Is this gamey or realistic?

[OGSF]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I gotta agree that this is "gamey". Totally unrealistic, and therefore it can be nothing but "gamey" by definition. ...

Fire is not meant to be a tool of war like currently used.

Setting fire to an enemy occupied building with a flamethrower MIGHT be realistic (depends on higher level goals). Setting fire to buildings prior to their occupation is not realistic. This was done in war as part of "scorched earth", which was decidedly NOT a frontline action.

Steve

"With all his rifle platoons now abreast, Captain Duckworth attacked toward the city's center [brest]. Hours later the 2d Battalion had advanced far beyond the cemetery and was exerting strong pressure when the Germans brought everything to a standstill by setting fire to buildings that blocked the American advance. "

(Closing with the Enemy, Michael D Doubler, page 96)

OGSF

[Battlefront.com]

The use of fire in war is, obviously, an age old tool of the trade (so to speak). But the kind of tactical use that people use it for, in WWII ETO (not PTO, not thousands of years earlier China) are not realistic. Partly because the engine is not designed to be Combat Mission - Beoyond Kindling , partly because there are no historically relevant constraints placed on the players.

Quick test... grab any account of warfare in the ETO's Western Theater. Find how many refferences are made to purposefully built fires during a heated battle. Now, compare that to how many battle refferences are made to battles which mention fire as a byproduct of combat. And finally, compare each of these numbers to the total number of battles which do not mention fire at all.

My point is that when someone uses fire unrealistically, they tend to do it whenever they get the chance. If this were not gamey, then any book of anybody's shelf would be chock full of descriptions of such actions. They are not, and therefore there must be reasons for that.

Steve

[Wreck]

"With all his rifle platoons now abreast, Captain Duckworth attacked toward the city's center [brest]. Hours later the 2d Battalion had advanced far beyond the cemetery and was exerting strong pressure when the Germans brought everything to a standstill by setting fire to buildings that blocked the American advance. "

Ah, but you are quoting out of context. As anyone with the book knows, the quote continues:

"The American commander, upon hearing the news of the fires, became irate. `The general demands that we get into town in the next 20 minutes, or we will lose the war!' he screamed at his subordinates on the radio. Knowing the high stakes involved, the Americans threw several companies into the streets around the burning buildings, only to have them mowed down by heavy machinegun and burp gun fire.

And that's why we are all now speaking German. Heil Hitler!"

[ February 14, 2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Wreck ]

[flamingknives]

Flaming houses seems reasonable as cover denial, but toasting a wood you have troops in seems foolish. Taking advantage of the fact that fire doesn't spread does seem a little gamey. House fires tend not to spread outside the buildings, unless they are in a terrace.

[newlife]

Originally posted by Wreck:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"With all his rifle platoons now abreast, Captain Duckworth attacked toward the city's center [brest]. Hours later the 2d Battalion had advanced far beyond the cemetery and was exerting strong pressure when the Germans brought everything to a standstill by setting fire to buildings that blocked the American advance. "

Ah, but you are quoting out of context. As anyone with the book knows, the quote continues:

"The American commander, upon hearing the news of the fires, became irate. `The general demands that we get into town in the next 20 minutes, or we will lose the war!' he screamed at his subordinates on the radio. Knowing the high stakes involved, the Americans threw several companies into the streets around the burning buildings, only to have them mowed down by heavy machinegun and burp gun fire.

And that's why we are all now speaking German. Heil Hitler!"</font>

[Bruno Weiss]

It's gamey because fire is not modelled in detail in CMBO.

Now why would I be responsible for calculating the effects of CMBO weaknesses? Based on that logic, then if there is a known offsetting strength in a certain weapons system I should then avoid its use. Doesn't make sense to me. The game is what it is. A game after all, not a precise reenactment of WWII.

[newlife]

I am by no means arguing that fire was used in the western theatre in the ways shown above. I am no historian and cant even begin to argue on those grounds.

However, I did think the basic premise behind CMBO was to provide players as realistic troop configuration and game play as possible so that there would be no need for such things as nationality modifiers. People would NOT be forced into standard doctrine for the different nationalities. Well, apparently it was doctrine for the different nations to use fire to deny cover in plenty of places. Well, it has become the choice of many players to do so.

You ask WHY it wasn't done. My guess is that the germans probably didn't have that many FTs nor the proper conditions. NW Europe was damp or cold for much of the war and therefor it probably wasn't much of an option. The allies were on the defensive much less and would have little reason to use desparate tactics like the ones modelled. So you have few FT, few chances to use it, and probably would need a commander willing to do someting that wasn't set out in Army doctrine. Not likely to happen at all.

Therefor the question only really resolves around whether fire is properly modeled in the game, which most people will say no to. No fault of BTS as they got SOOOO many things right that to model something correctly which was really supposed to be a side-effect is way forgiveable.

I'm also glad wind will spread fire, but that won't solve much if you don't add randomness into the spread of it. Otherwise you will see people using fire MORE in CMBB and not LESS.

I personally have no problem with an opponent using any weapon in the game in any way. I rarely set limits on units and even usually set the combat type to "Unrestricted". I do this because I believe sound tactics will almost always overcome units and tactics like FTs. That's not to say that I'm so good as to never be defeated, that's to say that if I lose I pin it on myself and because my opponent decided to set the world on fire. There's a counter to everything.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The use of fire in war is, obviously, an age old tool of the trade (so to speak). But the kind of tactical use that people use it for, in WWII ETO (not PTO, not thousands of years earlier China) are not realistic. Partly because the engine is not designed to be Combat Mission - Beoyond Kindling , partly because there are no historically relevant constraints placed on the players.

Quick test... grab any account of warfare in the ETO's Western Theater. Find how many refferences are made to purposefully built fires during a heated battle. Now, compare that to how many battle refferences are made to battles which mention fire as a byproduct of combat. And finally, compare each of these numbers to the total number of battles which do not mention fire at all.

My point is that when someone uses fire unrealistically, they tend to do it whenever they get the chance. If this were not gamey, then any book of anybody's shelf would be chock full of descriptions of such actions. They are not, and therefore there must be reasons for that.

Steve

[newlife]

Steve,

I really suggest that you guys test out a scenario in CMBB with one player having a decent number of FTs and the wind at his back. Fire needs at least some random spreading.

Pete

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The use of fire in war is, obviously, an age old tool of the trade (so to speak). But the kind of tactical use that people use it for, in WWII ETO (not PTO, not thousands of years earlier China) are not realistic. Partly because the engine is not designed to be Combat Mission - Beoyond Kindling , partly because there are no historically relevant constraints placed on the players.

Quick test... grab any account of warfare in the ETO's Western Theater. Find how many refferences are made to purposefully built fires during a heated battle. Now, compare that to how many battle refferences are made to battles which mention fire as a byproduct of combat. And finally, compare each of these numbers to the total number of battles which do not mention fire at all.

My point is that when someone uses fire unrealistically, they tend to do it whenever they get the chance. If this were not gamey, then any book of anybody's shelf would be chock full of descriptions of such actions. They are not, and therefore there must be reasons for that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

OGSF,

Setting fires was done. Rarely, but done upon ocasion. I would have to re-read Doubler's account of this, but I am sure this was not done during the heat of a 30 minute engagement.

Also keep in mind another reason why this wasn't done that often... imagine if all the smoke blew into the German lines? The Allies would be able to move all over the place while the Germans were caughing and sputtering. Smoke is something that is as much a consideration as the fire itself, and we all know that CM is incapable of correctly simulating chaos particals like smoke to the degree found on real battlefields.

Newlife:

Well, apparently it was doctrine for the different nations to use fire to deny cover in plenty of places.

I'd challenge this assumption Like I said above, take down any book off the shelf and count how many times purposefully set fires were used in combat. It happens, for sure, but so do MANY other crazy and whacky stuff. That doesn't mean it is right to see it crop up everytime someone plays with engineers.

Well, it has become the choice of many players to do so.

Which is why it is "gamey" The degree that player behavior is out of step with reality is the degree that a behavior is gamey.

And yes fires do grow/spread in a semi random way in CMBB. IIRC we also have different sized fires instead of the 20x20 manditory fires in CMBO.

Steve

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Heresy! Burn him!

[Treeburst155]

GAMEY!!!!

Treeburst155 out.

[newlife]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Newlife:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, apparently it was doctrine for the different nations to use fire to deny cover in plenty of places.

I'd challenge this assumption

</font>

[Bruno Weiss]

Well this was a nice and meaningless thread and welcome back for those old timers returning with more frequency as the anticipation levels rise awaiting the new and improved CMBB. Nothing was resolved ofcourse, which is just as it should be.

Someone will come along shortly and present an argument as to why it IS gamey.

Yes.

I suspect that relatively soon there will be a discussion on exactly what you mean by "gamey."

Yes yes.

Is it realistic? Bet you a nickle that some will say it is and some will say it isn't.

Yes yes yes.

Ah, tis good to be back.

[Carl_Lafong]

Pioneers/Engineers, blow down houses/buildings for fire lanes, and bridges for defensive purposes. I believe the use of the FT's might be a little gamey as far as game parameters are set at present. In the real world, however, this was most assuredly done quite often. My vote is "FLAME ON!!"

[ASL Veteran]

Anyone who has lived in California during a drought will tell you that fire and trees don't mix and only a complete moron would deliberately set a forest on fire to deny a few meters of ground to an enemy advance. Before long several hundred square MILES of forest would be burning out of control and I doubt there would be too many volunteer fire fighters running around trying to put it out. Sparks and little burning specks would also be blowing around setting buildings and other things on fire several meters from the genesis of the fire - even jumping fire breaks. Putting out forest fires takes a LOT of manpower and a LOT of hard work. Rather than lighting fires, my guess is that most troops probably feared fire because of it's unpredictable nature. In CMBO fire is very predictable and contained, thus its exploitation in the game is gamey. If someone wants to use that "tactic" then go ahead and "fire away" if your opponent doesn't mind, but to try to justify it as a historically accurate tactic just seems a little shallow to me.

If someone feels strongly enough that it was a valid and common tactic, then I would just suggest that you go out to a forest and light some trees on fire. Dig a foxhole ten meters from where you started the fire and then tell us how normal and common this behavior would be as you gawk at a thirty foot tall flaming torch that's close enough to roast marshmallows over.

That's my 2 cents anyway

[flamingknives]

Sorry to be a bit confrontational, but Calafornia only resembles Europe in Austin Powers, due to all the red telephone boxes.

Europe is temperate.

Calafornia is arid.

The deciduous Forests in Europe are alot wetter and more broken up than North American forests, which basically means that you couldn't set fire to one bigger than a couple of acres if you has all afternoon with a crocadile.

The coniferous forests are generally wetter still.

The only time they go up is when its been very hot and dry (i.e. the very dry setting), which happens slightly less often than once in a blue moon, and only in the height of summer (June - September)

Still and all, it does seem gamey to make woods impassable by fire, as forest fires in the Northern France/ West Germany area of Europe just aren't that flammable.

A house on the other hand.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Wreck:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"With all his rifle platoons now abreast, Captain Duckworth attacked toward the city's center [brest]. Hours later the 2d Battalion had advanced far beyond the cemetery and was exerting strong pressure when the Germans brought everything to a standstill by setting fire to buildings that blocked the American advance. "

Ah, but you are quoting out of context. As anyone with the book knows, the quote continues:

"The American commander, upon hearing the news of the fires, became irate. `The general demands that we get into town in the next 20 minutes, or we will lose the war!' he screamed at his subordinates on the radio. Knowing the high stakes involved, the Americans threw several companies into the streets around the burning buildings, only to have them mowed down by heavy machinegun and burp gun fire.

And that's why we are all now speaking German. Heil Hitler!"</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

I interviewed an officer-veteran of Panzer Lehr division. Once in Russia, while still an NCO in a panzergrenadier regiment, he was trapped behind enemy lines with a fellow soldier. They set fire to a barn so that it would ruin the Russians' night vision, and managed to escape an encirclement by running away from the light...he painted a picture of the scene and gave me a print; if anyone wants to see it I could scan it.

This was also in winter, where kindling was difficult....

[MrPeng]

What a great thread!

[Patgod]

fire is pretty

[JasonC]

What most amuses me in this thread are the few people who seem to think a flamethrower is necessary to start fires, because it is in CM. Hello? The flamethrower is only needed to throw... the flame. That is sort of the reason for its name. Flame... Thrower. Thrower. That which throws.

The contraption is used to put the gasoline 40 yards away where the enemy is. If you want to light a house, you do not need to carry around the gasoline in 40-70 lb pressurized tanks with pressure hoses and nozzles and igniters. You just take a can of gas, unscrew the top, pour, apply match.

This does not happen in CM. Only because CM does not encourage reckless firestarting. Incidentally, FTs were not scarce either, the Germans for example fielded tens of thousands of them. Not to mention cans of gasoline.

As for the folks who didn't get wreck's point, you can only burn the cover you are standing in once. Then you have to back up. And if you want to do it again, you then get to burn that cover. The enemy, meanwhile, patiently eats C-rations as you fight the war for them, backing up over and over and destroying everything you possess.

If you ever stop burning things, then they advance through the rubble and ash after it has cooled down, and a CM scenario might even result. Until then, just postpone the CM scenario, give up territory, and wait a few hours.

Nothing about the tactic is realistic. It exploits fixed time limits, fixed flags, only FTs lighting fires, fires not spreading, fire being predictable, fire spreading to a full tile instantly, fire tiles being forbidden, etc. The 37mm AA halftrack is more realistic. Naval gunfire is more realistic.

As for the folks who say, "since it is a game, you can do anything it allows", the game allows all sorts of outright cheating too. Are they allowed? Or how about the truly silly force types, are they perfectly OK too? Have you ever fought a 1000 pt meeting engagement in open-ish terrain against 1 platoon of infantry scouts and 18 flakwagens? How about 260 submachinegunners with 45 panzerfausts (and 3 panzerschrecks) in covered terrain? How about 15 M8HMCs with one platoon of infantry? 12 Hetzers and nothing else?

A defense consisting of 34 dug-in puppchens and infantry guns?

If you like that too, please keep such things to yourself, lol.

[Bruno Weiss]

he painted a picture of the scene and gave me a print; if anyone wants to see it I could scan it.

Ah ha! Proof positive. I wanna see it Michael Dorosh. It's ever bit as good of evidence as some moldy old training manual saying German tanks did some such or other.

[newlife]

Originally posted by JasonC:

What most amuses me in this thread are the few people who seem to think a flamethrower is necessary to start fires, because it is in CM. Hello? The flamethrower is only needed to throw... the flame. That is sort of the reason for its name. Flame... Thrower. Thrower. That which throws.

The contraption is used to put the gasoline 40 yards away where the enemy is. If you want to light a house, you do not need to carry around the gasoline in 40-70 lb pressurized tanks with pressure hoses and nozzles and igniters. You just take a can of gas, unscrew the top, pour, apply match.

This does not happen in CM. Only because CM does not encourage reckless firestarting. Incidentally, FTs were not scarce either, the Germans for example fielded tens of thousands of them. Not to mention cans of gasoline.

As for the folks who didn't get wreck's point, you can only burn the cover you are standing in once. Then you have to back up. And if you want to do it again, you then get to burn that cover. The enemy, meanwhile, patiently eats C-rations as you fight the war for them, backing up over and over and destroying everything you possess.

If you ever stop burning things, then they advance through the rubble and ash after it has cooled down, and a CM scenario might even result. Until then, just postpone the CM scenario, give up territory, and wait a few hours.

Nothing about the tactic is realistic. It exploits fixed time limits, fixed flags, only FTs lighting fires, fires not spreading, fire being predictable, fire spreading to a full tile instantly, fire tiles being forbidden, etc. The 37mm AA halftrack is more realistic. Naval gunfire is more realistic.

As for the folks who say, "since it is a game, you can do anything it allows", the game allows all sorts of outright cheating too. Are they allowed? Or how about the truly silly force types, are they perfectly OK too? Have you ever fought a 1000 pt meeting engagement in open-ish terrain against 1 platoon of infantry scouts and 18 flakwagens? How about 260 submachinegunners with 45 panzerfausts (and 3 panzerschrecks) in covered terrain? How about 15 M8HMCs with one platoon of infantry? 12 Hetzers and nothing else?

A defense consisting of 34 dug-in puppchens and infantry guns?

If you like that too, please keep such things to yourself, lol.

Let's have fun with Jason.

First off, the presense of FTs and/or gasoline (which was a very valuable commodity to the Germans) does not in and of itself make for ideal conditions under which to use fire as being discussed. You need proper environmental and tactical conditions as well. So the historical argument that it wasn't used because it wasn't effective is pointless when people play in dry conditions all the time. (And not every blast of the FT lights something up anyway)

As for Wrecks point, I believe the Russians made very good use of that tactic (at least on a strategic level) as they had plenty of land to give away. Under the proper conditions, the tactic works well.

For your points on time. That is a completely separate issue. Most of the games played in CM are unrealistic because of time. How many battles are pushed to an extreme because of players trying to "beat the clock". Fire is not broken because of time.

Your other points, I've seen other things ignite fires, most notable arty and mortar fire (and I've seen woods go up, not just houses). Fixed Flags? See the time limits responce. Yes, Fires are too predictable and don't move, we agree there. Fires unpassable? That's a complaint? How many fires do you walk through?

And force selection. First not to the point, and second most of your examples have plenty of ways to be beaten by a properly mixed force.

Pete

[xerxes]

"Naval gunfire is more realistic

I had to laugh at that one.

I think Flak Wagons are more realistic then Wally's Wall Of Flame. At least if you don't have any AP rounds, Flak wagons behave pretty much the way they should.

- marc s

[Bruno Weiss]

Now, there is another unforseen aspect to the logic of this debate. Quite often, a heavy (sometimes not so heavy), HE round lights up the woods hex like it was Riverside County. I'm pretty sure there are a few scoundrels out there that have fired a round or two into the woods to try and set them ablaze. Based on the logic of "its my responsibility" to avoid any CMBO weaknesses that might directly or I guess, indirectly result in my having an advantagous situation, I/we should then avoid firing any HE into the woods. Afterall, there might not be any evidence that combatants fired HE into woods to set them on fire (probably because they used FT's). Perhaps the AI should judge these things. Spit out a warning or reduce points or something.

"Eeeb eeeb, warning Will Robinson, you have exceeded your alloted gamey points for this session. Session will conclude in 30 seconds. Your opponent who was not a gamey scoundrel and who avoided any attempt to utilize all available game resources will be awarded victory"

[ February 15, 2002, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]