Defending using flamethrowers

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Broken:

[QB]

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.

[qb]

[Broken]

Originally posted by 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.

Then you completely missed my point. I know that you think sharpshooters are a cost effective unit, but I doubt you buy more than one per 1000 pts.

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

A 2000 pt defense is not a huge battle. Defendering players don't have much work to do any way, certainly no more than you have put into this thread to date. As usual, you are refusing to play me except under the most lopsided of conditions.

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.

.

Jason, you know as well as I do (or at least I hope you do) that even Russian 45mm AT guns, at 33 pts apiece, will wreck havoc on Panzer IVs at at the 200-300m ranges typical in dense forest. The Panzer IV is a good anti-armor tank at long range, it is crappy in a knife fight.

I'll tell you what, I will limit myself to 50 mm armor if you limit the SMG component of your infantry to three platoons. If you insist the Germans give up their advantage, it would seem fair that the Russians give up some of their's as well.

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.

SU-76 pathetic? That would be news to some of the ladder players. The SU-76s carry triple the HE load of a Marder, easily penetrate the sides of StuGs and the fronts of Pz IVs, and sometimes get Tungsten rounds.

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).

Yes, in this time period, the German armor is better. But the Russian infantry is better as well. If you want to take away the German advantage, than the Russian advantage will have to go too.

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.

You listed many good ways to kill StuGs. I have also killed 80mm Stugs from the front with SU-76 T rounds. It is really not that hard to do. And the StuG HE load is less than an SU-76s.

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.

Tell you what. We can play the QB from both sides. I will use FTs in my attack and you will not in yours. We will see who does better.

[Broken]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Point being - yes you will learn something, if you let it happen.

I have never gotten Jason to actually agree to a game. The game I proposed already favors his side (the Russians). I have played several very similar QBs and the win/loss ratio favors the Russian side.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Broken:

The game I proposed already favors his side (the Russians).

That's not the point though, is it? The proposed game was meant to demonstrate the uberness of FTs. If you aren't going to buy many of them, what's the point?

[Broken]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

The game I proposed already favors his side (the Russians).

That's not the point though, is it? The proposed game was meant to demonstrate the uberness of FTs. If you aren't going to buy many of them, what's the point? </font>

[JasonC]

"I know that you think sharpshooters are a cost effective unit, but I doubt you buy more than one per 1000 pts."

Wrong. I have occasionally taken as many as 6 of them, in a fight under 1000 points. Did even back in CMBO. When using a German Fusilier company as the basis of a defense force, for example. Was it a gamey optimum? No. But I wanted to see how it would work. Worked OK, not great but OK. Good intel and gummed up movements of attacker support weapons pretty effectively. Don't know that was worth the price of a good platoon, but they had an impact.

Smaller than 2000 points overall is not "lopsided", it is just something we might finish before Halloween. Everyone will have forgotten the original subject by the time we'd finish a huge one, and on your suggestions wouldn't have anything to do with use of FTs anyway. I don't like huge QBs generally, never have. I don't think the QB set up scales well, and think CM as a whole is most accurate at the company level.

As for SMGs, I have never taken more than 4 platoons of them as the Russians in any fight. That was when they were the small Mech formation platoons with 7 man squads. Never more than 3 of the big 9 man version (one SMG company).

As for armor not mattering in woods, if it doesn't matter then you shouldn't mind it being restricted. As for it being woods favoring infantry, you picked woods not me. I said I preferred a city, where direct HE is quite strong and guns and AT mines hard to use on defense. You are the one maintaining that FTs work in tight terrain, and therefore wanting tight terrain. I am the one saying good infantry is way better than FTs.

If you prefer using slow Russian FTs with 4 shots each, you can have better infantry can't you? But it better be a test of the usefulness of FTs, not of the usefulness of good infantry. Since the second is what I am advocating, not what you are advocating. Also, you picked the date and can readily change it. You can have SS motorized Panzergrenadiers in late 1944 after they get their MP44s if you pick that date. Won't have any big armor edge then, but you make your choice don't you?

If you'd like to amend your position to "FTs can't beat better infantry, better infantry is much more important in tight terrain, and only a handful of FTs as modest suppliments to it should ever be taken even in a huge fight" - then we simply aren't disagreeing and there is nothing to demonstrate. But you might explain that to everyone else reading the thread, because I assure you it is not the general impression left by everyone singing the praises of FTs and telling their "I had one thhhhissss bigggg" stories about them.

As for avoiding playing you, I don't know you from Adam and as far as I know you could be a newbie. I am not saying you are, I am describing the state of my knowledge. I have no knowledge of any reputation you might have or your level of experience. I am reacting purely to things you have said in this thread. If we have talked about other things before I don't recall it.

As for switching sides, if you maintain any proposition that depends on it and we can actually finish one quickly, sure I'd consider it. So far from my point ofview I've gotten ego and maneuvering for my invitation, not any honest intention to explore FTs. I am not interested in satisfying your curiosity and I hate ego driven CM play. On the other hand I am perfectly happy to lose disgracefully to anybody who is obviously (1) interested in history or tactics and (2) having fun.

As for SU-76s, I'd take a towed ZIS-3 over them every day and twice on Sundays. Stealthier and cheaper. The SU is no more survivable if anything shoots at it. You can take all the SU-76s you want if or when you have the Russians - I won't stop you.

(Part of this perception may be due to typical fight scale though. On a big 5000 point map I can see the use of extra mobility compared to extra stealth. Me, for 76mm bushwacking I'd still take the ZIS-3s and add a jeep or scout car or two to reposition them occasionally. For armor points I prefer to take something with either a turret, or a gun big enough to actually kill things).

[Broken]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Smaller than 2000 points overall is not "lopsided", it is just something we might finish before Halloween. Everyone will have forgotten the original subject by the time we'd finish a huge one, and on your suggestions wouldn't have anything to do with use of FTs anyway. I don't like huge QBs generally, never have. I don't think the QB set up scales well, and think CM as a whole is most accurate at the company level.

2000 pts Defense is not huge. It is less than half the maximum of 5000. The map is a decent 1500 meters wide. I burned out on 300 meter wide maps a long time ago. It is like playing chess on a board only two squares wide. The best element of human vs human CM is the uncertainty of what your opponent is going to do. Tiny maps and small unit counts remove most of the uncertainty, it is simply a straight ahead grind. No fun.

If you'd like to amend your position to "FTs can't beat better infantry, better infantry is much more important in tight terrain, and only a handful of FTs as modest suppliments to it should ever be taken even in a huge fight" - then we simply aren't disagreeing and there is nothing to demonstrate. But you might explain that to everyone else reading the thread, because I assure you it is not the general impression left by everyone singing the praises of FTs and telling their "I had one thhhhissss bigggg" stories about them.

Jason, you said FTs suck. I told you I had examples of games where they were highly effective, but you were not interested, since you knew they sucked. I have offered a fairly balanced QB where I could show you that they were effective, but you have insisted I needed the additional handicaps of a tiny game and no useful HE throwers with more armor than a Pz IV.

I will meet you half way. Pz IV limit on armor, 2000 pt Russian defense, combined arms, village, dense woods, mod hills, light damage, Oct 43, central Russia, dawn, fog and rain, cool, still air, unrestricted division type, unrestricted quality, 45 turns, everything else default values. No conscript arty spotters. No other restrictions. We can play both sides if you like.

If you don't like that, I have a Stalingrad scenario from Boots and Tracks that was designed for a tournament that never finished. It is the Red October factory with 7 depleted Guards platoons facing 10 depleted German platoons of various types. Both sides have a good selection of support weapons. The Germans have two StuGs (50mm) and two Pz IIIs plus a few halftracks and 2 FTs. The Russians get a few AT guns, mortars, MG bunkers, trenches, wire, TRPs, and minefields. There are other random units I can't remember. It is a well balanced game, according to Boots and Tracks, and the FTs play an important role.

Or we can do a woods QB in 44 when the Germans have no armor advantage. Up to you.

As for avoiding playing you, I don't know you from Adam and as far as I know you could be a newbie. I am not saying you are, I am describing the state of my knowledge. I have no knowledge of any reputation you might have or your level of experience. I am reacting purely to things you have said in this thread. If we have talked about other things before I don't recall it.

Heh! Check our member numbers, Jason. You are more newbie than I am. And we have had numerous discussions over the years dating back to the time of Fionn. And you have refused to play me in the past, saying you don't do games against ladder/tournament players.

As for switching sides, if you maintain any proposition that depends on it and we can actually finish one quickly, sure I'd consider it. So far from my point ofview I've gotten ego and maneuvering for my invitation, not any honest intention to explore FTs. I am not interested in satisfying your curiosity and I hate ego driven CM play. On the other hand I am perfectly happy to lose disgracefully to anybody who is obviously (1) interested in history or tactics and (2) having fun.

I have no problem with any of that except we are unlikely to finish quickly with any of the scenarios proposed above. Concerning egos, I am not a sore winner or loser, but I do play seriously. If you are truly interested in tactics and having fun, then playing quickly should not be important.

(Part of this perception may be due to typical fight scale though. On a big 5000 point map I can see the use of extra mobility compared to extra stealth. Me, for 76mm bushwacking I'd still take the ZIS-3s and add a jeep or scout car or two to reposition them occasionally. For armor points I prefer to take something with either a turret, or a gun big enough to actually kill things).

Yes, playing on kilometer-scale maps adds a lot to the tactical richness of CM. It is like fighting several small battles at once. The coordination of those battles and your reserves is a dimension missing from small games.

[JasonC]

2000+3000 is not "halfway" between 2000+3000 and 6-800+900-1200. 1000 to 1250 is, and it already considerably larger than I would like. 2000 base level is simply a non-starter, I don't know how many times I have to say it, it isn't going to happen in this lifetime.

As for member numbers, mine is higher than my date because BTS asked me to change my screen name and reregister, because it was too long and caused display problems. I did not remember any of our past interactions. But it is true I don't like playing ladder players and this thread so far is a perfect example of why.

But at least we made some progress. Now you maintain that a handful of FTs can be useful in a huge battle in fog in heavy woods. Yawn.

The scenario idea might work. Size remains a factor in that case, however. I don't know the scenario you are talking about - what are the rough point counts on the two sides and the rough size of the map? (If you don't know or want to look, we can get a third party to say).

But at this point, what you are maintaining is so far from the original point in dispute I don't see the point. In fact my inclination is to take an entire company of German pioneers in a swampy forest against your 1943 Russian infantry to show not that FTs are great but that you are avoiding defending a tactical proposition, when you couild easily just try it instead. On a tiny straight ahead 900 point boring map, which you should find trivial to defend by one setup and hitting "go", right?

If instead you are only interested in a big battle like all the other big battles you've ever played using pretty much the mix of forces you typical use, I'd rather watch paint dry.

(edited because "lower" is not "higher")...

[ September 08, 2004, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Broken:

Good analysts are not necessarily good players, whatever the game.

Well duh. So why do so many hotshot players feel the need to embarrass themselves by publicly begging for games with said analysts, usually in the heat of an argument, as a form of "I may know jack about history but I am better at playing video games than you so let me prove it." Usually, the analyst will wisely refuse to play someone with that attitude since in the end, skill at some video game or another is really not indicative of any kind of special skill or knowledge within the context of "the real world."

It's often simply a way for an accomplished game player to try and make himself look important by "beating" a prolific poster and somehow convince himself that he can compete in the intellectual arena as well through his mastery of said game.

I think the accomplished "analysts", "historians" or what have you usually see through that immediately.

[flamingknives]

And there was me thinking that this thread was a discussion about whether or not FTs were at all effective in the GAME.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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 think this might partically be due to the overmodeling of hand grenades when in the hands of HQs.

Just like hand grenades, especially from HQs for some reason, are effective tank killers in CM (much more so than the molotovs), they kill pillboxes from the rear too easily.

The pillboxes I have seen have firing slits in the doors, and the doors will definitely withstand hand grenades even if somebody gets to throw them in.

CMBB and CMAK treat pillboxes as vehicles and it seems it is the same variable which is out of line here.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

And there was me thinking that this thread was a discussion about whether or not FTs were at all effective in the GAME.

Means to an end, laddie. I should have thought that obvious.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Good analysts are not necessarily good players, whatever the game.

Well duh. So why do so many hotshot players feel the need to embarrass themselves by publicly begging for games with said analysts, usually in the heat of an argument, as a form of "I may know jack about history but I am better at playing video games than you so let me prove it." Usually, the analyst will wisely refuse to play someone with that attitude since in the end, skill at some video game or another is really not indicative of any kind of special skill or knowledge within the context of "the real world."

It's often simply a way for an accomplished game player to try and make himself look important by "beating" a prolific poster and somehow convince himself that he can compete in the intellectual arena as well through his mastery of said game.

I think the accomplished "analysts", "historians" or what have you usually see through that immediately. </font>

[Wicky]

Walpurgis Night can you e-mail me the FT movie file, and with your OK can I host for others? - Address in profile

Cheers

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Walpurgis Night can you e-mail me the FT movie file, and with your OK can I host for others? - Address in profile

Cheers

Wicky. The few turns I had in mind are from games in the finals of the ROW tourney, that is still going on. I know Jason is a regular here, knows Berli and Rune . . .and so I know I could send him the password and turn and trust he would not compromise FOW.

Tourney ends Oct 1st and I would be happy to post, for public view, the turns. Until then I should probably wait because I don't really know the people posting here. That, and Kingfish would throw a fit.

[JonS]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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.

Which reminds me. In an old ROW game (ROW1 maybe?)I was given some US flamethrowers to support a river crossing. I actually managed to take out a German pillbox - from the front - with one. I was very pleased with myself at being able to do so

Of course, doing so distorted the rest of the game because of the support and resources I needed to use to get the flamethrower into position

Regards

JonS

[JasonC]

I don't grudge Broken his playing skill. I challenged him, not the other way around. So I think Mike's comments are off point on this occasion, whatever their merits might be in general.

As for Walpurgis' comments, of course I test things. And you may notice where I chose to disagree to the point of offering a demonstration. It wasn't against the proposition "FTs can sometimes hurt things". It wasn't even against the proposition "FTs can be useful from ambush on defense in tight terrain" - though I do maintain that lots of things can do that and good infantry typically does it more reliably. But Walpurgis stuck to FTs on defense, the clear initial subject of the thread, and I never issued any challenge based on any of his propositions.

Broken on the other hand disagreed with the statement that FTs work best on defense. He said he preferred them on the attack, actually. He said all they needed was (1) the right terrain (tight), and (2) other units ahead of them to prepare their entry. That elicited my disagreement.

Another fellow already mentioned the main reason why. If you already have a defending enemy heads down with units engaged at 30m, long enough to get another unit to 30m without being shot at, then the enemy in question is already toast, with or without an FT. I explained that I consider attacking FTs to be marginal suppliments at best in these circumstances.

I took Broken to be maintaining that an attacking force could actually put some reliance on FTs to defeat enemy infantry in tight terrain. Since my own experience - and testing - tell me that good infantry does this job better, and direct HE supports attacks into cover better - I was willing to ask him to show me the money.

I had in mind something very much like an opposed tactical test, not a grand tactical campaign game. I picked the initial scale I offered with the idea it would allow the attackers to take up to a full company of pioneers if they liked - meaning 18 half-sized squads and 9 FTs as the infantry mix. Or, if less reliance on FTs was deemed more appropriate, perhaps a force based on one Panzergrenadier company plus one panzer pioneer platoon (13 squads and 4 FTs). Against defenders numbering a company and change, at most.

The challenge would be to show that serious FT suppliments to ones infantry enable one to tackle infantry in good cover. In the pioneer case, DCs would provide the "other good units" Broken mentioned as necessary ahead of the FTs. In the Pz Gdr case, panzer rifle squads with 2 LMGs would do so.

Broken has, to my mind, shown complete lack of interest in such an experimental tactical test. He wants some ordinary large fight, formulated to allow a handful of FTs a modest ability to help out here or there. Even with terrain and weather heavily stacked in favor of their usefulness, he is not willing to rely on FTs to create an important tactical effect. If they manage to, fine, gravy, but he doesn't want to *bet* on it, in the sense of letting the outcome of the fight stand or fall based on whether he gets them to work.

I call that not testing. Not experimenting. To experiment, you have to be willing to let the outcome depend *not* on your own overall tactical skill or the battle conditions - but instead let it ride on the tactical question the test is meant to ask. "If I can make FTs pay, I can win this". "If I can't make FTs pay, I won't win this". That is what a good test of FTs should be about. Not personalities, not reputations, not dates, not scenario size, and not who has the time to micro-manage a giant scenario for a month and a half (I don't).

But while I consider Broken to have passed on my offer, everybody else who has read this by now horrible thread this far, deserves an AAR for their pains. So I want another volunteer to take a German pioneer company - or Panzergrenadier company with panzer pioneer platoon - in a small sized fight against my Russians, in woods or city. Infantry force type if in woods (fall of 1943 is fine for that, whatever), combined arms force type if in city (and I'd prefer Oct 1942 - Stalingrad-ee, in the latter case).

If I don't get another volunteer, eager just to try it and have fun with it, then I'll reverse the sides and just see what I'd make of such forces in such terrain myself. Since none of the FT boosters will believe my results if I report I didn't get them to work - they will all say "no, you should have done x, then y" - I think it'd be better for one of them to do it. But I am not going to negotiate away the testness of the test. If I have to torch AI Russians I will. But you all will get an AAR out of it.

[Broken]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier, too bloody hot here to sit in front of a computer.

The scenario idea might work. Size remains a factor in that case, however. I don't know the scenario you are talking about - what are the rough point counts on the two sides and the rough size of the map? (If you don't know or want to look, we can get a third party to say).

I have played the scenario partway through about 9 months ago. The scenario was from a tournament that died. The map is 800 meters wide. I don't know the exact point count, but I would guess the Russian defenders get about 1300 points. The Germans get about 50% more. I can send you the file and you can study it from both sides. Like most Boots & Tracks scenarios, it is beautifully done.

But at this point, what you are maintaining is so far from the original point in dispute I don't see the point. In fact my inclination is to take an entire company of German pioneers in a swampy forest against your 1943 Russian infantry to show not that FTs are great but that you are avoiding defending a tactical proposition, when you couild easily just try it instead. On a tiny straight ahead 900 point boring map, which you should find trivial to defend by one setup and hitting "go", right?

OK, Jason, you have beaten me down. How about a 1000 pt Russian defence, Oct 1943, Central Russia, 40 turns, large town, gentle slopes, dense woods, standard rarity, dawn, fog and rain, light or medium damage, unrestricted quality, unrestricted purchase, unrestricted division type? 300 pts maximum armor for both sides. Default for all other settings. No StuGs or tougher German armor. We play both sides, my Germans with minimum of 3 FTs, yours without FTs. Sound reasonable?

If instead you are only interested in a big battle like all the other big battles you've ever played using pretty much the mix of forces you typical use, I'd rather watch paint dry.

Ladder and tournament games usually have higher point values. The best players like a lot of points because it evens out the bad luck. The match becomes a matter of skill only. Also, bigger games add a Grand Tactical dimension absent from smaller battles.

[JasonC]

Sent...

[zukkov]

this whole arguement reminds me of my uncle henry. now henry was a fisherman's fisherman. he loved to fish, mostly for bass. my brother and i liked using plastic worms, but henry would always say that if a bass would bite on a worm, they'd bite on something else, so he never used them. we were determined to prove him wrong, but alas his skill was superior to ours and he'd always catch more fish. my point being that while a flame thrower(yes, the worm was a metaphor) may not be the best bait to catch a bass, it sure is handy to have around when it comes time to cook it...

[PiggDogg]

FT teams suck. I never buy them. I only use them if the scenario gives them to me.

In that circumstance, I am forced to use them. I try to use them effectively, but it is quite difficult.

On defense, defend deep in the woods which forces the attacking enemy infantry into the woods. Place the FT teams right behind (as close as possible, 5-6 meters) a line of infantry.

When the attacking enemy infantry blunders into the defending front line infantry, the attackers will fire at the front line defenders. This allows the FT teams in the second line to flame the attacker, usually to great effect.

Despite these rare circumstances, FT teams are not worth their cost in points. They suck.

Cheers, Richard

[ September 19, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Grumbling Grognard]

Perhaps the fact that flamethrowers are an OFFENISIVE weapon. :-| Just a guess mind you...

GG

[PiggDogg]

I have used this description, which someone else had eloquently formulated, regarding offensive/attacking FT teams.

If an attacking FT team actually survives long enough and gets close enough to somehow fire at a defending unit, it is shooting at a defender that was going to die anyway. :eek:

Oh, yes. CM FT teams are "offensive". They stink.

Cheers, Richard