Flamethrowers

[Charlie Rock]

"Spearheading D-Day" Jonathan Gawne, p.88

Assault Boat team

Boat team leader (officer)

Rifle team (5 men)

Wire cutting team (4 men)-2 bangalores(demo)

Bar team (4 men)

60 mm team (4 men)

Bazooka team (4 men)

demolition team (5 men)

assistant boat team leader (NCO)

AND

Flamethrower team (2 men)

1 Operator: Flamethrower .45 pistol

2. Assistant: 5 gallon fuel refill, nitrogen tank and wrenches, garand, 4 smoke and 6 frag grenades

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

That's what I thought - in that case I simply disagree. What you want is to remove the possibility for the opposition to take care of a major threat to their position. That I feel is unrealistic and should not be done. FTs were prime targets. If you want them to be covered, do it with another squad/tank/whatever through suppression.

As for them working as AT weapons - no I don't, but I don't find it a major stretch of imagination that they disable vehicles or cause crews to bail. Someone posted here about the episode related by Belton Cooper in which Shermans caused KT crews to bail with WP rounds. Same principle.

As for Jason's points. Yes for some of them in QBs (I absolutely disagree with the claim that there is not enough of a morale effect). No for well-designed scenarios. This indicates to me that it is a QB problem, and not an FT problem. What needs fixing then is the QB system, which should probably include a city only setting in CMBB (although I am not sure if the auto-generator could handle such a map), and not some way to make FTs stronger than they already are (if used correctly).<hr></blockquote>

Andreas, you could bring the same argument about Panzerfausts. They are also a major threat, maybe even more then any FT, when I think how much damage they can do and how much points they make for me when they kill a tank. And Fausts are for free!

I also didn't meant to make them a stronger weapon (or a magic bullet, as Slapdragon says). The protection problem is, I can not order cover against multiple targets. In reality, the squad MG can cover a large area, the rest of the squad can cover another area, the next squad etcetera. The game works different, and beside that, the TacAI often make it's own decisions, so a efficient protection of another unit is very difficult to organize. IMO it would make things just easier, but NOT on cost of realism.

Why do you think the FT would become an ueberweapon when they are part of a squad? It wouldn't change them. They still would be a weapon with short range, and they still would have the same number of attacks then before.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Andreas, one thing that I think would change my mind is if I could come up with evidence that flamethrower teams in the US Army, SS, Heer, CW, or Russian army were organic as squad level elements, instead of special weapons teams assigned to platoons.<hr></blockquote>

I have ordered the book 'Deutsche Pioniere im Einsatz' (German engineers in action) one minute ago. Maybe we find someone else who can provide us with informations faster.

Hey Slapdragon, I would expect that you have - like me - a natural interest to support other flamethrowers.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[JasonC]

Nothing FTs do to KTs or halftracks can't be done to them even more easily and at longer ranges by bazookas, for only 3/8ths the team cost. Buy two zooks, seperate them to make flank shot opportunities, and you will cover far more ground and save points to boot.

And if Andreas thinks they are useful in towns now, he is welcome to take US combat engineers, with their flamethrowers and demo charges, against my SMG-equipped German infantry in a built up town. I assure him in CM the MP40 is a far more effective weapon at close range than a cumbersome FT - and I will also be able to afford 2 platoons of SMG infantry per 1 platoon of his engineers. The reason is simple - against SMGs, any FT within range is dead in seconds, even from inside cover. If a platoon's worth (2 FTs) breaks one German squad he will be doing better than average with them - but will come out down by a factor of 3 in the cost exchange that represents. And breaking the squad fired at is not the same morale effect as whole companies raising the white flag. Ideally, CM FTs would cause global morale drops whenever they successfully torched anything.

As for the advice to just not use them, of course I don't as a rule (except when a scenario gives them to me). But that also means some perfectly counter-able German defensive tactics are not counterable in CM, when they were in reality. One can't use pioneers or US combat engineers in their doctrinal support roles with the modeling as it is. You are better off with automatic weapons infantry plus a few AT teams. As for the claim that they didn't cause many casualties, I call 250 PWs at a shot a lot of "casualties" to be caused by less than a dozen guys with some gasoline on their backs (sometimes by less than five). And the reason they didn't cause many (non-PWs) was their limited range and the fact that people got out of their way (or surrendered if they couldn't), not a life expectancy of seven seconds.

And no, they would not be a wonder weapon if they were integral to engineer squads - which would pay through the nose to have them just like they do now. They would, however, force people to stop combat engineers from closing to within 40 yards of their own infantry - or to withdraw in front of them if they could not manage that. Which is not an "uberweapon" effect, but would be realistic and justify the expense of the engineers.

One fellow says "What you want is to remove the possibility for the opposition to take care of a major threat to their position. That I feel is unrealistic". Why can't Allies target just the MG42 gunners in German squads? Just the panzerfaust operators? Or the Germans target the BAR gunners, rifle grenadiers and gammon bomb men in US paratroop squads? Why aren't officers single man counters, the more easily to eliminate the "threat" of enemy leadership? This is a silly argument, because there is nothing uniform about its application.

Instead, the likelihood of using the weapon should be related to the state of suppression of the engineer squad - much as things are now for German fausts. Those can be frustratingly difficult to get to fire, even once in range, if the shooting unit is under fire itself. The same for FTs would accurately reflect the local "hazardous movement" aspects of opening up with one, without making them magnetic bullet attractors from the first turn. When pinned, an engineer squad would not manage to burn nearby enemies - but if not pinned or under fire, they would be able to do so more effectively than they do now.

[JasonC]

P.S. - also note that including the FTs with the engineer squads, organic, would make it rather a larger investment to take them. You would have to lay out ~200 points on an engineer platoon - not line an ad hoc defense with terrain fire starters (bought alone, used alone) and all that gamey silliness. But in return for a large investment, you would get a serious capability, not 4 extra body bags.

[Redwolf]

What we see here is a problem of game scale.

The (or one major) point about CMBO is that you have a 3D environment with vehicle and single building positions shown. This requires that terrain cover must be represented as well, you cannot abstract it. Since you don't have a real-time first-person game, you need the nightmare named TacAI, otherwise units would not use cover and the 3D picture would be "blury" for vehicle cover (as it is with infantry).

For infantry, this direct abstraction could not hold on this scale, so the squads and teams get abstracted, as is their cover.

The question of integrating flamethrowers into squads is largely one of scale and abstraction. For the LMGs it has been accepted and most people I know prefer it the way it is (as shown by the opinion about the seperate LMG). Although I did not start writing this posting with this opinion, I now think that a squad-integrated flamethrower would be a good idea.

Think over it: the LMG is integrated. What are the game scale implications of the integrated LMG? The implication is that the area represented by the squad marker is an area where a real squad would use the LMG and the riflemen to leapfrog. This is quite a distance. The distance that a flamethrower would be in front of his guys is certainly less than for the LMG. So the representation bent is less than it already is.

I would like to see expensive pioneer platoons with integrated flamethrower. If you are concerned about the FT being picked up by other squad members, then just don't pass it around on losses. Loose the wrong men, you get a rifle squad.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

"Spearheading D-Day" Jonathan Gawne, p.88

Assault Boat team

Boat team leader (officer)

Rifle team (5 men)

Wire cutting team (4 men)-2 bangalores(demo)

Bar team (4 men)

60 mm team (4 men)

Bazooka team (4 men)

demolition team (5 men)

assistant boat team leader (NCO)

AND

Flamethrower team (2 men)

1 Operator: Flamethrower .45 pistol

2. Assistant: 5 gallon fuel refill, nitrogen tank and wrenches, garand, 4 smoke and 6 frag grenades<hr></blockquote>

Except, the special units built for the D-Day assault are not present in CM -- along with the entire concept of beach assault.

The book on German Pioneer infantry though will be fascinating to find out how they were employed.

[Redwolf]

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

Similarly, demolition charges should do more than act like glorified hand grenades when used against infantry targets. Since they represent charges of up to 10 lbs of TNT, they ought to have around 75 blast, like 105mm artillery.<hr></blockquote>

[xerxes]

Scenarios can definitely be PBEMed, that's the only way I've ever played them.

I think lmg's should be separate from the rest of the squad. The fact that german squads lugging two lmgs have no movement penalty is my mind problematic.

And yes, part of the problem in QBs with FTs is that QBs have a limited range of terrain configurations. FTs work well in dense city terrain which you only find in scenarios.

Andres: Even though I'm getting my butt kicked to hell and back, "Last Man" is a great scenario, my compliments and thanks on your work. Of course my FT did hit the building with an entire platoon of germans inside, too bad it was my last gallon of fuel and the building didn't go up. I was so hoping to see an entire platoon run into the street directly in my LOF at 40m range.

-marc

[JonS]

If flamethrowers were to be rolled into the squad, they would have to be treated differently to both squad weapons (rifles, SMGs, LMGs) and special weapons ('fausts, rifle grenades, DCs, Gammon Bombs).

The obvious solution would seem to be to trat them as special weapons, but in terms of the CM model these are a 'distributed load' - no single member of the squad carries them all, and as losses are accrued the the number of special weapons drops by the same ratio. Now, if you had a 10 man engineer squad with 'flame ability' (As opposed to flamability ) and it had say 6 shots, then with the current model, after 2 casualties it would be down to 5 shots, after 5 cas it would be down to 3 shots, etc. The assumption with special weapons seems to be that the load is pro-rated across the men.

For flamethrowers this is obviously incorrect. Bob and Joe don't carry a couple of litres of petrol in one of their bandoliers to top upp the tank when it gets low - the flamethrower and his assistant carry the lot.

And this is how squad weapons are modelled - as squads take casualties a pseudo-randomly selected weapon is dropped off the squad inventory. Now, this could be an OK way of handling the flamethrowers, except that all squad weapons use a pooled amount of ammo (40 'shots'). If this were the approach taken you could, with careful play, get 40 flame shots out of a 6 shot weapon.

So, treating them as special weapons would do weird things to their vulnerability, and treating them as squad weapons could introduce a potentially very gamey tactic.

It seems to me that a third way would be necessary, which combines aspects of both approaches. A specific weapon is included on the squad roster, but its ammo consumption is tracked individually. Maybe that's a no-brainer, maybe it isn't, but it would be unique.

Regards

JonS

BTW. I'm not convinced either way. I seldom play QBs, so I seldom see flamethrowers anyway. When I do they usually do no good, but recently I had a success with them using them in their intended role (see the flamethrower thread in the "tips 'n' tricks" forum.)

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Redwolf How have managed to blow a light building with demo charges? I never found out how to order this.

Xerxes The reason why LMGs as part of a squad can move faster then an independent LMG team is well known - the whole squad carries the ammo, in the team only two men must do this. The weapon itself is no problem, I know for sure, cause I carried an (90% identical) MG-3 in my military service .

JonS You are right, but I think it is not so difficult. Of course I'm not familiar with the CM source code and can only rely on my knowledge about VisualBasic, but in programming terms a simple instruction can solve the problem like:

ft = number of flamethrowers in the squad (let us assume it is one)

ftat = number flamethrower attacks

IF ft = 0 THEN ftat = 0

That's all.

And - this is of course speculativ - the early screenshots from CM:BB I have seen looked like the ammo is now tracked for every single weapon. But maybe I missinterpreted something.

[Andreas]

Err, for this argument that they should be treated like the squad lMG or a PF/demo charge/rifle grenade - on top of what Jon said about load distribution - these are all weapons that can be picked up rather easily if the original handler goes to ground. They are also light, and you can run with them. None of which applies to the FT. It would need a serious bit of recoding, for something which I am sure is not broken. What you are trying to fix is the inability of the QB generator to give you a good map to use them on. You don't fix that by changing the FTs in the game, obviously.

As for Jason's offer of having SMG squads go up against a US engineer outfit. First, you are thinking in QB terms again (see above - this will be fixed by rarity). Second, if Berli did build a city map scenario for the game, I might even take you up on it.

As Xerxes said - scenarios are very well suitable for PBEM, probably more so than QBs.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Err, for this argument that they should be treated like the squad lMG or a PF/demo charge/rifle grenade - on top of what Jon said about load distribution - these are all weapons that can be picked up rather easily if the original handler goes to ground. They are also light, and you can run with them. None of which applies to the FT. It would need a serious bit of recoding, for something which I am sure is not broken. What you are trying to fix is the inability of the QB generator to give you a good map to use them on. You don't fix that by changing the FTs in the game, obviously.

As for Jason's offer of having SMG squads go up against a US engineer outfit. First, you are thinking in QB terms again (see above - this will be fixed by rarity). Second, if Berli did build a city map scenario for the game, I might even take you up on it.

As Xerxes said - scenarios are very well suitable for PBEM, probably more so than QBs.<hr></blockquote>

Andreas, only because you don't like QBs, that doesn't mean that they are broken. And I'm pretty sure that the recoding of the auto map creator is more difficult to do then the recoding of a special weapons use - why do you think this would be so difficult? And I don't agree that a recoding of the map creator would change the handling of the FT. Once in the city of a QB, he is in the same situation like in a scenario, so what is the difference?

I already said, it would be logic to lower the speed of engineers and let them faster get tired. This would be a good compromise. Keep in mind, CM does not simulate a single man (you said that, too, didn't you?), so we are talking only about abstractions!

Units don't gets faster when they have used up their ammo, even if this would be logic - just think about HMGs or mortars, or even the FT. Even when they have used up all ammo, they are as slow or fast as before, they have always an average speed. So in princip, the FT could move faster, once the fuel is used up. Just imagine the abstraction of things like an Unteroffizier who says : 'Hey, FT, out of ammo? Give your ballast to the (like medics abstracted) dispatch rider, you and your assistant help us to carry our ammo/satchel charges/Fausts.' This effect is not available for an independent team, a soldier don't give away his weapon without order! So it could explain why a FT as part of an engineer squad is faster then an independent FT. Makes this sense?

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Andreas]

Well, I think we are talking in circles now. Bottomline is, neither you nor Jason have convinced me that there is something wrong with FTs as they are currently handled. Your arguments focus on something being wrong with them in QBs (comparative cost and usefulness on the QB map), not on something that is wrong with them in principle. As for Jason's suggestion that they should lead to a global drop in morale - I would agree with that for the presence of Crocodiles, and maybe Wasps. Definitely not for hand-held FTs.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Andreas, only because you don't like QBs, that doesn't mean that they are broken. <hr></blockquote>

'Broken' is probably the wrong term - 'nowhere near as good as a well-designed canned scenario' would be better. Particularly when it comes to the use of special weapons.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

And I'm pretty sure that the recoding of the auto map creator is more difficult to do then the recoding of a special weapons use - why do you think this would be so difficult? <hr></blockquote>

Because you would have to introduce the concept of individual soldier modelling into the current model, due to the load distribution and the picking up if the handler goes down issue. I do not know how they do it at the moment, but I am sure they would have to do it differently for FTs.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:And I don't agree that a recoding of the map creator would change the handling of the FT. Once in the city of a QB, he is in the same situation like in a scenario, so what is the difference?<hr></blockquote>

As Xerxes said, pick up a decent city-fight including FTs, and we talk again. Until then, I am afraid you are probably not qualified to make that judgement. A QB 'town' map and a well-done scenario city map are incomparable.

[JPS]

How does the "typical" combat load of a pioneer equipped for assault compare to a flamethrower team member equipment weight? (80 lbs was mentioned for FT team - could anyone provide more details on this?)

[Andreas]

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

How does the "typical" combat load of a pioneer equipped for assault compare to a flamethrower team member equipment weight? (80 lbs was mentioned for FT team - could anyone provide more details on this?)<hr></blockquote>

Minor point - while the weight may not be that bad, the way of carrying it would probably hinder fast movement too.

[JPS]

Andreas,

it might very well be a minor point. However, I think we both agree that the simulation aspects of Combat Mission should be developed based on actual facts insofar as feasible? And the weight of the assault gear for combat engineers as well as the weight of FT team member gear are pieces of information that are surely in some reference books or even training manuals.

Unfortunately, I do not have suitable references. Could anyone provide this nugget of info?

[Andreas]

JPS - I meant my point about encumbrance was a minor point, not yours about weight. I think that your's is quite important actually.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Redwolf How have managed to blow a light building with demo charges? I never found out how to order this.

<hr></blockquote>

I put a 81mm mortar with no ammo into the house and an engineering squad with no smallarms ammo and two demo charges 20m from it.

The TacAI is really not that bad. You could literally see them getting off one smallarms burst (under LOW AMMO) with no effect, rolling eyes on their rifles and then throwing the demo charges instead.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Andreas, we move in circles because we both think we have the better arguments. You wasn't yet able to convince me that FTs and engineers are modeled well, or that both wouldn't have a benefid when they merge, or that it wouldn't simplify their handling for the player. Or have I missed something?

By the way, only because I prefer QBs, it doesn't mean that I have no idea about scenarios. I prefer QBs because I know so many scenarios, and the most of them are... IMO, of course - well, a question of taste. Believe me, I love city battles, and I'm really unhappy that they are a bit undermodeled in CM. Even if the scenario is designed for housefighting.

And I repeat, once the FT is in the city, the situation is the same. It doesn't matter how much country is around the city. Simplified, you have houses and streets.

I have already pointed it out, an additional modeling of single soldiers is not necessary. You loose a soldier with his weapon and some ammo. When the soldiers carrys a Faust, you loose one Faust attack. If the soldiers carrys a FT, you loose 9 FT attacks. I have some knowledge in database access (and we are talking about nothing else), and I don't think that a fundamental change would be necessary. That depends of course on the current engine.

The purchase cost of FTs are important in scenarios, too. When they are killed, you get the same amount of victory points.

JPS The German 'FT 41' weigthed (full) 18kg, including 7 liters of fuel. The Soviet 'ROKS-2' 22,7kg, including 9 liters of fuel. Indeed the weight is secondary as Andreas said, the Flammethrower is just a bulky thing. The question is, what did the FT and his assistant once the fuel was used up? Was the battle for them over, or did they supported the squad in another way?

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Redwolf]

As for the weight and speed problems, I agree. I still like the idea of squad-internal FTs, but the squad should be barely runnable (like a Schreck) or not at all (like the LMG). That sounds OK for engineers and their historical role on the battlefield.

With a small amount of additional coding you could also cause the engineers to abadon their special equipment (demo charges, FTs) when they break, like a mortar crew can be seperated from their weapon. Then you would get the speed (and weapons) of a normal rifle squad. Of course, a command to abadon weapons is needed anyway for gun crews etc.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Believe me, I love city battles, and I'm really unhappy that they are a bit undermodeled in CM. Even if the scenario is designed for housefighting.

And I repeat, once the FT is in the city, the situation is the same. It doesn't matter how much country is around the city. Simplified, you have houses and streets. <hr></blockquote>

These are the two points where we fundamentally disagree. Contrary to your opinion I am convinced that:

1) City-fighting is modeled quite well in CMBO, but only if you have a really good scenario.

2) FTs work if the condition in 1) is met.

Ergo FTs are not broken, and don't need fixing.

Regarding your experience with scenarios - have you had a look at the Scenario depot? The stuff that is in Big Dog's Top 10 over 3 is really all quite good. There is no longer any need to waste time playing crappy scenarios, thanks to Admiral Keth's service. Link in my sig.

[JPS]

Puff (and others),

is the roughly 20 kgs of FT equipment carried by one man in "backpack-style"? What is the role of the other guy in the FT team (presuming that the two-man team is historically correct)?

Andreas, ok, I misread you message.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: JPS ]</p>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

These are the two points where we fundamentally disagree. Contrary to your opinion I am convinced that:

1) City-fighting is modeled quite well in CMBO, but only if you have a really good scenario.

2) FTs work if the condition in 1) is met.

Ergo FTs are not broken, and don't need fixing.

Regarding your experience with scenarios - have you had a look at the Scenario depot? The stuff that is in Big Dog's Top 10 over 3 is really all quite good. There is no longer any need to waste time playing crappy scenarios, thanks to Admiral Keth's service. Link in my sig.<hr></blockquote>

I agree that QB cities are not very good created, even if they are not so worst. But that is IMO another thing that will be hopefully better in CM:BB.

Mh...let me propose that you leave your posiion as strict scenario player and think about the interests of the QB players. Could you imagine that it would be a benefit for the gameplay when it is not implicit necessary that two conditions must be met to handle engineers & flamethrowers in a (IMO) sensefull and easy way, especially if it goes not on cost of the historic accuracy? I assume here that you are willing to follow my argumentation about the way how they could be modeled in a squad.

Thanks for the hint, I will visite the scenario depot. Maybe I have missed it, there are so many CM sites out there...

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Puff (and others),

is the roughly 20 kgs of FT equipment carried by one man in "backpack-style"? What is the role of the other guy in the FT team (presuming that the two-man team is historically correct)?

Andreas, ok, I misread you message.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: JPS ]<hr></blockquote>

I asked this, too No answer yet, but the message from Charlie Rock on top of page two makes me believe that he carried additional fuel and other supply for the FT.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>