Col Deadmarsh Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 What I wanna know is: Are the prices for flamethrowers going to be changed for CMBB? 37 points is too much for any flame squad! Seeing how all infantry squads target these teams when they open up to attack, I don't think they will be overpurchased. Besides, it usually takes 2-3 shots from a flamethrower team to rout out an enemy squad, and if you're the Allies, that's half your ammo right there! Let's say you have an Allied flame team that routs 2 squads with all of its ammo and in turn kills 3 men from those squads either by getting hit from the flame or by the squad getting shot at while being routed out of their position. At 3 points each, those men equal out to 9 points but we'll say 10 to round off. Those 3 men are also part of 2 squads you routed in the process. I'm not quite sure how to put a price on routing since it matters on how many men were in the squad when you routed them. But since each squad costs around 30 points, why don't we say if you can rout the enemy squad, it's worth 10 points per squad to you which is 1/3 the total cost of the squad. Since you routed 2 squads, that's 20 points. So, you've gained 20 points for routing and 10 points for killing infantry. That'a a total of 30 points. That's still 7 points lower for what you payed for them. You can argue that I am putting too low a price on routing a squad but you could also argue that they will not rout 2 squads every time with 6 flame bursts. The way I see it, it is much harder to have your flame teams pay dividends as opposed to any other unit in the game...with possible exception to the assault boat. So... I propose a change to 27 points for all infantry flamethrower teams. Until we have relative spotting, these teams will always be Public Enemy #1 on the battlefield when it comes to opposing infantry and therefore are not in danger of being overpurchased...especially with the rarity factor coming into play. When players don't use the rarity factor in CMBB, rules can be agreed upon beforehand on max amounts of flame teams, just as guns and such are now before ladder games. BTS, you are eliminating an entire dimension of play for those of us you only play QB's, and especially ladder players who make use of each and every point. Please reduce the cost of flame teams so players have yet another weapon in their arsonal in what is already a fine game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: 37 points is too much for any flame squad! I propose a change to 27 points for all infantry flamethrower teams.Doesn't this presume that the price of all other units will remain constant? Pretty big assumption on your part.... What about rarity? (aside....happy???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted June 5, 2002 Author Share Posted June 5, 2002 If the prices are changed, then simply take the new price and divide that by 1.37 which will give you the same ratio as the one I posted (or close to it.) 27 is not a magical number but I think it's a good start if we are to assume that the prices will stay the same. Rarity would take 27 or the new price divided by 1.37 and use that as a basis for the rarity penalty for flamethrowers. Rarity is another factor that I believe buttresses my notion for a change in price. I believe flamethrowers were orginally overpriced in order to limit their appearance on the battlefield for fear of overuse. With the upcoming rarity penalty, this won't be a problem and flamethrowers can be returned to their normal price with this security in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 FTs have a very short range, and since the scale of CM is such that the granularity of the terrain modelling is based on tiles which are almost as big as an FTs range, the kind of 'working forward' which a FT-team would do to get a firing position isn't simulable. So they are a marginal unit in a simulation of this scale. FTs are meant for types of fighting that CM doesn't really model. If you've got some enemy holed up in cover, pretty much pinned down and refusing to come out, then an FT is perfect for taking them out, without having to risk a close assault. In CM, such an enemy would break and run away, since there is no option to go into 'deep cover' in one's own location, and stay there even if panicky. In CM once you've got an enemy squad suppressed to the point where a flamer can approach it, they are going to succomb to small arms before the slow flamer can arrive. Similarly, approaching a pillbox from the front, there could be spots extremely close to the firing slit which are well defiladed from the MG but which offer a shot for a FT. Peculiarities of the terrain, especially from shellholes, orientation of the firing slit, MG depression etc. can allow this. But again, the abstracted nature of the game doesn't put this kind of granularity into the terrain within the scope of the short range of an FT. It's not a problem to my mind. A game where you take fortifications, trenches etc in more detail would probably have to be on a smaller scale than CM. It's still possible to get off a lucky shot with a FT, either in ambush, or in an area with a lot of buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted June 5, 2002 Author Share Posted June 5, 2002 I was hoping for a little more discussion on the topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts