sending turns

[Cybeq]

No, it is not gamey. My current PBEM opponent used a wasp to good effect to burn me out of a few buildings while simultaneously denying my re-entry into said buildings. Cheers on his use of the wasp. Jeers to my SMG squads for not firing their panzerfausts.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"All the time the C.O. had been talking with one of his company commanders. Wilson had only a vague idea of what they were discussing, but it had something to do with the Crocodiles driving round the corner and flaming the Tiger as they came up the street. It seemed so remote, so fantastic a plan, that he couldn't believe it. It was part of a nightmare.

The C.O. turned to him. He was about to speak.

But just at that moment Barber arrived. Crocodiles were scarce -- there were only fifty in the whole of the allied command -- and Barber had authority to stop them being used suicidally. As soon as he heard the plan, he rejected it."

---Flamethrower, Andrew Wilson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"'Driver, advance.'

The Crocodile jerked forward and next moment it was swinging round a corner. There was a rubble-filled street, and down at the end, a couple of hundred yards away, a building which must be beyond the water. It was a very narrow street, with no room to turn, and looking back to see that his sergeant's and corporal's tanks were following, Wilson felt a sudden claustrophobia.

Once, twice, narrow dark alleys gave on to the street from the side. He waited for the Bazooka out of the shadows; but it didn't come - and then they were approaching the blank face of the building on the far bank.

'Flame,' shouted Wilson.

The flame leapt out across the water and splashed on the face of the building. It was wooden; the end of a terrace of dwelling-houses. The weir was just in front of it, festooned with coils of barbed wire.

'Long bursts, left and right!'

---Flamethrower, Andrew Wilson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we have a possibly exaggerated account of the rarity of crocodiles, but given their special nature I have no reason to doubt that their commander had the authority to veto what he considered ridiculous or suicidal usage.

And also an example of indiscriminate flaming of a building to deny it to the enemy or drive them out if they happened to have already occupied it. The building was on the far side of a water obstacle and could not be cleared by the accompanying infantry. There are other examples in the book of using their flame weapons as area denial weapons, particularly in bush.

[Username]

Again, its really a matter of wher the flags are. If the flag itself is in burnable terrain, then thats the problem.

In scenarios with dedicated flame equipment, the flags should be in open ground.

Lewis

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's always the same, he thought. Flame anything in sight and you're terrifying. Stop, and you're a sitting target for the Bazookas.

---Flamethrower, Andrew Wilson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That little excerpt is interesting. It would seem to indicate that flaming would be done not for the choice of target, but simply to look terrifying, thus keeping the enemy at bay. Of course, there's no way to know if his assumption was right or wrong.

[rvalle]

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

That little excerpt is interesting. It would seem to indicate that flaming would be done not for the choice of target, but simply to look terrifying, thus keeping the enemy at bay. Of course, there's no way to know if his assumption was right or wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. I would think that I'd be flaming anything that even looked like a zook team could be hiding behind.

When we go paintballing I go though a LOT of ammo just doing supressive fire. If they are ducking they can't fire back at me. And that is only for fun! Real life I'd drain that Crock dry in about 10 min.

rv

[rvalle]

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

That little excerpt is interesting. It would seem to indicate that flaming would be done not for the choice of target, but simply to look terrifying, thus keeping the enemy at bay. Of course, there's no way to know if his assumption was right or wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is the name of that book "Flamethrower"? Sounds perfect for this thread!

BTW... my kids love your 'Bonjour' wav.

rv

[Guest Babra]

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

Is the name of that book "Flamethrower"? Sounds perfect for this thread!

BTW... my kids love your 'Bonjour' wav.

rv<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. "Flamethrower" by Andrew Wilson ISBN 0-553-24533-3 Not a bad account of life in Crocodiles.