Molotovs - A Rant

[Pugilist]

Plus you can't make any PBEM rules re. being "gamey" (such as sticking to armor purchase rulesets), since you can't control the behavior of a squad if a tank rolls up, unless you stick to pure armor.

[Zarquon]

Would the game be more fun if you could literally roll over infantry squads without having to worry much about getting hurt, as you have to now?

Would the resulting player behaviour be more realistic?

[Other Means]

i was thinking the same a few weeks ago. my rant is

here

i agree about the under modeling of molotovs. basically.

[PS]

Two things to say.

1)The British tested their a/t mine on the Tiger's

tracks and nothing happened so what chance does

a 1-lb Russian frag granade have? What an

overkill!

2)As for Molotovs, what happened in Hungary in

1956? Was it 200 Russian tanks knocked out,

mainly T34/85 and SU 152, using Molotovs.

[ March 17, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: PS ]

[Alkiviadis]

From what I've read over the years molotovs seem to be portrayed accurately, they really were an expedient..pretty ineffective except in movies.

I just used them to great effect however, on an spw 251 that impudently tried to travel the forest trails in 'CSDT B17 Eisen Faust'. But 2 squads threw from a hidden ambush position, the 2nd hit killed the spw.

German Tank killer squad tactics consisted of part of the squad distracting tne tank / shooting the Tankodesantniki, etc., then the designated tank killer would (hopefully) close and hit the tank with the AT weapon

[ March 17, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Alkiviadis ]

[John Kettler]

Zarquon,

We should be able to run over infantry, since this was German doctrine, at least for Tiger tanks, since it conserved ammo. Source is the Tigerfibel.

Squad abstraction and/or engine limits prevent this is in the CM series.

Regards,

John Kettler

[imported_no_one]

I think CMBB is plenty balanced the way it is.

Russian AFVs are inferior to German AFVs when pitted against each other.The Russian player gets more armor.Partly to make up for their inferiority,and partly to represent the superior numbers they had.Russian AFVs are more deadly versus infantry(think C rounds).

Russian infantry is either equal to,or superior to German infantry in numbers,throughout the scope of CMBB.Plus,in most cases,they are just outright more deadly(think SMG squads).Russians have higher ammo loadouts in their on and off map mortars.The Germans have better infantry based AT weaponry.

Throw in some man portable,atomic bomb launchers for the Russian infantry,and there would be no point in even playing CMBB

BF.C dont fix or do anyfink.

[Other Means]

and yet the Axis side can get AFV's which are frontally invulnerable to all Soviet AFV for a price equal or better than the Russian AFV...but that is beside the, or at least this, point.

the molotov should be modelled as a thrown weapon the same as a grenade. that would mean the whole squads has & throws at least 1 each.

read my rant earlier up for references to molotov use in Hungary. i would like to see where BFC got their idea for damage from. according to the sources quoted in my rant, used correctly they were quite usefull.

[manchildstein (ii)]

one thing about molotovs.. maybe someone has mentioned it already...

weren't there actually at least 2 basic types...

the factory made one with the self-contained phosphorous fuse ..

then the field expedient one with the gasoline-soaked rag fuse?

if this is so... perhaps it should be reflected in the game...

i would much prefer the one with a phosphorous fuse.. as long as it didn't break while i was handling it...

[c3k]

Gents,

I believe the current Molotov's are OVER-modelled. I've destroyed many AFV's (closed-top as well as open) using Molotov's.

The Molotov cocktail represents an ad hoc, improvised, anti-tank weapon. It should rarely work. If it were effective, the RPG-43 would never have taken up valuable production resources.

I understand the frustration when your infantry cannot attack tanks which are on top of them. But isn't that one of the strengths of a tank?

Regards,

Ken

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

I believe the current Molotov's are OVER-modelled. I've destroyed many AFV's (closed-top as well as open) using Molotov's.

Maybe once I've managed to destroy a roofless AFV with a molotov...

[c3k]

Bone_Vulture,

Perhaps you're throwing them too softly? You know, they need to BREAK in order to work!

Kidding aside, I may be the statistical oddity, but if I play with Molotov's, either mine or the other side's, there will be burning tanks. To me, opinion only, it seems that Molotov's should RARELY destroy a tank.

It seems that 16-32 ounces of flammable liquid will not have a great effect. If it drips down the engine cooling louvres I grant that there should be damage to the wiring, hoses, etc., thereby resulting in an immobilization. The odds of a dribble of flame getting to some vital and exploding the vehicle are too rare to bother calculating. Possible, but very rare. Call it 1% and I'll be happy. Morale effects of a bit of smoke and flame? Well, would YOU leave your armored shell if the enemy is close enough to hurl bottles at you?

Again, that's just my opinion, and putting that with what I've seen Molotov's do in the game, I think they've already been put almost on par with demo charges, anti-tank mines and airborne Tigers.

Keep 'em as is, or lessen their effectiveness, but please don't make Molotov's any more effective.

Ken

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

I believe the current Molotov's are OVER-modelled. I've destroyed many AFV's (closed-top as well as open) using Molotov's.

The Molotov cocktail represents an ad hoc, improvised, anti-tank weapon. It should rarely work. If it were effective, the RPG-43 would never have taken up valuable production resources.

I understand the frustration when your infantry cannot attack tanks which are on top of them. But isn't that one of the strengths of a tank?

Regards,

Ken

You didn't understand our point.

What bothers us is that tank hunters and squad with MC become more effective when they run out of MC. That is just not right, they should use the more effective weapon first. And if hand grenades were more effective nobody in WW2 would have started providing molotiv cocktails.

Whether the proper fix is to make MC more effective or hand grenades less effective is open to discussion.

[Sergei]

Just curious, when people talk about 'handgrenades' being used in assaults, is there a difference in infantry AT capability when they have handgrenades and when they don't? In CMBO there wouldn't have been a way to tell, but has anyone tested it in CMBB/CMAK?

[Other Means]

the point is that it shouldn't be a single Molotov. one observed thrown should represent 5, the same as with grenades. as to their effectiveness, in the hungarian notes here they seem quite effective if used within their parameters. i have NEVER damaged a AFV with one. and not for want of trying.

and excerpt from the link:

Meanwhile, the elements of the Russian 2d and 17th

Mechanized Divisions moved into: Budapest. Their mission was

unclear and their intelligence faulty; this resulted in the

rather haphazard engagement of targets by tank guns. Initially,

there was little sustained action against any of the freedom

fighter's strongpoints, but casualties mounted on both sides.

The Hungarians used "Molotov cocktails", bottles of gasoline

whose spout was stuffed with rags which were ignited and which

would explode on contact, to destroy tanks. This weapon proved

very effective. Apparently the lessons of ingenuity and bravery

of the Russian partisans in fighting German tanks were being

applied by the students against the teacher.17 Russian tanks were

not supported by infantry and therefore were extremely vulnerable

in the narrow streets of Budapest.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Other Means:

the point is that it shouldn't be a single Molotov. one observed thrown should represent 5, the same as with grenades.

The amount of the grenade icons doesn't decrease every time a grenade is thrown, it decreases once 5 grenades are thrown.

And I don't like the idea of using all the squad's Molotovs at once. It should be considered as a single brave fellow who approaches the tank, not as the whole squad doing the same - one man will go unnoticed, but not all of them. And how would it work with tank hunters?

[Sergei]

What is meant with "very effective"? Were the tanks destroyed, or did the inexperienced peace time crews just panic and bail out when they noticed smoke? Or did they retreat? It would be better to have accounts which tell more specifically, why it was considered as "very effective".

[imported_no_one]

And where is proof that every squad member,in every platoon carried MCs?I think it is right in saying that there were 2-5 per squad.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by no_one:

And where is proof that every squad member,in every platoon carried MCs?I think it is right in saying that there were 2-5 per squad.

Even better, why would any squad bother carrying MC's, if they were as pitiful in real life

[stikkypixie]

If the made it so that every grenade thrown represents one grenade, and not five, molotovs would seem a lot more effective.

But CMBB is a finished product so you're just gonna have to use your imagination.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by no_one:

And where is proof that every squad member,in every platoon carried MCs?I think it is right in saying that there were 2-5 per squad.

Even better, why would any squad bother carrying MC's, if they were as pitiful in real life </font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Just curious, when people talk about 'handgrenades' being used in assaults, is there a difference in infantry AT capability when they have handgrenades and when they don't? In CMBO there wouldn't have been a way to tell, but has anyone tested it in CMBB/CMAK?

We do talk of hand grenades for what happens when they run out of molotovs because not only do squads get more effective at the same range, the range also increases from 30 to 40 meters when they switch to that combat model that shows a flying grenade.

It just doesn't fit the "close assault" theory no matter how you put it.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by no_one:

One logical way of thinking,if MCs were so good,why did they bother to make or use those magnetic mine thingies?

The Soviet troops would constantly drink the AT weapons.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by no_one:

One logical way of thinking,if MCs were so good,why did they bother to make or use those magnetic mine thingies?

The Soviet troops would constantly drink the AT weapons. </font>

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by no_one:

I am sorry that your failure to kill anything with MCs has lead to your insistance that the game is broken.I know that I have scored some kills with MCs,as I am sure have others.

I wish you luck in over coming this "flaw" in the game.

Jesus, no reason to sound so offended. If I need to lay waste on German armor, all I need are a handful of AT rifles and a pair of 76.2mm AT guns anyway.