Molotovs - A Rant

[meldorian]

Originally posted by no_one:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Other Means]

the TH teams & German squads toss a grenade bundle. in CMBB this is supposed to represent a close infantry assault. this is generally (80% sounds right) very effective.

when grenades or molotovs are thrown it represents throwing 5 grenades or 1 molotov. the 5 grenades are reasonably ok. the 1 molotov does diddly.

i am not the researcher some are here. so i would really like to know the decision process behind just throwing 1 at a time. ISTM that if that's all your squad is going to have in the way of AT capacity you're damn right everyone would have one. at least one. and they would arm & throw them on command.

and from what little evidence i've been able to gather, in the right circumstances they were effective.

if someone can give evidence either way i would be grateful. but i just don't but the lone bottleman theory.

on a related point, when a grenade bundle is "tossed", is there a chance that the German squad *still in cover* suffers a casualty? showing that the poor guy who has to bell the cat didn't make it back?

[Bone_Vulture]

This is getting more confusing by the minute. For all I know, grenades and grenade bundles are supposed to be planted on the target, not thrown.

[imported_no_one]

Bone_Volture,

I was not offended,I just mistook your comments for being snide,and that was me trying to side step you.I didnt realize you were joking around

Other Means,

I think you summed up my point perfectly.

and from what little evidence i've been able to gather

My point exactly!There is what,maybe a couple of accounts about MCs and their use/effectivness in WWII.Most,if not all of the arguments thus far have been based,atleast partly,on conjecture.

To all,

Ok,are Mcs less effective than grenades?Yes and no.While grenades do seem to have a higher success rate,they,for me anyhow,rarely accomplish anything other than an immobilization(and I'm talking about one or two squads close assualting a tank,in real CM combat situations,not some scenario editor test).With that in mind,MCs can either kill or do nothing,and I think that is where all the confusion is coming from.Grenades can both kill and immobilize,and that is why they seem to be more effective.

I have seen grenades miss many a time(especially after the tank has been immobilized),and I have seen grenade bundles do nothing,heck I've seen demos do nothing.To me the reason as to why they use MCs first is simple,they have a better chance of geting a kill,if they score a direct hit.With grenades,it will often times take many to finally KO the beast.Add to this the realistic fact that most squads had 2-5 MCs and you can see that the odds of success are low.Not because its a game bug,but its just real world odds.

Anyway,I've said my 2 cents worth,and until some hard evidence comes forward,I think the game is balanced enough,and there is no reason to go changing things simply based on conjecture.

[Rokossovski]

The real problem with Molotov Cocktails in CMBB is not that they are more or less effective than is "historical," it is that carrying around MCs actually DETRACTS from a unit's effectiveness. This is because the Soviet infantry will refuse to use their grenades until all of the MCs have been used. The result is bizarre work-arounds, such as splitting squads solely in the hope that one of the half-squads will be without MCs, and therefore somewhat effective against armor.

In a meta-campaign I am participating in, I recently asked the GameMasters to remove the MCs from my units in order to make them more effective. (They are reluctant to do so because of the work it would entail when generating the battles.) In quickbattles and so forth, removing the MCs is not even an option.

In support of the "MCs are worse than useless" theory, I ran a few tests in a specially made scenario. In each test, a German tank wandered down a road and was showered from both sides with anti-tank weapons from a Soviet rifle platoon. The results:

(1) In 20 battles vs a PzIIIj, Soviets equipped with Molotov cocktails achieved 0 kills. (0%)

(2) In 10 battles vs a PzIIIj, Soviets stripped of their Molotov cocktails (and hence using only grenades) achieved 6 kills. (60%)

(3) In 10 battles vs a PzIVe Tiger, Soviets stripped of their Molotov cocktails (and hence using only grenades) achieved 10 kills. (100%)

The only difference in the Soviet deployment was TAKING AWAY THE MOLOTOV COCKTAILS ON THE UNIT EDITOR. This step improved their kill ratio from 0% to an average of 80%.

(I should note that on only two occasions were any of the kills immediate. Usually, a grenade would immobilize the German tank, and later grenades would induce the crew to bail out.)

The result is that Soviet infantry is more effective against tanks when their special anti-tank weapons are left out!

This is troublesome because (1) it seems arbitrary to force MCs to be used first (2) it understates Soviet infantry anti-tank potential and (3) from a purely "gamey" standpoint it undercuts the "rock-paper-scissors" beauty of Combat Mission.

[flamingknives]

A grenade attack does not represent 5 grenades being thrown. Each grenade icon on the unit info bar represents 5 grenades, but each flying grenade is only one.

[Treeburst155]

Rokossovski,

That was a perfect explanation of the real issue I started this thread about. Thank you for trying to keep this thing focussed.

Redwolf,

Thanks to you too for the same thing.

To All,

Read Rokossovski's and Redwolf's contributions to this thread. When you're done, read them again. Then tell me why I'm thrilled to death when my Russian squads FINALLY run out of molotovs.

It does not matter if molotovs are under-modelled or overmodelled. It does not matter if close assault (grenades) is undermodelled or over-modelled. What matters is that the WEAKER attack model is ALWAYS used first. This results in a NEGATIVE anti-armor capability of Russian troops. Molotovs are worse than nothing. It's simple really.

Treeburst155 out.

[Cthulhu Dreams]

I too just tested this. Consistantly the russians with no molotov's score a turn 1 kill, sometimes turn two.

On the other hand, the best result I have achieved with molotovs was a weak point penetration that resulted in the death of one of the crew of the target tank (A stug) Otherwise the molotov's do nothing. They are lucky if they take the tanks morale status past "alerted"

In conculsion, russian squads imporve in AT performance when they have NO MOLOTOV's.

[Treeburst155]

Thanks, Cthulhu Dreams, for verifying yet again the molotov situation.

Another way to look at this molotov thing is by ranking squads by AT capability:

1) German squads with AT weapons

2) German squads without AT weapons and Russian squads without AT weapons

3) Russian squads with molotovs

4) School children with rocks

It makes no sense. Just because the Russians don't have AT weapons doesn't mean they should be held back from close assaulting longer than the Germans. In game, the German player need not fear Russian infantry in close proximity (except for open top stuff, and even then...). German AFVs buzz around enemy infested treelines with impunity. Heck, why not? They'll get the warning to back off as soon as a few molotovs are thrown. I don't for a minute believe this was BFC's intention.

Treeburst155 out.

[Sergei]

It seems to me that molotovs are modelled simply as "AT grenade, but weaker". They seem to rely on PENETRATING the top armour, as if the molotov was supposed to blow a hole through it. This means that early war tanks such as T-26's and open-topped tanks like Pzjgr-I are susceptible, while T-34's aren't. But it's not very realistic way to handle it. The reason might be lack of data, as there probably aren't any records on the relative vulnerability of AFV's to molotovs. Some tanks had better protected engine compartments than others, but that was not the same thing as top armour.

[Cthulhu Dreams]

My testing showed multiple "Top penerations"

Jist this had no actual effect on the tank in question.

Edit: This shows to me that their is some sort of wacky bug with Moltov's damage routine.

[ March 25, 2004, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Cthulhu Dreams ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I'm begining to question the effectiveness of Molotovs as well. In the earlier example I gave in this thread I think my knocking out of a Pz III was one of those "one in a thousand" hits where it actually worked.

Subsequently in the same battle I've had Molotovs achieve "Top penetration" hits on stationery halftracks and yet do bugger all including having absolutely no effect on the passengers. I would have thought a bottle of volatile liquid exploding in the fighting compartment of an open topped halftrack (presumably what a top penetration represents) would casue significant problems for such a seemingly vulnerable vehicle to this type of attack. There apperas to be a disconnect in the game between what a Molotov should do in real life compared with what it does do in game. As others have said, it's an anti-AFV hinderance to a squad so equipped rather than a help.

Regards

Jim R.

[s3333cr333tz]

MC's are an ad hoc weapon, as such they should be a last resort.

If you're sitting in ambush, and a Tiger is bearing down on you, are you going to use your most effective weapon or least?

"Quickly Vasili, use the MC's, let us save the grenades for a more dire situation!"

[Sergei]

Originally posted by s3333cr333tz:

MC's are an ad hoc weapon, as such they should be a last resort.

If you're sitting in ambush, and a Tiger is bearing down on you, are you going to use your most effective weapon or least?

"Quickly Vasili, use the MC's, let us save the grenades for a more dire situation!"

Don't confuse what's effective in the game and what's effective in real life. IRL hand grenades won't hurt heavy tanks any more than rifle bullets would. And molotovs weren't just a field improvement, they were indeed made in factories and intended to be used against tanks, not brewed in frontline for drinking. As such, why shouldn't they be used? But their presence should be giving a bonus to infantry AT assaults, not preventing assaults altogether.

[Watchman]

I haven't played CMBB very long, but I have seen molotovs take out panthers before. The Soviet squad threw two molotovs. The first didn't do anything, but the second got a hit. Seems the fanatic troops are better at this.

[Treeburst155]

Watchman, a hit doesn't mean a kill. Did the Panther die? Also, how do you know the guys using the molotovs are fanatics? It is very difficult to determine who has gone fanatic.

Treeburst155 out.

[Schonhult]

Have anyone ever seen the bug with a über-russ (russian with finn orgin perhaps?) trow a molotov 2 km up in the air and 200+ meters away?

It happens to me all the time, anyone who knows the reason for this bug?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Schonhult:

Have anyone ever seen the bug with a über-russ (russian with finn orgin perhaps?) trow a molotov 2 km up in the air and 200+ meters away?

It happens to me all the time, anyone who knows the reason for this bug?

Perhaps the Molotov entity was built from the code of a mortar smoke round, with all the original damage figures remaining.

[Watchman]

Treeburst,

Yeah, the panther was knocked out with one casaulty. The scenario was set to 50% fanaticism and the squad was getting shot at by the panther too.

[Treeburst155]

Very interesting, Watchman. There's a 50% chance your molotov masters were indeed fanatics then. I'd bet the molotov success was not related to their fanaticism though. You got lucky! The fact that they remained unpanicked, and able to throw the molotovs may have been related to fanatacism, if they were taking enough fire.

Treeburst155 out.

[PS]

Made up a small city scen. One German reg HQ, 3 split reg rifle squads and 2 tank hunting teams = total of 36 molotovs plus grenades in defense. The Russians just had 8 T34/85 and 3 IS-152 a mix of reg, vet and crack. NOT a single tank was knocked out using the molotovs even with top pen. All the tanks lost were the result of normal grenades. I tried this on full patch CDV and unpatched BTS versions.

[Treeburst155]

Yep, the best thing to do is go into the editor and remove all molotovs from all scenarios. Wipe them out of existence! Boycott molotovs! Refuse to play any scenario or QB where they are present, unless you want to grant a handicap of sorts to your German opponent. Molotovs in scenarios is the same thing as an Axis bonus. Manly Axis opponents would INSIST that all molotovs be removed before beginning.

Rant...rant....rant.....blood pressure pill......RANT....RANT.....rant

Treeburst155 out.

[Wol]

How about a comment from BFC? I play russians a lot and i agree that they (MC) harm your chances of success. The russians are too stupid to be even allowed grenade bundles

[Oddball_E8]

well i just got my t-34 immobilised by a molotov that lit the "square" on fire... two turns later the crew bailed because of the blaze.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Oddball_E8:

well i just got my t-34 immobilised by a molotov that lit the "square" on fire... two turns later the crew bailed because of the blaze.

You were incredibly fortunate, lighting something up with a molotov... Normally I'm lucky if I set up a couple of brush fires with a freakin' napalm rocket barrage in very dry conditions.