BTS, 251/16 (251 Flamethrower): Code Fix Request

[John Kettler]

Dear BTS,

In playing recently with the 251/16, I noticed room for considerable improvement in the way this fearsome beast functions.

This vehicle has three separate weapon stations: 1 x MG-34/42 and 2 x flame projectors (all with gun shields); early versions of this vehicle also had a smaller flame projector with 10m of hose for dismounted operations without exposing the vehicle.

Per GERMAN ARMY SEMI-TRACKED VEHICLES 1939-45,

Bellona Handbook No. 2, Part 3, by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Louis Doyle, page 20, the crew is 5, armed with 2 x MPi and 3 x Kar 98 (table on pp. 28-29).

The 251/16 in CM seems to be hamstrung compared to its real world counterpart. There are enough men to run all three weapons at once, but my use of the vehicle shows that I get MG or flame, but not both at once. By rights, if targets are available, I should be able to fire the MG for suppression and flame to both sides in a wide arc, probably almost 180 degrees on either side. Imagine what you could do while racing through town! In CM, you wind up sitting and spinning when you should be burning down the houses. I could've torched the whole center of town had I full system capabilities.

I fully realize that this gets into coding issues, but it might provide a leg up on handling multiturreted vehicles, too.

I believe that there needs to be a separate Flame command for flamethrower equipped vehicles. There should also be a separate flame targeting line or lines, which would be differentiated from the normal gunnery lines. Firing arcs would presumably be defined in the code. If the weapon installations permit, it should be entirely feasible to flame and fire other weapons simultaneously.

AFV flame mounts seem to fall into four

general categories: 1) replace hull MG (Crocodile, Wasp, etc.); 2) replace turret main armament or supplement it (Flammpanzer III, FT Sherman in Pacific, OT-26) 3) replace main armament in assault gun/TD (Hetzer Flamm), and 4) multiple projectors (251/16).

Given that flamethrower AFVs are automatically

high priority targets, I believe it's important to give them their full combat capabilities, thus giving them a far better, and historically deserved, chance to fulfill their combat missions.

I'd love to see this fixed in CM1, but I may have to wait until CM2 and pray the fix is backward compatible.

In closing, I'd also like to request that the players be given manual control of bow MGs. If it's not gamey to direct the turret top MG at a specific target, why should it be prohibited to specifically target using the bow MG or similar?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Mr. Clark]

First off... GREAT post!

Secondly, I agree with firing both the MG and the flame at once.

However, if I understand your post correctly in the statistics, there is a discrepancy... in a different book by the same author.

In Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII, the vehicle is listed as having 2 X 1.4 cm flammenwerfer, and 2 X 7.92mm mg34 or 42

EDIT: looking further, it looks like the flame can traverse 90 degrees on either side.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Clark (edited 01-27-2001).]

[Forever Babra]

The big change that I would like to see for all vehicle-borne flamethrowers is to use area fire while moving. All the film footage and first-hand accounts I've read, show or tell of spraying an area while driving across its front. It would definitely make these vehicles more effective. But the hell with effective, it would be more fun

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

When it's my turn to march up to Glory,

I'm gonna have one HELL of a story...

[John Kettler]

Mr. Clark,

I went back to the referenced Bellona pub and peered at the photos. The aft MG mount is clearly visible in all three photos, but in none is the MG fitted. One is a combat photo, one is obviously taken from a German manual, and the last is from a weapon demonstration. I should point out that the last has no MG fitted in the forward mount either. The purpose was to show the flame capabilities, after all.

Forever Babra,

I strongly concur!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Mr. Clark]

I certainly take your word for it!

... and I also concur with Babra.

[Maximus]

See now, THIS is the way to present an argument. He's backed up his claim with details, facts, sources, and most importantly of all, common sense as to the coding implications.

Well done Mr. Kettler. Bravo! (Golf clap)

Whoops, however I must disagree with this part:

In closing, I'd also like to request that the players be given manual control of bow MGs. If it's not gamey to direct the turret top MG at a specific target, why should it be prohibited to specifically target using the bow MG or similar?

Here again this is getting into too much micromanagement. I suggest let the Tac-AI do its part with this situation.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-27-2001).]

[Kingfish]

. I could've torched the whole center of town had I full system capabilities.

LOL!!!

I have 2 Piats and a 6 pdr that think otherwise

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

"I do like to see the arms and legs fly"

[John Kettler]

Still looking for a response from the BTS troops on a substantive post.

Kingfish, I didn't say I owned the town or could drive around it with impunity. Had the vehicle been better modeled in the code, though, there would've been several more torched buildings. You know the ones--right next to the road. The ones with your men in them. Unfortunately, my two 251/16s accomplished nothing of military value, other than maybe scaring you briefly. I think mortar fire got one. Something got the other. Not sure what.

It could've been spectacular. Sigh. I console myself with the knowledge of what's happened on the hill to my left.

Regards,

John Kettler

[I/O Error]

Personally, I DO like the idea of micromanagement of the Bow and Coax MGs. If nothing else, it would also be a good way to end the complaints of "My tank wasn't facing the right way"

I would LOVE the ability to ensure my tank was facing the way I KNEW would be correct. Sometimes the TacAI has been known to do... interesting things with regards to turning the vehicle around in odd directions.

[Gremlin]

I've suggested before and would like to vote again for the ability to independently target all AFV guns. (I noticed the same thing about the HT in question--it's very clear in Chamberlain and Doyle. It only seems reasonable that the dual side-mounted FT's were used against separate targets.) I can see why this would (correctly) be considered micromanagement, but it wouldn't be at odds with the game's current setup when you consider that you can order squads to move by the meter, for instance.

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[-Havermeyer-]

This is cool. If true, I would love to see this. Flame is a beautiful area denial weapon. But I usually employ it free of obvious danger.

Driving through town torching buildings or setting fields on fire in a defense...

*drool*

[Guest Napoleon1944]

I don't think area denial was the purpose for the flamethrower. Too bad that its most useful in the game for this purpose and not to destroy enemy infantry in cover.

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

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[John Kettler]

Obviously, I prefer roasting all kinds of targets (infantry, ATGs, softskins, open AFVs, etc.) with my flamethrowers to simply setting tiles ablaze. My plan was to create a game duration linear LOS block of smoke and fire and clear the road in the process by making the buildings next to it uninhabitable. This would've given me a good chance of bypassing many defenses had it worked. Instead, I'm still battling the same troublesome MG team

which has galled me practically since the game

started.

This is the first time I ever had multiple flamethrowers with a bunch of shots each, though. Usually, you have only a couple of shots max, have to work very hard and be lucky to even get into firing position. Armor protection really helps, but mortars will ruin your day.

My original issues concerning the 251/16 still remain open.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi there,

There will be no fix for CM1 concerning the 251/16. We are moving on to CM2 and can't be constantly trying to work out very minor fixes any more. Remember, there were hardly any 251/16 made. I would bet less than a hundred or so, most likely present only in special engineer units (Corps/Army level assets) or as part of a Panzer Division's engineer componant.

Although we strive to get all the little details 100% correct, diverting time to fix one aspect for one rare vehicle is just not a good use of time. Especially because allowing both flame throwers to work at the same time would require a major rewrite of the the vehicle function and behavior code. In other words, days or weeks worth of programming.

In fact, we knew about this limitation for the 251/16 before we even put it into the game. But since it was the ONLY vehicle that needed such special attention, the choice was for it to go in as is or not at all. I convinced Charles to put it in anyway

We will look at improving vehicle flame thrower behavior for CM2 in general. However, if you are the type of person to use the planned Rarity option the point will be moot since they are so very rare.

Steve

[Mr. Clark]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We are moving on to CM2

Steve

YAY!

(And thanks for including the vehicle in CM. I'd rather have it included, working as it does, than not there at all.)

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad the vehicle was included. I didn't say I expected it to be fixed in CM1; I said I hoped it would be addressed in CM2 and that the fix would be backward compatible.

From what info I have, this thing was a favorite streetfighting weapon on the Eastern Front, all the more reason to properly model it.

I know you can't keep microtweaking CM1 at the expense of fielding CM2. All I've done is to identify what I deem to be serious deficiencies in the way this vehicle and its capabilities are currently modeled, with a view toward getting them fixed at the earliest feasible time.

I'm glad that flamethrowers will be addressed in greater detail in CM2. As for rarity, I got mine from your QB force generator. I didn't

pick them in a force buy.

Regards,

John Kettler

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

As for rarity, I got mine from your QB force generator. I didn't pick them in a force buy.

OMG, the BTS QB generator is a gamey S.O.B.!!!

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi John,

I think I might have come over as annoyed at your postings. Let me reassure you that I didn't mean to. I was just trying to be direct about the situation, which can sometimes come off as annoyed

Unfortunately, the changes to support multiple "turrets" is huge. Very huge in fact. We aren't sure it will even happen for CM2. Right now we can only think of 3 vehicles that would benefit from this new behavior (M3 Lee/Grant, T-26, and 251/16) and all of them are quite rare. So I don't see much enthusiasm for about a week's worth of coding and testing for this at the moment when there are so many other fundamental things we want and NEED to do for the Eastern Front.

I don't doubt that the 251/16 was a "favorite" weapon by the troops who used it, but I am still very sure it was quite rare. If anybody has the Osprey book on Germany's flame vehicles, perhaps there is a production figure in there or some more details about employment. Any production numbers would be helpfull for making CM2's Rarity system as accurate as possible.

Thanks,

Steve

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

...So I don't see much enthusiasm for about a week's worth of coding and testing for this at the moment when there are so many other fundamental things we want and NEED to do for the Eastern Front.

Oh, please, please, be the first to really accurately model the Lee/Grant. I soooo want to explore the capabilities of this vehicle!

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

When it's my turn to march up to Glory,

I'm gonna have one HELL of a story...

[karch]

No T-35!!??

I completely understand not including multiple turrets if it requires way too much coding. But I have to say I was really looking forward to seeing a group of T-35s crawling across a field shooting thier 75, 2x47s and 2 mg turrets.

As big a Russian front fan as you are Steve, I'm sure you would do it if you could.

regards and thanks for the update on progress. Sounds like Santa will be delivering lots of copies of CMII this year.

Scott

[illo]

I know you mean T-28 steve, so is T-28 that rare??

Ive seen so many pictures of it, btw even finnish used captured t-28s (they called those "milk trains")

[illo]

t-26 was very numerous model+ only 1 turret. Based on Vickers tank desingn

[Simon Fox]

Well I am reading a history of the 79th armoured division at the moment and unfortunately you just can't use Crocodiles the way they did in CM.

I have lost count of the number of times I have read: " The infantry were flamed onto the objective"

Or driving down bocage roads flaming the hedgerows to keep the schreks and fausts at bay.

As for rarity, if it was in CM1 there would be crocs all over the place for the Brits. Especially in Ops.

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

"As has been said, we only listen to bootlickers, and Simon is one of the best out there!"

[Dittohead]

From Osprey - For 251/16 - A total of 96 completed from January through June 1943....A total of 293 were reported on 1 Spetember 1944. this reveals that at least 200 fully operational /16's had been produced between August 1943 and August 1944.

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

The box is locked, its Robot Fighting time.

[John Kettler]

dittohead,

Good job getting the production figures! Those are the first I've seen.

Steve,

Per John Milsom's RUSSIAN TANKS 1900-1970, pp.

59-60, the Russians had about 20,000 tanks available when Barbarossa began, of which "BTs and T-26s comprised 75 percent of the Soviet tank strength." He goes on to note that the bulk of the tanks in inventory were produced between 1932 and 1939.

On pp. 83-84 he notes that the T-26 light tank went into production in 1931 and that production of several varieties of the twin turret T-26A continued until 1933, when the single turret T-26B went into production, ending the production of T-26As.

Given the above, I find your rarity statement about this vehicle questionable. Will have to address the T-28 and T-35 matters later.

Uwe Feist's SOVIET PANZERS IN ACTION (Squadron/Signal Armor # 6) has good photos of the T-26A, T-28 and T-35, not to mention all kinds of other Russian AFVs.

I recognize that the code will be a pain, but once you figure it out, you can then model not only the halftrack flamethrower but also

*CharB1 bis (hull-mounted gun)

*Grant/Lee (hull-mounted gun)

*Cruiser Tank Mk 1 & C.S.variant (MG turrets)

*Crusader II (MG turret) unsure about C.S.

*7TP/dw (twin turrets)

*Vickers light tank, Type A (twin turrets)

plus others I've doubtless overlooked. Sooner or later you are going to need to address this, and the Russians have about five potential coding headaches (T-26A, T-28, T-35, SMK, T-100) from which to choose.

The only way out of this problem on the Eastern Front is to deny players the ability to fight scenarios from the first year of War in the East. I doubt that suggestion would fly with the troops. Besides, a year later you'll still have to deal with Lend-Lease Grants in Guards formations. I think Charles is going to be a busy man.

Regards to all there. Keep up the sterling work!

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 02-02-2001).]