More flamethrower stuff, because I'm crazy like that

[JasonC]

I believe 40 lbs is correct for the most common German model, which was the Flammenwerfer mit Strahlpatrone 41, a modification of the original FmW 41. The main change was the addition of the ignition cartridge system, designed to be used with 1 second bursts, but the weight was also reduced to 18 kg (the "payload" was 7 liters). Over 64,000 of them were made from 1942 to 1945, which unless I am mistaken dwarfs the number of all other German models fielded. In contrast, the pre-war 70+ lb models (the same weight as US ones) were regarded by the Germans as far too heavy to be practical in combat, and their production ceased in 1941.

[John Kettler]

Okay, guys, you've had your fun!

To begin with, I did not use the incident from "A Bridge Too Far" as any kind of historical proof, but rather, as a ready and easily recalled exemplar of the mobility differences I sought to highlight

in my post. For the record, though, having recently

seen the film again and having just consulted the film's special commemorative magazine from 1977 and its scene of the flamethrower firing, it is my considered opinion that the actor did have a real working flamethrower, that it did have significant weight, as shown by the way he moved under its load, and that it was fired during the film. The flame jet looks just like what I've seen many times in combat footage both black and white and color. CGI that good simply didn't exist; I'm not even certain there was CGI back then.

A Modest Proposal

I suggest that some of you reenactors or hiking types run a simple experiment. Put a 40 lb. sack of sand, rocks or brick into your pack, well secured so it won't shift, then fasten your pack, put it on and do simple military things while someone videos or notes them. We're interested in things like how fast you can rise from prone, how far and fast you can comfortably dash while loaded, your ability to negotiate broken terrain or slopes, your ability to low crawl and/or belly crawl while loaded, etc.

Now, either take a long break or come back another day and run the same experiment on the same ground under the same conditions as before, or as closely as you can come to matching them. This time, though, put 70 lbs. in your pack and rerun the experiment, recording results as before. I submit you'll find some major differences in your "military" capabilities with the heavier load.

Once you have both sets of results in hand, please report back with your findings. I'm sure they'll prove most edifying to many here.

Real World Flamethrower Examples

With the above suggested, I'd now like to post several examples of FT operator capabilities not modeled in CMBO. The source is the previously cited U.S. Army official history. On page 139 we find:

"On 8 December 1942 near Buna Village, Papua, Corp.

Wilbur G. Tirrell crawled through the underbrush..."

Yes, you read that right. He crawled, and he did it

with 70 lbs of flamethrower strapped to his back.

If that's not shocking enough, try this one for size. On page 143 it says:

"In an action at Azeville, France, 9 June 1944, Private Ralph G. Riley ran up to a German blockhouse with his flame thrower..."

Remember, the American FT weighs almost half again

what the German one we're discussing does, yet Private Riley is unambiguously described as running.

Would such capabilities make a difference in the game? Of course they would. For one, the FTs wouldn't constantly lag behind on the advance. For another, they could make better use of cover and get across open ground more quickly, thus enhancing

survival and combat effectiveness.

I understand that there will be some mobility improvements in CMBB for flamethrower teams, and for this I am glad. I really wish, though, that instead of counting coup on me for mentioning a convenient exemplar from a film, that there had been something resembling rational discussion of the points I raised in all seriousness. My purpose in investing the considerable time and energy in my earlier post wasn't inadvertent entertainment, after all.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wreck]

I am completely behind Steve on this matter of modelling flamethrowers in CM. His 5 points on the previous page are all valid, particularly soakoff.

Right now, killing an LMG in a squad means killing just about the whole squad. Is that realistic? Arguably yes; the squad is focused around its main weapon, and everyone knows how to use it. If the operator is wounded someone else will step in. For flamethrowers neither fact is true; plus flamethrower had the distressing tendancy to blow up when hit. It should not require killing or wounding 10 men to take out a flamethrower. One may bit on low side; two may be bit high, but it seems to me that it is the best answer available in CM.

Bazookas are intermediate case. Currently they last through 2 men; arguably they should last a bit longer than that because they were valued byt the troops and easy to use. There are certainly cases of men running over to grab a 'zook when its initial operators are out of action.

Another point about flamethrowers that Steve did not list among his 5 is obviousness and its interaction with use. With rifle grenades, fausts, and demos it would be difficult or impossible for the other side to pick out the man with the specific weapon. And with one-shot weapons particularly, there is no gain in noticing a guy has just fired one -- even if you mark him as your next target, the damage is done. And in fact the guy who just fired his 'faust is probably *not* the one you want to target, all other things equal. Whereas flamethrowers are much more obvious even before firing, and once operated even more so. And as multiple shot weapons, the enemy is going to target the operators if possible after a shot, because the weapon has not "taken itself out" unlike the other single-use squad weapons.

The bazooka is an interesting intermediate case. It is not much more easily seen, IMO, than other squad weapons, but it does have the "multiple shot" criterion arguing that it should be a separate team.

Certainly anyone who is arguing for integral flamethrowers should support the idea of integral zooks, and more strongly since zooks are at least not very obvious weapons and also more likely to be picked up by others when the initial operator is down. But it seems to me the "single use" criteria, in addition to making the inherent squad weapons easy to implement, is also a big factor in what makes a team, because multiuse special weapons are likely to be prime enemy fire magnets.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve I agree with most of your last post, except the purchase. As you said yourself, if the FT will be at the front or not depents on the mission. Because the player has even in QBs at least a raw idea about his mission & the terraine, he can decide if FTs are sensefull or not.

I don't think that it is the same situation for MGs. Of course, sometimes they were left in the camps, too, but I assume not very often, while the FT was only used when it really was needed (just because it was indeed so difficult and hazardous to use as you always said).

Speaking as a person without internal engine knowledge, I think it is not difficult to do, you would only need to add one more platoon type. It would be realistic. And it would be (for me) one less reason why I shouldn't purchase pioneers.

When we talk about engineers already (yes, I must confess, I'm a fan ), their special jobs were

-clear minefields : modeled in CM, bud I assume the least used features of all. I also don't think it is a very realistic feature. Mine clearing is an extremly dangerous job that needs patience. I don't think it was usually done under fire. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

-clear pathes (blow roadblocks & cut barbed wire) : I wonder if this will be modeled in CMBB. I hope it will.

-blow things away : a difficult question. Engineers had a lot of explosives. It was surely used different then a simply thrown charge. Will there be any changes? Question - what is the blast value of a charge?

-build bridges : can be ignored, absolutly out of the CM time frame

To make it short, would be nice if the engineers could show more of their 'natural' abilitys. Otherwise they are just another infantry unit.

Bad Slapdragon! I assertively spoken about QB purchase, and you come up with scenario design. Pfui Pfui

[Battlefront.com]

John,

Yes, you read that right. He crawled, and he did it

with 70 lbs of flamethrower strapped to his back.

I don't have any problem with that. Very difficult (due to things getting snagged), but certainly not imopossible. I don't have time to check, but can't FTs "Sneak" in CMBO? That is the same thing as crawling from a cover and speed standpoint, so no real debate on this point.

"In an action at Azeville, France, 9 June 1944, Private Ralph G. Riley ran up to a German blockhouse with his flame thrower...

Yes, but what were the conditions for this? Was he sitting still for a 5 minutes, 10, 30... before running? It makes a huge difference.

Would such capabilities make a difference in the game? Of course they would. For one, the FTs wouldn't constantly lag behind on the advance. For another, they could make better use of cover and get across open ground more quickly, thus enhancing

survival and combat effectiveness.

You are trapping yourself in the old "tactical vs. strategic movement" position. There is a HUGE difference between making a quick 20m dash from a stationary position and running 100m over open ground after having just walked for 10 minutes through woods. In other words, like other heavy weapons a short sprint should be possible, but at terrific cost in terms of endurance. And even then, only for a short distance.

Almost all Heavy Weapons teams in CMBB can do short sprints as I just described. However, expect that your heavy weapons will tire quicker and will not be able to keep pace with your infantry second for second, pace for pace. This is realistic and has been debated so many times it makes my head hurt We will not make any changes here.

Puff,

Speaking as a person without internal engine knowledge, I think it is not difficult to do, you would only need to add one more platoon type. It would be realistic. And it would be (for me) one less reason why I shouldn't purchase pioneers.

Yes, we could offer a "non FT" formation. However, we are very reluctant to add things like this because it can become a huge problem. For example, having a no FT Platoon means we have to have the following:

Pioneer Platoon (FT)

Pioneer Platoon

Pioneer Company (FT)

Pioneer Company

Pioneer Battalion (FT)

Pioneer Battalion

So this would require doubling the formations, of which there are at least three. However, sometimes there are more than one type of Pioneer formation in the unit purchase list, so it might be far more than three extra entries. Could be as many as 9 or 12.

If we were to do anything it would be to NEVER have FTs with a formation. I'm not sure that is a good thing.

One compromise is that we could remove FTs from the Platoon purchase option. In fact, I think this is actually a good thing since the FTs were held by the Company.

-clear minefields : modeled in CM, bud I assume the least used features of all. I also don't think it is a very realistic feature. Mine clearing is an extremly dangerous job that needs patience. I don't think it was usually done under fire. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

What they do in CM is clear a path, which is realistic within CM's timeframe. But because of the way things are within the game the abstraction the way it is must remain.

-clear pathes (blow roadblocks & cut barbed wire) : I wonder if this will be modeled in CMBB. I hope it will.

They will not be able to clear roadblocks. The ones simulated in CM are assumed to be very difficult to remove, and therefore can not be done so within the scope of the game. Clearing barbedwire might be allowed, but we are already very generous with passing through this so in our opinion it isn't a high priority.

-blow things away : a difficult question. Engineers had a lot of explosives. It was surely used different then a simply thrown charge. Will there be any changes? Question - what is the blast value of a charge?

Yes, they can now be instructed to throw the charges at a specific location. Which is pretty much the same as planting it and running. However, the amount of explosives is still far too little to do anything like blow up a bridge.

Steve

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve Mh, I see the problem with an extra non-FT platoon - things looks much easier without programmers knowledge . I agree, it would be better to have only non-FT engineer platoons. The FT is as team still available, so everyone can purchase them anyway if he feels the need. This would reflect their nature as a 'weapon for special moments' best.

-roadblocks and barbed wire : you are right, it is secondary. Just a question, can they be damaged by artillery fire in CMBB?

-charges : :cool: :cool: :cool:

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I suggest that some of you reenactors or hiking types run a simple experiment. Put a 40 lb. sack of sand, rocks or brick into your pack, ...

This time, though, put 70 lbs. in your pack and rerun the experiment, recording results as before. I submit you'll find some major differences in your "military" capabilities with the heavier load.

John Kettler

Now this raises a point I've been meaning to raise myself. What is it with these seven-stone weaklings in CM:BO who can't keep up with the rest of the platoon because they're carrying an FT, a 2-inch mortar, an MG or an anti-tank weapon?

I am no athlete, and never was, but I know well fine that in my youth I could sprint with 40 Kg (88 lbs) of kit (CEFO, GPMG and 600 rounds of belted blank). In those days (late 1970s and early 1980s) the standard weight for a rifleman in CEFO (Combat Equipment Fighting Order) was 72 lbs; the 84mm and GPMG teams carried more, but were expected to keep up with the rest of the section. Do a section attack in that lot wearing a respirator and you'll be panting by the end of it, but you will not, if my experience and that of tens of thousands of others is anything to go by, slow down appreciably while some f***er is shooting at you, even for exercise.

I accept that the mass armies of WW2 were "semi-professional" at best, but I doubt that the essentially amateur mob I was a member of (the Territorial Army and UOTC) were any fitter, by and large, than the average chap from the 1940s who had led a more outdoorsy life than we tend to nowadays.

I have personally carried a 2-inch mortar of the type modelled in CM:BO on exercise (it was still in service in THE 1980S), and the idea that it and a few rounds of ammo would slow me down is laughable. I have handled a PIAT, and it is an awkward beast (encumbrance arises not so much from weight as the way it is arranged), but given a webbing strap and a number 2 I'm sure the lads would have covered the ground no slower than the 84mm Charlie G we sometimes exercised with. And it seems to me silly that the German LMG teams are slower than German squads, which are carrying the exact same MG, sometimes two of them.

Make all weapons in a platoon move at the same speed, the way they do in real life.

All the best,

John.

[Battlefront.com]

John,

I accept that the mass armies of WW2 were "semi-professional" at best, but I doubt that the essentially amateur mob I was a member of (the Territorial Army and UOTC) were any fitter, by and large, than the average chap from the 1940s who had led a more outdoorsy life than we tend to nowadays.

But once in the field they were less well fed, could go weeks without adequate sleep, were expected to do this day in and day out, and in general had to perform their functions of daily life in a way that peacetime training can even hope to simulate (excluding some specialized stuff).

When I read about the physical condition of troops in the field I am constantly reminded about how worn out they were more often than not. In fact, this has a lot to do with the Combat Fatigue modeling that was a direct result of WWII ETO combat (I don't think PTO was involved in the study I am thinking about, but perhpas it was). Basically, troops in the field had their edge dulled down rather quickly, then dropped off to almost worthless within a couple of weeks of fighting. Pysical and mental exhaustion were the key factors.

We have had literally dozens of debates about who can carry how much and for how long. Those debates were always heavily populated by peacetime veterans, and every once and a while a wartime one. We have come away from such debates without feeling the need to make changes to the basic way CM works. Not because we are stubborn or incapable of doing things differently, but because we did not see why change was needed (with ONE exception, see further below).

While I agree that even a heavily loaded soldier could move quickly for a short distance, I totally disagree with the notion that the average soldier could move as quickly as could one weighed down with akward and/or heavy equipment ON TOP of basic kit. If the average soldier were only toting around 20 lbs and the heavily loaded ones 40, then I would agree. But even the "lightly" loaded soldiers were pushing the limits on endurence.

The exception to our general notion that things in CMBO were simulated "right on the money" came with short sprints. In CMBO a foot unit can either move fast, slow, or really slow. There is no ability to change this top speed, even for a few meters. This was just a limitation with the CMBO coding.

For CMBB we allow short sprints which in turn drain away Pysical Condition. The degree of loss depends on a new unit attribute -> Fitness Level. This is just as it sounds. Units are now designated to be one of several levels of Fitness, which in turn affects how each and everything that it experiences translates into Physical Condition loss.

The faster you deplete your Physicial Condition, the longer it takes to recover.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

John, nice to see you on the board, I've heard a lot about you.

You and Steve both make good points; I've never envied the Carl G gunners in my regiment who lug the thing around with us.

Stan Scislowski was a PIAT gunner in the Perths in WW II (5th Cdn Armoured Div) and it seems a lot of his recollections are of him not being able to keep up to the platoon, even to the point of getting lost. Of course, it seems to be standard Army practice to give the heavy weapons to the shortest guys...maybe that needs to be modelled?

[LGMB]

Soldiers,

If you ask me, and I'm no bloody grog, this entire argument is just plain silly. Everything boils down to how it will be modled in CM, and how accuratley it can therefoer be reflected. The issue works out like this in my mind: FT are slow, and shortrange.... making them useless in an assualt. They very rearley, IMO, do anything besides walk around and die. MGs are slow- but long range, so they are still very effective. So who acres if they can run or not! FT are simply not very effective, and this is becuase of their inabbility to make assualts. I use FTs for flushing out well defended units, but can never seem to get them close enough. I have come up with the new stragety of using Zooks, or Fausts. They can run, and therefor can evoid dieing to some extant. You'd be surpirssed at how effective several well placed zook shots can go against infantry! I see no reason for MGs to run (it would be nice...), but I do see a reason for FTs to run, and I think that it would be all too clear to any CM player.

They are slow. They lag behind attacks. They die before they can be used. They can't be used in assualts. They have a very limited range of uses.

Why isn't this reason enough? :confused:

[JasonC]

I love the idea of seperate fitness levels. Now units of old men don't have to be green (some were WW I veterans, some participated in half a dozen WW II campaigns). Some green units of youngsters can be shown with their strengths and weaknesses (good physical condition, poor training and experience). Scenario designers can model longer-term fatigue by awarding units reduced fitness levels, instead of just starting them winded. A fine addition to the variety of troop types...

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

You and Steve both make good points; I've never envied the Carl G gunners in my regiment who lug the thing around with us.

Our new President of Battlefront.com (Moon/Martin), in his previous humble existance was in the German Army as a lowly infantryman. He had to lug around good 'ol Carl as well as an MG3. IIRC Moon participated in one of the first "how much can a Swallow run with (yes, an African Swallow )" discussions.

Jason,

Yeah, having the Eastern Front without a Fitness rating would be rather difficult since the Soviets generally maintained a rather high quality soldier in terms of physical condition, but skills ranged from none to superb. Impossible to simulate this range in CMBO, but not a big deal since the Germans were the ones with the biggest decline in physical quality which was ALMOST always this was also linked to a decline in training and skills too.

Steve

[ February 04, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I'm well aware of the difference between being able

to run 100 yards, while heavily loaded, after tromping through the woods, as opposed to sprinting 20 yards, similarly burdened, though well rested, just as I'm equally aware that CMBB will apparently include sprint capabilities for FTs and such. I think the inclusion of fitness for all troops and sprint capabilities for heavy weapons is great.

The above said, what I'd really like to see is a reasoned discussion of what the actual performance differences are between a soldier with a 70 lb. load and one with a 40 lb. load, hence my suggestion that people conduct some simple experiments. My appetite in this matter has been greatly whetted by John D.Salt's post.

Further, I'm quite aware that troops deteriorate rapidly while in the line, develop 1000 yard stares, and so forth. Indeed, I have a stack of books here on fighting spirit, combat morale, fear in battle, and the like. I've read about troops who could carry .50 cal. MG tripods up hill and down dale all day during desert training drowning in the surf at Normandy because fear and stress simply drained the strength right out of them. I also know that 125 lb. sailors have picked up 250 lb. bombs, calmly carried them to the edge of the flight deck, and dropped them overboard during flight deck fires.

I've also studied the Army's field tests of sleep deprivation on platoon combat performance. Twenty-four hours of no sleep left the platoon's riflemen and MG teams at 80% effectiveness in their assigned combat tasks and the CO at 20% in making tactical decisions and carrying out his other assigned duties.

Clearly there is a lot of variability in the performance of men under stress.

Now, if we look at the second combat example I gave, which took place June 9, 1944, the private had been in combat for at most three days, hardly the same as sixty or ninety days in the line cold, wet, hungry and under fire. Moreover, account after account from both World Wars I and II speaks of how big, strong, well fed and well developed the American boys were when compared to their European counterparts, not to mention all the envious descriptions of the lavish scale of rations and other goodies U.S. troops had. This alone might explain some of the apparent inconsistencies we're seeing reported. I don't have the landing date handy for the first example, which was Buna in Papua, New Guinea, 8 December, 1942. In neither case can I tell you off the cuff whether the soldier in question participated in the opposed landing.

Finally, as best I recall, there is no Sneak command for flamethrower teams.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ February 05, 2002, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Lord This has been discussed in the original Flamethrower threat.

To give the short answer : because the FT was slow, and it was difficult and dangerous to use.

I personally (and I have brought up this thing some time ago ) will be contented when the FT can run a short distance to get into cover - what will be modeled in CMBB, as Steve said, and when the QB purchase of FTs will be optional, as Steve has proposed. :cool:

[ February 05, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[M Hofbauer]

Hofbauer-come-late...

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

1. What should be, and should not be separate? This is a very good question which we do wrestle with since there is NO one right answer. As for Hofbauer's example of the mines, we look at them as being exactly the same as rifle grenades and regular grenades. They are adjunct weapons to the primary ones (i.e. small arms). The Flamethrower totally does NOT fit that description. It is as much its own weapon as a HMG, Panzerschreck, or Pak40. The LMG analogy also doesn't work for me since the LMG is treated as both integral and stand alone, making it unique.

In all respect, I disagree. Tirst of all, rifle grenades and regular grenades were standard regular equipment for infantry squads.

Mines do *not* fit into that description. Rather, just like flamethrowers, they were used for special missions / emplyoments, and then they were issued to engineers who were trained to use them. When they were issued, they were issued to the engineer platoon tasked with mining/flaming etc., not to single individual two-man teams.

The HMG and the Panzerschreck are different, individual teams. Panzerschrecks were used by tank hunter groups, IIRC usually three two-man teams under the command of one NCO. Similarly, the HMG was it's own squad with it's own leader with several soldiers manning the HMG and providing support and close-defense. Similarly, a PaK ATG was it's own battlefield asset, with it's own dedicated crew and leader.

Panzerschreck, HMG and ATGun all have one thing in common: they were not part of a larger infantry squad. The flamethrower usually was.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

2. Micromanagement. Hofbauer makes a case that the FT shouldn't be able to be micromanaged on the battlefield based on his understanding of how it was used by German forces. Well... this might be true for the Germans but is absolutely not true for other nations on the Eastern Front. So inherently this argument is, at best, only true for the Germans as far as I know.

first, I thought this was a general discussion on FTs in WW II, CMBO and CMBB. second, Steve, you are actually arguing in my favor. because the large majority of axis troops on the eastern front were just that, German. In fact, the german practice of using FTs is the most intetresting one for this discussion because they are the only army present both in the current CMBO (which is what people have right now as the only thing to judge FT behavior in CM right now) and the CMBB theater.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

However, although I have seen the TO&E that Hofbauer posted

uh, I haven't posted an OOB so far. I am much too lazy right now to bother rummaging through my book crate for things like the Handbook on GMF etc.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I have not seen evidence they all stuck to each other like glue in practice. If they did not all walk around within a few meters of each other, then having the FT be separate is not unrealistic even though it would be up to the player to keep it realistically close to its parent squad because CM can not handle Squad to Team C&C attachment.

I am honest with you when I say now that in what literature I have on the subject, in most pictures the flamethrowers are shown within few meters of other soldiers. Sure there are pictures which zoom in on the FT and which consequently only show that guy, but in all the pictures that show a larger scene you can see them beside (working with or being part of) other "regular" soldiers.

Hofbauer mentions it being correct to break out the Bazooka as its own Team.

I think there's a typo here, you probably meant "incorrect". At least that is how I wanted my opinion to be understood.

We agree, however if you looked up the TO&E you would not see a separate TO&E line item for a Bazooka Team. Same for the FT in a US Engineer Platoon. If it were mentioned at all it would look just like the German Pioneer TO&E you typed up in the previous thread since they were allocated to Squads to deal with. Using Hofbauer's line of reasoning we should have made the Bazooka a part of the Squad and not broken it out separately.

I cannot speak for US infantry. However, for german infantry, it is the only correct way to break out the Panzerschreck as it's own dedicated AT team, which was not part of the infantry squad. Think of the PzSchreck more like a poor man's AT Gun and you are quite close.

again, my reasoning is based on the fact that the RPzB and the Flw were *not* comparable in terms of being part of a (larger) squad. The Panzerschreck has to be individualized out of the squad, because it is not regular infantry squad armament, but a dedicated AT team armament. The flamethrower never works alone or unde rit's own seperate guidance, but is part of the effort of the engineer squad which employs it.

But I think most everybody would agree this would be unrealistically restrictive, even if the TO&E says they are supposed to be that way.

I do not think it is overly restrictive considering the abstracted nature of infantry in CMBO in the first place. If anything, the FT is comparable to the other engineer specialty shown in CMBO, the demolition charges.

DCs are not carried by a two-man demolition team, but by the engineer squad. You cannot micromanage them. FTs are quite comparable to DCs in this manner. If DCs are handled by the squad TacAI, it would only be consistent to apply the smae policy on the FT.

3. Consistency. It is true that what the US did might not be reflected in what the Germans did. However, what the Germans did might not be reflective of what other nations on the Eastern Front did. The Romanians had full Flamethrower PLATOONS at higher levels, the Finns used their pioneers in small teams and not full formations. We are not going to have different ways of portraying the FT in CMBB, so once again notch up another reason to keep them separate from the Squad.

I disagree, I think we agree that what thje US OOB did or did not do is rather irrelevant to CMBB. Second, I think we also agree that the portrayal of FT teams on the axis side should be decided by the way the most important element of the axis forces did it, which was, I hope you agree, the regular german Wehrmacht. As much as I have a knack for all those romanian, finnish, hungarian, spanish and other colorful elements, we have to keep in mind it was a wehrmacht operation after all. It would be just as wrong to model the axis FT on the basis of how the romanians handled them as it would be to base the portrayal of american forces in CMBO on the OOB and tactics of the free french.

sincerely,

M.hofbauer

[M Hofbauer]

Btw, since several people now have expressed their satisfaction with how FTs work in CMBO, as well as some people being unsatisfied with it, I would be interested to have a poll on that, to see if maybe it really *is* a minority opinion that has being discussed now in dozens threads and hundreds of posts.

please go here to cast your vote (I haven't voted yet)

http://www.combatopinion.com/polls.php ?view=1&thepolls_comments=1&this_id=159&thepolls_id=159&active=thepolls&num_days=50&page_active=1]Poll on FTs in CMBO

I'm curious.

[ February 05, 2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

34 people had already an opinion

bumb

[xerxes]

I'm amazed at how many people parrot the FTs are useless line. They are very useful if used correctly, they are dead if used incorrectly. For example, a couple turns ago in a recent assault (fortified) I'm playing (attacker -30% strenth, defender has to max mines/wire) I bought engineers because we'd set it up to know there would be loads of mines. In addition we agreed that the defenders would be green volks smg companies.

My artillery does a good job, but he's got LOADS of smg squads and I can't arty all of them. In a central woods I push him back and then encounter wire, with smg squads entrenched behind the wire. All of this in woods. I'm pretty much out of arty, I have no long range (100m) shot on him so my options become:

1. advance rifles within 30m to get LOS (against smgs that seemed a little stupid).

2. abandon the attack in this area (problematic for other reasons)

3. bring up the FT just outside his LOS and area fire.

4. Bring rifles around into the open to get LOS at 60-100m.

Option 3 seemed the only viable one, so I've taken it, area fired and routed one smg squad who fled into the open and was cut down. Thinking I'd repeat I nudged over to get just close enough to the other smg. Lordly, lord, little did I guess he had a hidden FT that got tired of waiting for me to show myself and he area fires right next to my FT. Catches my FT and the supporting rifle squad.

Fact was. The FT was my only efficient option, it worked beautifully. His FT was the only way he was going to stop me from doing it again and clearing his strongpoint. His FT did that job.

There, FTs in offensive and defensive roles (all within 40m of each other). Both FTs worked great, both saved our respective bacons. If one of us had been missing the FT, one of us would have been cooked.

Heh, imagine my surprise as I watched my FT crawl into position to take out the 2nd squad when a gout of flame spews out of the woods ruining my little german BBQ party.

-marc

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Xerxes Interessting story. But as you said by yourself, the player must know how to use a FT, and it's difficult to use them.

Another point is, is the scenario made to 'support' FTs, or has the player purchased pioneers in a QB, was forced to purchase FTs with them and ends up with two wasted FTs, cause the map given him no chance to make a sensefull use of them, so they were wasted somewhere? This could explain the tendency in the poll to see the FT as a useless weapon.

At least this could be solved when Steve can realize his compromiss, so the player is not longer forced to purchase FTs together with the pioneers. :cool:

[ February 07, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Xerxes Interessting story. But as you said by yourself, the player must know how to use a FT, and it's difficult to use them.

I find a very similar argument goes for tanks. They seem to die or get bogged down all the time. Seems like there is a special trick to use them.

Also AT guns. Those things cannot sprint at all, and they die like sheep on a sheep ranch. Very difficult to use properly.

Come to think of it, half tracks are vulnerable and require a nack to get the most out of. The die quickly, it seems like even an HMG can geek them.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Slapdragon Please consider to change your callsign. It should be 'Slaptroll'.

[ February 08, 2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Eric Alkema]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

For CMBB we allow short sprints which in turn drain away Pysical Condition. The degree of loss depends on a new unit attribute -> Fitness Level. This is just as it sounds. Units are now designated to be one of several levels of Fitness, which in turn affects how each and everything that it experiences translates into Physical Condition loss.

The faster you deplete your Physicial Condition, the longer it takes to recover.

Steve

I just have to say.... way cool!

[xerxes]

The one improvement I'd REALLY like to see with FTs is the ability to conduct limited indirect fire. For example, if the enemy goes flat behind a stone wall they can't be targeted, not directly or as an area target since you don't have LOS. The FT should be able to area target over the wall, probably with some added inaccuracy to account for the lack of relative spotting.

That would help FTs greatly and I believe would be highly realistic.

-marc