JasonC Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Not really, no. The game simply doesn't have fire effects on vehicle mechanics, modeled separately from the armor penetration routines. So they had to give them some combination of penetration and behind armor effect, from the spectrum of regular AP projectiles. While molotovs appeared to be modeled at the ATR end of the spectrum, ampulets appear to be modeled more like rifle grenades or better. Is this realistic? I sincerely doubt it. But in CM, the one is undermodeled (hand thrown flame weapons) and the other is overmodeled (mortar launched ones). We live with it as CMBB players. As for what flame really did, hits on the engine deck could start engine fires by igniting oil and rubber within the engine. The smoke from such fires could make conditions inside the tank unlivable for the crew and force them to bail. Or direct damage to the engine from the fire could result in an M-kill (immobilization). Engines don't work terribly well after they've been on fire for a while. Hits elsewhere were unlikely to do much of anything. (Occasionally ammo or fuel cells might be set off too, with more spectacular results, but that would be rare. Exposed crew might be splashed and taken out directly, if unbuttoned or open top). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 as a further note, it was extremely hard to destroy tanks like T-34 or KV with molotov cocktails. molotov cocktails were effective only against older models. another use for molotov cocktails was to throw them at the front of the tank so that the generated smoke would blind the tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 While molotovs appeared to be modeled at the ATR end of the spectrum, ampulets appear to be modeled more like rifle grenades or better. Is this realistic? I sincerely doubt it. But in CM, the one is undermodeled (hand thrown flame weapons) and the other is overmodeled (mortar launched ones). We live with it as CMBB players. Here we go again, JasonC has shown in a simple example how over-rated this weapon is, just like he did with the RPG recently. Now I just want to point out this is a great reason to not play QB's, I can just see players over indulging themselves with these weapons. Scenario designers need to watch how they use them also, These type of weapons can be great fun and add to a Scenario, but to see these things used all to often is very unrealistic to a hobby that enjoys accuracy as part of its basics. CM was limited in how to potray certain weapons because of game program design, so as any good game designer does, they worked with the fomulas they had and applied it to the weapon to get the approx. results they wanted. We see now how a few of these estimates did not work out just right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Slysniper - quite true. And I'll restrict use of ampulets and RPGs as soon as the molotovs are upgraded and the Russian 76mm penetrates StuGs from the front at 500 yards. What you can't have is bans on Russian weapons that are modeled generously, and full use of overmodeled German ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 I would not band any weapon or say it is unfare to use them just because of the moduling job, and in some ways your correct in that it might make up for the other flaws in the game. I am one that just thinks that letting players buy whatever they think works best at values that who is to say should or should not be the value is not what I beleive to be a good method of finding or proving to each other who is the better player of tactics, many times it shows who is the better shopper, That is all. Many like QBs and that is fine, Tournaments use that method, that is fine. But I note that when you review someones AAR, you are not interested in what they bought but how well they are using what assets they have. That is what makes a good player, so that is my point. I want to point out that no one impresses me with great purchasing skill, but by out preforming the rest of us with what they can achieve on the game board with the same tools that the rest of us have, that is the skill we should honor in this Hobby. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 [Deleted, 'cos I didn't read all posts before replying] [ December 29, 2005, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 JasonC, Thanks for the explanation. Guess I should be relieved to know that BFC couldn't do what the JMEM types failed at, either! As of the late 1980s, there was no combined effect kill model available for weapon analysis. Instead, there were separate ones for blast, frag, and fire. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireXI Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 But can you put these under the command of an HQ to do indirect fire? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.