Flamethrowers 2

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Guys,

I may not be so popular for starting a second thread. My appologies in advance.

All the arguments in the previous thread were valid and informative. I enjoyed reading the debate. In fact JasonC is quite correct when you consider his point of view (Purchase price balanced against their "general" effectiveness and vulnerability.

Whereas Steve and Co are also quite correct in justifying the price balanced against the destructive potential of the flamethrower despite its shortcomings as a vulnerable unit.

I find that the flamethrowers ARE, in general, too vulnerable, therefore i rarely purchase them. But i do like to use them in scenarios or in the right situation etc. Which is how CM intends them to be used of course.

Flamethrowers fully justify their purchase price in the following situations:

1) Night battles or Fog battles with low visibility - the flame units can then move unobserved until almost within flame range of the enemy.

2) On defense where they can lay in foxholes and await suitable victims. Especially if a HQ unit with bonuses for stealth and moral are placed close by.

3) When assaulting pillboxes.

4) When a Tank rumbles within range of a hidden flamethrower. I have destroyed Stugs, Jagdpanzer 1V's, halftracks, Shermans and other AFV's with flame.

5) On defence when placed in woods close to a dug in platoon, when the enemy come into range the ambush is sprung. The flame unit quickly panicks or routs the enemy infantry while the support platoon inflict all the casualties.

6) On attack, when you need to find all those gamey hiding infantry - walk your flamethrower into open ground and...Bingo! Up pops all those gamey hiding troops!

7) When used in city fights - torching buildings is a very effective method of flushing enemy men into the open - providing you have infantry waiting to cut them down of course

The following situations are not favourable to a flamethrower unit, it is when used in these situations that the price seems high and the flamethrowers are most likely to die before any valuable use can be extracted from them.

1) When used on attack over open ground...unless you use point 6 above

2) When used as a single lone unit. They die too quickly without suppport. They also need a HQ unit if they are to live long enough to fire more than one burst of flame.

3) When supporting an attack on high quality troops (Crack or Elite) because one burst of fire at those ranges = 2 dead flamethrower men before they can fire one squirt of flame.

4) When being attacked by superior numbers - flame units excel in reducing moral of the enemy, they can quickly panic and rout squads - but generally they do not cause so many casualties - the casualties are caused by any support units you have close by the flamethrower. When attacked by superior numbers the flamethrower will not last longer than one minute.

5) When you are attacking using highly mobile tactics - the flamethrowers simply cannot keep up unless you can use transport. In such cases the action is over by the time they reach the front line.

6) In meeting engagements - it takes a very skillful player to get good value (From flamethrower teams) in a meeting engagement.

Once you seperate the 2 points of view you will see that both sides of the argument are quite valid.

Just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons, i think the flamethrower teams are a little overpriced. Compare them to the great value of the humble Wasp - for the price of 2 flame teams you can buy one wasp - highly mobile, fast, low silouette, immune to small arms fire, Obscene 75 meter range and a whole tank load of fuel In other words a whole barrel of fun!

I guess it could be that the Wasp is a little underpriced. However, comparing the price of units can be a neverending debate. But i think many people would agree that "IN General" the 2 man flame teams are a wee tad expensive. Around 28 to 30 points would be closer to their true value IMHO.

I am not asking for a revision of the price though - i just wanted to express my view. I enjoy any thread where Steve (BTS) contributes since that means we all get to find out something else about CMBB In addition i also admire the posts from JasonC, although i must confess i don't always read the entire post.....they tend to get a little long !

Best wishes to you all from a cold and windy Shanghai.

CDIC

[Bullethead]

Damn, I had been watching the original flamewarrior thread steadily approach the locking limits established by St. Peng, and was eagerly anticipating an end to the matter, all flesh having been whipped off the dead horse's spinal column long since.

So let me be the first to say, "Hi mom!"

[JonS]

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

"Hi mom!"<hr></blockquote>

That's it? You miserable pudknocker. You hide away on your inner sanctum for years on end, then you finally appear to speak to the thronging masses and all you have to add is "Hi mom"? You didn't even have the decency to spell it proper like.

Sheesh. Be off with you. Back into your cave.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Can someone take a flamethrower to this thread?

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Guys,

I find that the flamethrowers ARE, in general, too vulnerable, CDIC<hr></blockquote>

So did the poor bastards who had to use them.

I don't think any of your points are in dispute CDIC, though I was interested in reading them (again). The debate (which I didn't really follow or have an interest in personally) was in how much FTs should cost.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>

[Bullethead]

JonS said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Sheesh. Be off with you. Back into your cave.<hr></blockquote>

For your information, I live under a rotten log. They don't have any rock, let alone caves, in this swamp.

[Specterx]

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

Guys,

I may not be so popular for starting a second thread. My appologies in advance.

<hr></blockquote>

Burn him!

Personally I don't care how much FT's cost, I never buy them in QB's and wouldn't think of using them unless it was a set-piece battle (i.e. CMMC or a scenario). Interestingly enough, the whole cost vs usefullness debate is pointless when you're dealing with scenarios, since simply buying something else is not an option.

My disdain for FT's shouldn't be misinterpreted as a lack of respect for their usefulness. In CMMC I can recall at least one battle where FT teams attached to a German pioneer battalion flamed a row of houses, allowing other German units to withdraw and eventually denying a bridge to the British (There's something about it in the allied paper I believe, look for an article about the battle for Elbeuf). Like any other unit they need to be employed correctly. If I try to knife fight with my Tiger I deserve to loose it, just like I deserve to get my flamethrowers shot up if I try to charge a platoon of heavy infantry.

Finally I can't understand why so many people are spending so much time on such a trivial issue. How many people would actually USE flamethrowers if they got a 10 point cost reduction?

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

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

Finally I can't understand why so many people are spending so much time on such a trivial issue. How many people would actually USE flamethrowers if they got a 10 point cost reduction?<hr></blockquote>

I havent even remotely been following this debate, but I gotta say, *I* would use them. Ocasionally, I do use them if I think the situation will warant it. Especially on defence. Even on offence Ive used them to good efect a couple of times by zooming them all over the place in HT's.

[Redwolf]

I think I can for once contribute something useful to this thread, and that is repeating what Steve said in my words. Because I completely failed to understand his Marder vs KV-1 example properly (see my "never mind") reply and in case others did as well:

A Marder is only useful in a narrow range of situations, because it a) needs some good targets, which means valuable tanks that it can penetrate and the battlefield should not be full of light crap that kills it instantly. Similar circumstances must exist for the flamethrower.

Me: Hey guys, while I think the puchase price is right (no point in debating in any case), I think that the chance of actually doing something useful on the battlefield is so low that people will leave it at home (not buying in QB or not using in scenario) if they understand the scoring system, unless you lower the knockout points. Discount overspecialization and fragility lightly at purchase price, but more at knockout time.

Steve: Hey redwolf, so that Marder meets its conditions and it kills three full tanks, and the tank owner goes forward and nails that bastard, and what does he say: I get how few points for killing the Marder? It is so much cheaper that the stuff it kills anyway, and now you even make that 60% of that victory-wise because it *may* have been useles?

For the flamethrower apply appropriate targets.

I still think I am right (especially when applying the logic to transport-expensive units - APCs), but an actual calculation proved that the maximum imaginable offset is not as huge as I thought.

[aka_tom_w]

Has anyone in the first thread pointed out that a cleverly hidden Flame thrower team hidden in a building "can" flame an opposing tank and knock it out in one burst??

Seriously I did it once, it was a BIG ugly German Tiger I and it was not supported (dumb AI) and I the FT boys popped up and SMOKED it!!

Are FT's vulnerable ? sure they are they are very vulernable BUT they can be used at AT weapons at the right time and the right place.

Other than that little "gem" I really couldn't care less if they change the FT teams in anyway.

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Okay, Mister Dense has to ask - what the hell is a "knockout point"?

I was assuming from past conversations that the purchase cost of a unit was also the value of that unit used when calculating the infliction of casualties - is that what you mean by knockout point?

[M Hofbauer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I don't think any of your points are in dispute CDIC, though I was interested in reading them (again). <hr></blockquote>

Michael,

I disagree (w/r/t the "nothing in dispute"-thing). Namely I disagree with the original poster's and Pullus maximus' comments of use of the flamethrower on the defense.

Using the flamethrower in ambush situations like the ones described above is ahistorical and gamey.

You cannot argue for the usefulness of a unit in CM by citing ways of employment which are decidedly off the realism scale.

[Berlichtingen]

I posted this in one of the other FT threads...

I find them to be effective on attack and defense. On the attack, it does require that you aren't attacking over open ground

In forests or urban settings, I break one squad of the platoon down into teams. I then form up the platoon with one team out front, two squads and one team on line with the platoon hq and the FT teams in the rear. The lead team scouts for the enemy. Once the enemy is located the platoon moves forward (usually sneak) and lays down fire on the enemy. The FTs crawl forward to firing range and will usually not be spotted until the unleash their first shot... the enemy rarely sticks around for a second. Another trick that I just learned that works on the attack is if the engineers are mounted in HTs... If you move the HTs into FT range of the enemy and plot the FT to dismount at the point that the HT is going to halt, the FT will dismount and fire... usually before drawing any fire. This meathod works particularly well if you have the HTs with squads dismount first, thus giving you supressing fire from the squads as well as the MGs from the HTs.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

You cannot argue for the usefulness of a unit in CM by citing ways of employment which are decidedly off the realism scale.<hr></blockquote>

Why can't you? If they find FTs of use on the defense in a CM game, then that adds to their over all usefullness.

You can argue how realistic it is, but that has nothing to do with his post - he was discussing FTs in Combat Mission, not FTs in Real Life.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Okay, Mister Dense has to ask - what the hell is a "knockout point"?

I was assuming from past conversations that the purchase cost of a unit was also the value of that unit used when calculating the infliction of casualties - is that what you mean by knockout point?<hr></blockquote>

Yes. But it is not always exactly the same as purchase value. Examples:

- artillery spotters are 30 points regular no matter what the module

- if you got the infantry cheaper in Company or Battalion, the knockout value is what is would be without discount

- A Sherman of 120 points regular and 5 crewmen is actually 150 points in knockout points you place on the field

[M Hofbauer]

Michael,

I agree that this "gamey" use is valid for estimating the effectivity of FTs in CM.

However, it does not speak in favor of the degree of realistic modeling of FTs in CMBO if the effective ways to use these troops are ahistoric and gamey tactics.

That's what I originally meant, hope it becomes clearer now.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Ok this forum can't be that devoid of topic where when an over done 12 page flamethrower thread is locked and the same day a "new" old topic is re created.........

[Desertor]

Sorry guys, but... do you know?

once a flamethrower team of mine get a enemy shell right in the canister and get in fire!

was not pretty to watch...

:cool: