Defending using flamethrowers

[YankeeDog]

One thing that flamthrowers can do that no other unit in the game can do is create fire breaks.

In urban combat, this can be very useful because, unlike a rubbled building, a burning building (or even a burning rubble patch) is a completely impassible barrier, and is also a good LOS break. With a bit of finesse, you can use this to cut enemy units off from one another, deny a critical building or patch of trees right before your opponent moves into it, etc.

Example: Defending town. Half-squads in outermost heavy buildings ambush enemy scouts. As half-squads withdraw to avoid retribution from overwatch, flamethrower teams just behind them torch outermost buildings, basically forcing the attacker to advance on the next line of buildings without the benefit of the cover afforded by the outermost line. Nasty.

Note that it's much more effective to pull this kind of thing *after* letting your opponent's attack develop for a while; the idea is to anticipate which buildings he's planning on occupying as an important part of his advance, and then torch them just before his units arrive there. This disrupts an attack much more than simply torching a couple of good-cover buildings at the beginning of the game; if you do this your opponent can adjust his plan of attack right from the get-go. Man-pack flamethrowers lack the ammo to create large, continuous walls of fire as vehicle flamethrowers can. Many players consider the old "Wasp Wall of Fire" defense gamey, anyway.

Basically, I find flamethowers most useful when I use them against buildings and trees *without* enemies in them, but that I think, based on terrain and enemy movement analysis, my opponent is planning on using in the near future. I've had this stunt pulled on me a couple of times, too. It's quite a shock when that heavy building or patch of rubble you were just about to use as the jump-off point for your attack goes up in smoke. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Broken]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

One thing that flamthrowers can do that no other unit in the game can do is create fire breaks.

In urban combat, this can be very useful because, unlike a rubbled building, a burning building (or even a burning rubble patch) is a completely impassible barrier, and is also a good LOS break. With a bit of finesse, you can use this to cut enemy units off from one another, deny a critical building or patch of trees right before your opponent moves into it, etc.

Example: Defending town. Half-squads in outermost heavy buildings ambush enemy scouts. As half-squads withdraw to avoid retribution from overwatch, flamethrower teams just behind them torch outermost buildings, basically forcing the attacker to advance on the next line of buildings without the benefit of the cover afforded by the outermost line. Nasty.

Note that it's much more effective to pull this kind of thing *after* letting your opponent's attack develop for a while; the idea is to anticipate which buildings he's planning on occupying as an important part of his advance, and then torch them just before his units arrive there. This disrupts an attack much more than simply torching a couple of good-cover buildings at the beginning of the game; if you do this your opponent can adjust his plan of attack right from the get-go. Man-pack flamethrowers lack the ammo to create large, continuous walls of fire as vehicle flamethrowers can. Many players consider the old "Wasp Wall of Fire" defense gamey, anyway.

Basically, I find flamethowers most useful when I use them against buildings and trees *without* enemies in them, but that I think, based on terrain and enemy movement analysis, my opponent is planning on using in the near future. I've had this stunt pulled on me a couple of times, too. It's quite a shock when that heavy building or patch of rubble you were just about to use as the jump-off point for your attack goes up in smoke. . .

Cheers,

YD

Yep, you described probably the best use of FTs on defense. It is also feasible, on occasion, to use an FT team in support of an infantry platoon. Keep the FT unit hidden until an active firefight develops between the platoon it is supporting and a nearby enemy. It should get in at least a few good shots that way.

Generally though, I find FT teams more useful on offense, particularly in supporting attacks on trenches, rubble, and buildings. Again, the secret is to wait until the firefight is in full progress before unmasking the FT. Keep the FT at near maximum range and in good cover. Otherwise, the FT will have a very short life expectancy.

[JasonC]

YD's "use" of FTs is about as realistic as a bucket of warm spit. It'd earn him a lifetime ban around me. But do what you like with your own silicon.

As for all the "the clever part is getting to 30m without every being shot", um, sure, but what infantry unit costing 30 points that fires unsuppressed at an enemy from 30m *won't* torch them? The same is true in all the woods fighting examples. Get any unsuppressed shooters onto the enemy's front line in tight terrain and you will make them cower and then kill them easily. To not suck, a unit has to do something better than the alternatives do it, not just do anything at all.

As for Wally, he's Gods gift of course, every FT he's ever bought killed five times its price and not only that but outperformed his own other units too. The rest of us sods can't fight our way out of a paper bag and that is the only problem with FTs.

As for armored vehicle FTs, their relevance to this discussion is zero. The reason FTs suck is they have no range nor any resiliance to enemy fire, while the special targets only things like them could handle in the real deal fall easily to more robust weapons in CM.

As for Russian FTs, the range is nice, but no they are not fast, they are slow. 4 ammo too, but then if they get off 2 shots they are ahead of the curve so what the heck.

The original poster was not doing lots of things wrong that are easily and cleverly corrected, transforming overpriced and undermodeled FTs into indispensible uberweapons. His defense scheme would have worked fine with SMG heavy infantry and reasonably well with infantry of any kind. But did not work with FTs, and predictably so. Because, for the nth time, fish stories to the contrary notwithstanding, FTs still just suck in CM.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for Wally, he's Gods gift of course, every FT he's ever bought killed five times its price and not only that but outperformed his own other units too. The rest of us sods can't fight our way out of a paper bag and that is the only problem with FTs.

I'd be happy to send you a few key turns from a ROW battle, and you can see for yourself how devastating they can be when used correctly.

[YankeeDog]

"...about as realistic as a bucket of warm spit."

All right, I'll bite. . . What exactly is unrealistic about a bucket of warm spit? In fact, I've seen more than a couple of buckets of warm spit in my liftime. They looked very realistic to me. All frothy, with ropy strands of mucus in 'em. Kinda brown colored and seasoned with flecks of tobacco, too. If you want to make observations of your own, hang out in a baseball dugout during a game sometime. . .

Cheers,

YD

[_Axe_]

Bye bye bunny.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for all the "the clever part is getting to 30m without every being shot

This is true. With me, maybe 15% of the time I can put them to good use (get lucky?). When an ememy platoon is engaged in a fire fight with another platoon a lot of the time it won't see the FT guy closing but there is usually a 2nd enemy platoon that pops up and bears arms against the FT.

[birdstrike]

I don't think of FTs as totally useless, but it's true they are a real pain to work with. Most of the time I try to use them, they get killed before being able to fire even once, (but then again this constantly happens to my Schrecks and Bazookas as well.)

My main problem with FT's is that they are so awfully slow. I can't use them effectively on the offense. For one, they can't keep up with the rest of the infantry. Even during normal movement, they fall behind too quickly, and by the time they catch up with their buddies, the fighting is long over.

Secondly, moving itself can become quite a challenge if you don't have enough cover to get them from A to B unseen. Running will only get them exhausted quickly and they are fully exposed to enemy fire while moving. Having them sneak will slow them down so much that it will only work in scenarios with plenty of turns.

And as soon as somebody even points a finger at them, they get pinned and crawl back from where they came from (unless they get killed while doing so).

[Europa]

I'm thinking smoke here. A total smoke screen that when clears reveals an army of flamethrowers ready to toast you! Wouldn't work would it... Damn. :mad:

[Broken]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

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

As for Wally, he's Gods gift of course, every FT he's ever bought killed five times its price and not only that but outperformed his own other units too. The rest of us sods can't fight our way out of a paper bag and that is the only problem with FTs.

I'd be happy to send you a few key turns from a ROW battle, and you can see for yourself how devastating they can be when used correctly. </font>

[CombinedArms]

Maybe I'm wrong, Broken, but my experience is that if I've sufficiently suppressed the enemy trenches to get an FT w/in range, the enemy there are already goners. Any enemy units with a spark of life in them will rouse and murder the FTs in half a second if those guys try to cross the open.. So I find them extremely hard to use on the attack. On defense you can sometimes lurk and get an ambush, but that's a different story (and different from how they were general used in practice--they were generally attack weapons.)

If I have some really solid cover like a heavy building that I've already occupied I might be able to walk the FT through it and hose the enemy across the street, but it's hard work to keep them alive and get them to the right place.

As to smoke combined with suppression, yes it might workm but I find in practice that 80% of the time the FT gets killed somewhere along the way in any case. A rift in the smoke and they're instantly kaput. And maybe I'd be better off using the smoke as HE on a known enemy position. That HE, plus all the suppressive fire require to get the FT alive w/in 30-40 meters of any enemy unit, will, as I've said, probably break the enemy unit anyway.

One environment where it CAN work to attack with FTs, as noted above, is to have the FT walk through rubble or woods just behind an infantry screen. The screen engages the enemy infantry and the FT comes up behind to hose them. But in my experience it takes a lot of effort and highly specialized conditions to make the FT work on the attack. And even then, it's really chancy.

Give me flame vehicles any time.

[PiggDogg]

As JasonC stated, in CM, FT teams suck.

I have found that the best way to utilize FT teams in defense is to have them right behind (5 to 6 meters) a line of regular infantry deep in woods.

When the enemy infantry gets within range of the defending infantry line (20 meters or so), the enemy infantry will see & shoot at the defending infantry line.

Although some attacker fire scatter may unfortunately supress the FT teams just behind the front line, this setup hopefully allows the FT teams to remain un-supressed. Being unsuppress and when the FT teams feel they should or upon the player's direction, the FT teams will hopefully and probably fire their loads to great effect upon the enemy infantry.

If the FT teams fire in this situation, they will almost for sure rout the enemy away with some or substantial casualties.

One environment where it CAN work to attack with FTs, as noted above, is to have the FT walk through rubble or woods just behind an infantry screen. The screen engages the enemy infantry and the FT comes up behind to hose them. But in my experience it takes a lot of effort and highly specialized conditions to make the FT work on the attack. And even then, it's really chancy.

CA, you are completely correct.

Cheers, Richard

[xerxes]

On the attack manpack FTs really need transport (british bren carriers are quite effective in this role). I think most would agree they're not a good purchase in a QB.

[Broken]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

As JasonC stated, in CM, FT teams suck.

Well, they are not for beginners, certainly. As I said above, they are useful in an attack in dense terrain, such as built up areas, trenches and woods. It takes some patience to get them into position. FTs work best for the Germans since their FTs move faster than others. For nationalities such as the Russians, with their high firepower SMG units, the need for extra firepower in an assault is not as high.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> One environment where it CAN work to attack with FTs, as noted above, is to have the FT walk through rubble or woods just behind an infantry screen. The screen engages the enemy infantry and the FT comes up behind to hose them. But in my experience it takes a lot of effort and highly specialized conditions to make the FT work on the attack. And even then, it's really chancy.

CA, you are completely correct.

Cheers, Richard </font>

[JasonC]

Thanks for all the offers, but I don't need a movie file when I can look at my own screen.

Of course I have sometimes gotten them to work. Assaulting a big factory in a Stalingrad-ish fight, or fighting in woods with German pioneers. On defense, I've ambushed things with them when I got them in scenarios or random force QBs. I've ambushed the AI with them countless times, when experimenting with engineer based defenses and when testing short range infantry AT abilities.

There is a difference between sometimes getting a weapon to work, and the weapon being useful. When I say FTs suck, I do not mean every FT always dies without hurting anything. But a large number of them do, on the attack in particular.

I've taken out many pillboxes and bunkers in CM, and I've never said to myself, "gosh, if only I had FTs to deal with those". Never had to.

I've taken many city blocks in CM, sometimes using FTs to help. But I've taken far more with SMG firepower or engineer demo charges, and more still by leveling the place with superior direct fire HE.

I've slaughters many a platoon or company in infantry knife fights inside extensive woods, with occasional contributions by FTs. I've also occasionally used demo charges in such fights with impressive (though rare) results. But the bread and butter of such fights are proper small advances, anticipation head games, getting first trigger pull, or getting in a flanking platoon attack where it wasn't expected.

I've been in many fights where the whole thing was shaped by the presence of SMGs, or heavy HE, or superior infantry numbers or quality, or a thick fronted AFV, or a few particularly well driven ones with excellent guns if lackluster armor. I've seen fights turn on detection ranges of stealthy heavy weapons, on infantry AT ambushes, on hidden guns.

But a fight that turns on the presence or absence of FTs is very rare. Almost anything they can do something else does better. The conditions for their success are enough to make lots of other things succesful too. Including more robust things (pioneer DCs, fausts, SMG firepower at point-blank, hidden AT mines).

The best in CMBB or AK are certainly the German pioneers. Medium speed matters, it helps them keep up, at least inside cover. (Though "move" isn't "advance" when you have to cross any open ground under observation). Pioneers are strong in close from their DCs already. Though they do tend to be very sensitive to suppression (unlike SMGs). With enough targets, if the intervals are wide enough to avoid everybody pinning from nearby shots, they can get off a DC or flame shot occasionally.

Not so reliably, though, that you know when you send some pioneers into heavy cover against intact defenders, that they will win. 2 platoons of SMGs will more reliably clear a forest or block of heavy buildings.

In the real war, they took out things that other stuff could not deal with. A set DC has a range of 0 in real life, making 30m seem like a big asset by comparison - but in CM the ranges are the same. And in real life, SMGs would not kill men staying back from the windows of a heavy building. In CM, you can't really stay back far enough from the windows to create this effect. Similarly, in real life, flame directed at a firing slit really would take out a bunker. 20mm popguns from 400m away would not - but do in CM.

So, if you are thinking in real world tactics terms, the thing to know about CM is that the FTs are neutered and suck. You won't need them for real world FT missions. And they won't do other things well. You can get by just fine never using them, and will probably be frustrated well more than half the time when you do use them. What you get out of them the other half the time will barely cover their cost, and could be achieved with more robust alternatives (DCs, SMGs, fausts, etc).

[Broken]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Thanks for all the offers, but I don't need a movie file when I can look at my own screen.

Har! I will quote Walpurgis Night here:

If you don't know how to use them well, and from your points you obviously don't, then it must not be possible right?

My offer of movie files stands. Who knows, you might actually learn something.

There is a difference between sometimes getting a weapon to work, and the weapon being useful. When I say FTs suck, I do not mean every FT always dies without hurting anything. But a large number of them do, on the attack in particular.

If you are losing a large number of FTs, then you are not using them properly or not using them in their proper emvironment. I suggest using the Scenario Editor to practice getting FTs into position without losing them.

I've taken many city blocks in CM, sometimes using FTs to help. But I've taken far more with SMG firepower or engineer demo charges, and more still by leveling the place with superior direct fire HE.

If you are fortunate enough to have them, Russian SMG units can work against high cover targets, but they will often blow their entire ammo load in the process. Engineers only carry two demo charges. After that, they are merely expensive and crappy infantry. A German FT team is no more expensive than an engineer squad and carries 9 shots as opposed to 2 demo charges. Direct fire HE requires a clear LOS often not available in built-up or heavily wooded terrain.

But a fight that turns on the presence or absence of FTs is very rare. Almost anything they can do something else does better. The conditions for their success are enough to make lots of other things succesful too. Including more robust things (pioneer DCs, fausts, SMG firepower at point-blank, hidden AT mines).

Of course FTs are not a decisive weapon like infantry or armor. They are a special tool for dealing with strongpoints when LOS is limited. A similar special tool is the sharpshooter. Used properly, a sharpshooter can have your opponent tearing his hair out as he watches his TC get capped just before your Stug hoves into view. Dexterity with all the tools in the CM toolkit is an important step to being a good player.

The best in CMBB or AK are certainly the German pioneers. Medium speed matters, it helps them keep up, at least inside cover. (Though "move" isn't "advance" when you have to cross any open ground under observation). Pioneers are strong in close from their DCs already. Though they do tend to be very sensitive to suppression (unlike SMGs). With enough targets, if the intervals are wide enough to avoid everybody pinning from nearby shots, they can get off a DC or flame shot occasionally.

Yep. Several German recon battalions come with a Pioneer platoon, including three cheap flamethrowers.

Not so reliably, though, that you know when you send some pioneers into heavy cover against intact defenders, that they will win. 2 platoons of SMGs will more reliably clear a forest or block of heavy buildings.

This is all very nice if you have access to low cost, high power SMG units. Many nationalities in many timeframes do not.

Finally, in scenario play, one does not have a choice in unit selection. If your unit mix contains a flamethrower, it is best if you know how to use it.

[JasonC]

No, you do not need to be expert with FTs. Yes, 1-2 good sharpshooters are often quite useful, because of their stealth and range, along with good speed for repositioning - none of which FTs have. They also do things to TCs that no other unit in the game does well. They are undermodeled in terms of their ability to actually hit infantry, but that is a quibble.

As for ammo, an FT lasts no longer in action that other high FP low shot number weapons like SMGs and DCs. Using area fire (the best way) they have about 2 turns of fire, just like SMGs. If they live. When the defender has actual LOS you can get away with 1-2 shots, but the survival rate plummets. Given how finicky they are as to range and conditions, reuse more than twice with the same FT is rare.

As for availability of alternates, direct HE is the right solution for buildings almost all of the time, and is available almost all of the time. The only people regularly denied SMGs are westerners, and Germans early in the war. Brit paras are good enough. The others should usually be sending HE not bodies that close. But there is an occasional use for German pioneers to midwar, or US ones. I find the DCs at least as useful as the FTs though.

As for demonstrations, I'm afraid a movie file doesn't cut it. But if Broken wants to take a German pioneer company against my mid-war Russian defenders - without resting his efforts on uberarmor rather than the pioneers - I'd be happy to receive him.

Stalingrad-ee city (Oct. 1942, say 600-800 points of defenders, 1.5x odds, combined arms) would be my terrain preference - but deep forest (perhaps with intermixed swamp - realistic) is OK if you prefer that. In the latter case, even 400-600 points might do, with both sides infantry force type. Let me know if you are interested.

[Michael Dorosh]

Looking forward to the AAR.

[junk2drive]

best i've ever done with a sharpshooter:

took out the tc from the first tank in line on a road between woods. the panic and reverse caused the line to halt and never did get close to the battle.

[Broken]

Originally posted by JasonC:

No, you do not need to be expert with FTs. Yes, 1-2 good sharpshooters are often quite useful, because of their stealth and range, along with good speed for repositioning - none of which FTs have. They also do things to TCs that no other unit in the game does well. They are undermodeled in terms of their ability to actually hit infantry, but that is a quibble.

Yes, the key is not to over-purchase sharpshooters or FTs. Often, just a few of the "specialty" units is quite sufficient for even large battles. No, FTs are not as mobile or even as generally useful as sharpshooters. One would be foolish to purchase them in a desert battle, for instance.

However, FTs have the following unique combination of features:

1) Extreme morale effect - even double morale-bonus entrenched crack troops will break under FT attack.

2) Infantry mobility - FTs can go where vehicles cannot, bringing high firepower into dense woods or inside factory complexes.

3) Superior to demo charges - geater effect, more controllable direct fire capability, much more ammo.

As for ammo, an FT lasts no longer in action that other high FP low shot number weapons like SMGs and DCs. Using area fire (the best way) they have about 2 turns of fire, just like SMGs.

If they live. When the defender has actual LOS you can get away with 1-2 shots, but the survival rate plummets. Given how finicky they are as to range and conditions, reuse more than twice with the same FT is rare.

There are techniques for getting more than two turns of area fire from an FT. However, you are generally correct; FTs have more useful ammo than SMGs, but not by much. If an FT can route two key squads in heavy cover, it has more than justified it's purchase price.

As for availability of alternates, direct HE is the right solution for buildings almost all of the time, and is available almost all of the time. The only people regularly denied SMGs are westerners, and Germans early in the war. Brit paras are good enough. The others should usually be sending HE not bodies that close. But there is an occasional use for German pioneers to midwar, or US ones. I find the DCs at least as useful as the FTs though.

The Germans don't get reasonable high-firepower squads until mid-43. Even so, none of these units have the shear firepower, at dirt-cheap prices, of the Ruskie SMGs.

Direct fire HE is less effective in heavily built up areas, unless you are packing large caliber SP artillery. Even so, the interiors of factory complexes are not reachable by direct fire.

The DCs are handy because they can take out minefields as well as supply big HE effects. However,Pioneers are difficult to directly control; they have a mind of their own about when they use their demo charges. The FTs put their fire where you tell them to.

As for demonstrations, I'm afraid a movie file doesn't cut it. But if Broken wants to take a German pioneer company against my mid-war Russian defenders - without resting his efforts on uberarmor rather than the pioneers - I'd be happy to receive him.

Heh, heh, that is a strawman argument. No decent player would purchase an entire German Pioneer company as their main infantry. That would be like purchasing only sharpshooters to show that they are effective units.

If you would like to play a Russian 2000 pt defence, in Oct 43, dense woods village, 45 turns, standard rarity, combined arms, unrestricted division type, I will do my best to demonstrate the proper use of FTs. No good player that I know of uses "uber-armor", but you tell me what you want specifically banned.

Stalingrad-ee city (Oct. 1942, say 600-800 points of defenders, 1.5x odds, combined arms) would be my terrain preference - but deep forest (perhaps with intermixed swamp - realistic) is OK if you prefer that. In the latter case, even 400-600 points might do, with both sides infantry force type. Let me know if you are interested.

To get enough terrain variety, a larger QB like the one I described above would be necessary. After all, you know those flameboys are coming, so I am giving up the advantage of surprise. A 2000 pt defense is not a big burden on your time if you only send a file or two a day. I am in no big hurry.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for demonstrations, I'm afraid a movie file doesn't cut it. But if Broken wants to take a German pioneer company against my mid-war Russian defenders - without resting his efforts on uberarmor rather than the pioneers - I'd be happy to receive him.

Stalingrad-ee city (Oct. 1942, say 600-800 points of defenders, 1.5x odds, combined arms) would be my terrain preference - but deep forest (perhaps with intermixed swamp - realistic) is OK if you prefer that. In the latter case, even 400-600 points might do, with both sides infantry force type. Let me know if you are interested.

Wasn't the point of the thread flamethrowers on the defense? Might be more relevant if it were a Russian "infantry" attack vs German pioneer "infantry" defense. No guns. Just mortars, MGs, infantry, FTs.

[JasonC]

Broken - not sold. Sorry, I do not see any point in a fight with 5000 total points of units in it, with 2.5% of the larger side FTs. We'd spend a month and in the end demonstrate nothing. Even if your FTs never get a shot off, I wouldn't have shown anything - there is no upside for me. If you are only going to take 3 of the things the fight would need to be bite sized - 600 points or less.

As to what I meant by "uberarmor", I mean anything the standard enemy AT weapon of that date can't penetrate from the front, any plate. Thus in Oct 1943, with the standard Russian AT weapon a 76mm, that would include Elephants, Brummbars, Tigers (all "of course") but also Panthers and 80mm front StuGs. Pz IVs would be OK. That date has about the largest number of items in the category that were actually used historically. A year early stuff that good was rare on the German side (though players overuse them - the real standard in the fall of 1942 was Pz III longs, not 80mm front StuGs). A year later, the Russian guns were better, so StuGs and Panthers would pass.

As for the reiterated supposed useful cases, crack double morale bonus in trenches just never comes up. Also, trenches aren't typically placed in forests with 25m LOS. Maybe a randomly fanatic unit, but you can't tell beforehand. As for HE in cities, it is plenty useful. Whole blocks can be cleared out of the way by literally knocking them down. And my experience is that nobody inside a building hit by 150mm HE likes it very much. In large factories and in deep forests, my experience is that winning is a matter of bringing enough infantry, using proper short advances, head games about flanks, and the like. I find FTs marginal in such situations, occasionally helping but not reliable, while proper infantry drills are reliable and extra SMGs in each squad are always extremely useful.

As for Walpurgis' comments, Broken was maintaining that FTs are useful even attacking if the terrain is right, and that is what I wished to show isn't so. FTs can hurt things from 30m ambush, but then so can just about everything else (DCs, fausts, schrecks, SMGs, etc).

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by JasonC:

In the real war, they took out things that other stuff could not deal with. A set DC has a range of 0 in real life, making 30m seem like a big asset by comparison - but in CM the ranges are the same. And in real life, SMGs would not kill men staying back from the windows of a heavy building. In CM, you can't really stay back far enough from the windows to create this effect. Similarly, in real life, flame directed at a firing slit really would take out a bunker. 20mm popguns from 400m away would not - but do in CM.

I guess this pretty much says it all:

Seems the only way to effectively use FTs is to embrace the limits of the game engine and come up with appropriate tactics whereas those of us who want to use FTs the way they were used in reality quickly get frustrated, because it simply won't work this way.

Don't know, but is there any hope for an "easy fix"? Especially concerning QBs? Maybe lowering costs of FTs or adjusting movement possibilities to increase survivability? Or leave them out of infantry platoons and such in the OOBs so we can spend the points on more "useful" units?

[Broken]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Broken - not sold. Sorry, I do not see any point in a fight with 5000 total points of units in it, with 2.5% of the larger side FTs. We'd spend a month and in the end demonstrate nothing. Even if your FTs never get a shot off, I wouldn't have shown anything - there is no upside for me. If you are only going to take 3 of the things the fight would need to be bite sized - 600 points or less.

A 600 point attack force would not justify the purchase of three sharpshooter, nor would it justify the purchase of three FTs (except possibly in fog at dawn or other low viz conditions). In neither case, sharpshooters or FTs, do I usually purchase more than one per thousand points. A 3000 point attack would allow purchase of enough FTs to reliably demonstrate their use.

Also, I am curious to see how you defend in general. You have written some good posts on defense and I might learn something from a game.

As to what I meant by "uberarmor", I mean anything the standard enemy AT weapon of that date can't penetrate from the front, any plate. Thus in Oct 1943, with the standard Russian AT weapon a 76mm, that would include Elephants, Brummbars, Tigers (all "of course") but also Panthers and 80mm front StuGs. Pz IVs would be OK. That date has about the largest number of items in the category that were actually used historically. A year early stuff that good was rare on the German side (though players overuse them - the real standard in the fall of 1942 was Pz III longs, not 80mm front StuGs). A year later, the Russian guns were better, so StuGs and Panthers would pass.

Anything over 50mm is "uberarmor"? Jason, any decent Russian defender can handle the ubiquitous StuGs in this time frame in dense woods. The LOS is rarely over 300m. Even the dirt-cheap 45mm AT guns can get frontal penetration on a StuG with T rounds. 76mm T-rounds do a very nice job, and an SU-76 is a lot cheaper than a German tank. The QB conditions I quoted favor the Russians already. AT mines in such constricted terrain make ubertanks cost-ineffective. I tell you what, let's switch sides, you can buy any "uberarmor" you want, and you can have 10 extra victory points.

As for the reiterated supposed useful cases, crack double morale bonus in trenches just never comes up.

My point was that FTs will break anything. I agree that there are few units worth buying crack quality.

Also, trenches aren't typically placed in forests with 25m LOS.

Not by you, you mean.

Like I said, QB conditions I stated favor the Russians with standard rarity, regardless of the German armor. Combined Arms limits the Germans to 600pts armor, anyway. I am willing to restrict German armor to 99mm max. If you think that is unfair, I would be more than happy to play the Russians.

Or we can advance the date to 1944. There are plenty of effective Russian AT weapons then, but the Germans have plentiful SMG troops as well.

[JasonC]

Broken - so now you are maintaining not that FTs are useful units that reliably do useful things that no other units can do, but instead that taking 1 per 1000 points in huge battles can make sense, as a tiny twiddle of variance or option, completely orthogonal to the actual plan of the battle. Yawn.

As for 2000 vs 3000 points, it just isn't remotely going to happen.

As for anything over 50mm, that isn't what I said and I explicitly allowed Pz IVs, which are 80mm front hulls but 50mm turrets. Because the standard AT weapon - the 76mm - can penetrate them through the front facing if they get a turret hit, those are fine.

The Pz IV is in every relevant way superior to the Russian tanks available at that date. Overuse of uberStuGs instead simply shows the player doing so is a gamey git leaning on a crutch, who can't drive. The fact that every decent Russian player can still kill StuGs does not change this. Every decent German player can use Pz IVs, or they aren't decent.

As for the usefulness of SU-76s, they are pathetic. Marders on the other hand cost about the same, bounce anything less than a main tank gun from the front, and kill anything at range. The Russians can't get that much from an SU-85 at that date, paying more than half again as much. The German armor and pricing available after the restriction still gives them an edge in armor quality at that date, just a modest one. As for "standard rariety", it helps the Germans and hurts the Russians, seriously so. (Look at the arty for example - and the better German armor compared to modestly improved Russian guns).

As for fairy tales about killing StuGs from the front with APCR, that is what they are. An ATG can't even rely on the gunner firing APCR even when they have it. StuGs are killed in practice (1) by being flanked or (2) by 57mm, or 57mm armed LL tanks, or (3) by SU-152s or (4) Sturmoviks, or (5) by a grab bag of other methods like infantry close assault, immobilizing hits that don't penetrate, etc. Methods that in the real deal were needed against Elephants, incidentally.

As for reversing sides, what is the point again? We were arguing about the usefulness of FTs. Maintain something about their usefulness and show it is so, or forget the subject. If all you do maintain about their usefulness is that 1 per 1000 points won't kill you (or make any other difference, 9 times out of 10) - yawn.

[ September 07, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]