Molotovs - A Rant

[Treeburst155]

I think the molotov cocktail implementation is DEEPLY flawed, and violates simple logic and common sense. Here are some in-game facts that prove my point.

1) Molotovs ALWAYS get thrown at enemy armor before grenades are used.

2) Molotovs are less than HALF as effective as grenades at taking out tanks, and even open top stuff.

"Quickly, comrade, throw a grenade at that tank!"

"But sarge, I still have to throw these three useless molotovs first!"

If the CMBB implementation of grenades and molotovs is fairly accurate, the Russians would never have used molotovs; UNLESS, they had few grenades available! Is that why the Russians used molotovs....as substitute grenades? If so, then the grenades should logically be thrown first, with the molotovs simply being backup weapons. Perhaps even more historically accurate in this case would be for the squads to have NO grenades if they have molotovs. In history, were grenades abundant when molotovs were used?

If molotovs were NOT just a poor substitute for scarce grenades, but primary AT weapons instead; we have a damage modelling problem with the molotovs and/or Russian hand grenade.

BFC, fix or do somefink!!!

Treeburst155 out.

[Andreas]

You do know that the throwing of grenades simulates a close assault, it is not actually that they throw grenades in the hope of damaging the tank?

Using stand-off weapons before clambering on the tank with a can opener makes sense to me.

[ParaBellum]

Hmm, I think Treeburst has a point here.

In a quick test I had 4 soviet infantry squads surround a Pz IVG and toss Molotovs at it. I replayed the test and counted dozens of hits until the tank finally succumbed. Without Molotovs, by only using grenades the tank was dead after only a fraction of the hits needed by the Molotovs previously.

SO, where's my turn?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

Hmm, I think Treeburst has a point here.

It may well be that Molotovs are not efficient enough. That is a slightly different story though.

[Sergei]

I second Parabellum's request - where's my turn?

I find it strange that if assaulting empty handed is so effective, then why don't they try assaulting with molotovs? They shouldn't be trying to THROW those bottles, they should be getting close to the target and smashing them onto vulnerable points. You just CAN'T do a **** to a tank by throwing a molotov at it, because a) you'll miss you'll hit the side c) the bottle bounces of harmlessly and someone drinks the liquid. It's about as effective as throwing a hand grenade at an enemy soldier without removing the pin.

[ParaBellum]

Actually I always thought that the "throwing" of Molotovs was meant to depict a close assault, too.

There are some good scenes in "Talvisota" showing (Über-)Finns close assaulting soviet tanks with Molotovs, smashing the bottles against the engine deck.

[Meach]

My question is why cannot you target an area of ground like you can with the German bundle grenade?

This would make Soviet Infantry squads a little bit better and be able to burn out stubborn defenders a bit better.

[Probert]

In practical terms the molotov would be thrown first for a couple of reasons.

1. You do not want to take enemy fire while holding a glass of gasoline.

2. The lighting of a molotov takes more time and concentration than priming a grenade. So its best to chuck it first and then get to the grenades. Once an assault starts you might not have the precious time to get out of the wind and soak a rag and get your marches going to enable the molotov.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Probert:

In practical terms the molotov would be thrown first for a couple of reasons.

1. You do not want to take enemy fire while holding a glass of gasoline.

2. The lighting of a molotov takes more time and concentration than priming a grenade. So its best to chuck it first and then get to the grenades. Once an assault starts you might not have the precious time to get out of the wind and soak a rag and get your marches going to enable the molotov.

Not all molotov cocktails had a burning rag for a fuse, some had chemical fuzes, etc.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Probert:

1. You do not want to take enemy fire while holding a glass of gasoline.

I wouldn't like to take enemy fire while holding a hand grenade, either.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Is that why the Russians used molotovs....as substitute grenades? If so, then the grenades should logically be thrown first, with the molotovs simply being backup weapons....BFC, fix or do somefink!!!

Treeburst155 out.

Why waste your time with a useless Molotov when you can arm your men with this

[Treeburst155]

LOL at Kingfish link. That's exactly my point.

I can understand the Russians wanting to use standoff weapons before charging a tank; but this tactic would only happen in RL if the standoff weapons were reasonably effective. Why alert the enemy to your presence with an impotent stand-off weapon, when 9 times out of 10 you will have to close assault anyway to get the job done.

In game-play terms, the Russian player is better off splitting squads before a close assault, in hopes that one of the half-squads will come up without molotovs. I take special care of my molotovless squads. They are assigned the AT role because they are MUCH better at it.

More potent molotovs is the answer. Make them as effective as grenades against armor, and the problem is solved. German armor shouldn't be able to roll up and kiss Russian infantry with little fear until several molotovs are thrown.

"We can stay here, 10 meters from the treeline for a couple minutes. They won't close assault us until they throw all their molotovs."

BFC, fix or do somefink!

[ March 02, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Bone_Vulture]

Armor crew panicking should be modeled better in the next CM engine. It's unlikely that the crew would just shrug off molotovs that fail to destroy the vehicle immediatelu.

[Treeburst155]

Bone_Vulture,

Your suggestion is another way of saying, "Make the molotovs more potent". I agree with you.

Molotovs in CMBB are, in effect, a negative AT asset. They are worse than nothing. Sure, the Russians didn't have squad AT weapons; but their makeshift molotovs shouldn't actually hinder AT capabilities. On a tangent, the lack of sophisticated AT weapons might cause one to speculate that the Russians were somewhat better than the Germans at close assaulting tanks due to having more experience doing so.

Treeburst155 out.

[stikkypixie]

If they live to tell the tale that is...

[Redwolf]

Did somebody take actual statistics of how many molotov and grendade throws are needed (on average) to kill a tank?

The argument that the molotov is stand-off doesn't hold water, because molotovs in CMBB go 30 meters and grenades 40m.

[Treeburst155]

Redwolf,

I ran tests on this awhile back. I can't remember the exact figures; but molotovs are, at best, only half as effective as grenades. IOW, it will take more than twice as much time to take out a tank with molotovs as it does with the grenades (close assault).

I saw a molotov thrown from 40 meters yesterday. It surprised me too. There is also a bug that pops up occasionally where the molotovs will go some 150 meters. They may have fixed this.

Treeburst155 out.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Bone_Vulture,

Your suggestion is another way of saying, "Make the molotovs more potent". I agree with you.

Yeah well, I wanted to try another approach. Since it would be unrealistic (or something) to make the molotov more lethal, they could at least shock the tank crew a bit, so the brave infantry assault would have some impact.

[Tero]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

There are some good scenes in "Talvisota" showing (Über-)Finns close assaulting soviet tanks with Molotovs, smashing the bottles against the engine deck.

The molotovs did not work as effectively against later tanks like the T-34 and the KV.

[Treeburst155]

Did they then discontinue molotov use, and close assault without them? That's what I want to do in CMBB.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Sheesh! I just took another turn. From my position in the woods, I can here German TCs 20 meters away laughing at my molotovs. They're lighting cigarettes off them!!

Treeburst155 out.

[Brent Pollock]

You should be playing Team 17's "Worms" series...come to think of it, Molotov's aren't as good as grenades in Worms, either :eek:

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Why waste your time with a useless Molotov when you can arm your men with this

[JasonC]

Molotovs are underpowered. But also, the close assault routines are drastically *over* powered. Without real AT weapons, plain infantry had next to no ability to hurt a buttoned tank. Other wargames that didn't simulate the variety of infantry AT weapons often made infantry close assault easy. But that was partially to represent the sort of weapons CM tracks individually as infantry specials (e.g. grenade bundles, AT rifle grenades). (Also, some wargames first abstracted these things and then added the good ones in addition, resulting in overpowered infantry AT overall).

I'd like to see molotovs marginally more effective, but only marginally. I'd like to see even grenade bundles made less effective - much more likely to cause only immobilization on a hit, and no significant damage easily half the time. And I'd like to see "hits" by infantry "close assault", without any special infantry AT weapons, about as likely to take out a tank as an ATR penetration.

(Also, rifle grenades should be half to a quarter as accurate as they presently are - in the real deal millions were issued and fired with quite limited effect).

That would give a much more accurate picture of how outclassed a man in his shirtsleeves was in close combat with moving multi-ton earthmoving machinery. And lead people to appreciate things like magnetic mines, gammon bombs, demo charges, and fausts. Those high end infantry AT weapons are the only ones that deserve the effectiveness the whole class has in CM today - except for the molotov.

[Treeburst155]

I have no idea how effective various infantry AT assets should be, including close assault with hand grenades. I do know that, based on the effectiveness of these weapons in the game, the molotov serves no purpose other than to delay the more effective close assault. The Germans do not suffer this critical delay. I don't think BFC intended for experienced Russian players to come to regard molotovs as a hindrance, rather than a help. It just works out that way due to the molotov's ineffectiveness compared to the close assault with grenades.

Treeburst155 out.

[Pugilist]

Single grenades are totally overmodelled. In a recent scenario I lost two tanks (PzIVgs) to single grenades on the first throw. It happens regularly otherwise.

This just doesn't seem likely to me. And, I have seen dozens of tanks die from close assault grenade bundle hits, again first try. Where's the historical veracity or likelihood?

Are you telling me it was common and historical to close assault enemy tanks over open ground with full squads, watch those squads close with tanks, destroy them with a single bundle, then creep to the nearest crater without a single casualty?