Flamethrowers

[Charlie Rock]

As far as pushing FT's into the squad, (which I concur with) think less about the FT itself and more so on the battle and prep for it.

You would not see a rifle platoon of guys' lounging around in their LCE's with a garand and a frag or two, and along comes flamethrower guy.

Okay, we're going up against a bunker today as part of the Siegfried line. Or we're in a town.

Along comes the special gear. Wire cutters, possibly. Bangalore torpedoes, (demo for barbed wire) yes. Demo charges, I hope so. Extra ammo for weapons. Smoke grenades. Nowadays, body armor. Bazookas, etc. And flamethrower guy.

So, how do we use our flamethrower? We smoke the OBJ, suppress with our suppressive stuff, put out flank security, and send in the assault team. You do not stick the nozzle in an aperture and hose it. The Flame thrower is the next to last step, to push the guy on the MG away from the aperture with authority so a demo charge goes inside. All of which the squad leader is running. Flamethrowers should go in the special squad because a flamethrower would not be used outside of a special squad. A squad or MG would not suppress a bunker and send flamethrower guy forward, squirt a bunker, and walk away. It is part of a system. It stands alone the same way a two man team with two demo charges stands alone.

Let the AI take care of it, otherwise the same guys who burn down forests would buy 1000 points worth of human bombs. You would not give an independent mission to an FT like you would an MG or bazooka.

On a side note, each division gets a combat engineer battalion, a battalion of infantry gets a platoon, and a company gets a squad. As squads are understrength alot, frequently you get about six guysSo they SHOULD be expensive. You can buy a MG42 LMG, or a squad with one or two inside. Same option here.

As far as targeting goes, I agree with the ammunition modeling piece. I don't think it happens in the game, but if the AI targets FTs with a vengeance then LMGs in squad should have a slightly above average mortality rate. Then again, people will pick up the gun if the gunner goes down. I'd quibble and say a FT is a more delicate piece of gear and more likely to be damaged, so it should be less easily replaced.

Lastly, I do not have a reference that talks about MTOE issue of flamethrowers. If you go back a few posts, I'd argue that with 243 in a USMC division, that they were a platoon or company item of equipment. I remember seeing something on the History channel once, where a marine who was the platoon flamethrower guy traded it off for a BAR because the fumes made him nauseous. That's the Pacific, though.

[JasonC]

Problem with the weight arguments - FTs did not weigh 70 lbs and did not require 2 men to carry. The most common German model, for instance, the Flammenwerfer 41, weighed only 18 kg (40 lbs) - with 7 liters of fuel (about 10 seconds). On rariety, they fielded around 75,000 of the things, which is more than all AFVs and halftracks combined.

On Andreas' comments, sorry I don't find an offer of "maybe I even will, if somebody else makes a map I like" an actual offer. If you think the present FTs aren't broken, then you ought to be willing to take them as they are and use them against the de facto reigning CM close combat weapon, which is the SMG.

You should be willing to try that match up. If you aren't, then you should argue that FTs were in fact pretty useless, so that the modeling of them as useless compared to SMGs is correct (in which case you should also agree the pricing of them, which you say you don't care about, is absurd). If you think FTs were effective in the real deal in close combat, and also that there is no problem with how they are modeled, then you should stop waving your arms and prove it. By trashing my SMG infantry with combat engineers in CM as it is (good luck).

As for the claim that "rariety will fix it", I take that to mean the pricing issues. I can't see why. By any estimate, SMGs are far more common items than FTs, so rariety is not going to make FTs relatively cheaper than they are now, or SMGs more expensive. It might make rifles less expensive than either, but that will hardly help the FT teams. VG pattern infantry was also the standard from the fall of 1944 on - in fact several months before CM shows the transition. Also, I don't need VG pattern infantry to get superior SMG firepower, enough to smoke overpriced combat engineers.

As for the idea that the terrain will fix it, you still have not grokked the problem. The problem is not that the FT team dies before it gets to 45m (because streets are too wide or something), the problem is that it dies at 45m or less, just as easily. Even in woods with only 40m of LOS, they die in seconds and usually before getting a single shot off - because SMGs have so much firepower at those short ranges, and the 2 man teams are fragile and bullet magnets in targeting terms.

"But I played a scenario against the AI once where..." - where the AI was a brain dead putz, proving nothing.

[JonS]

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

... "But I played a scenario against the AI once where..." - where the AI was a brain dead putz, proving nothing.<hr></blockquote>

In case this was aimed at me, the incident wasn't against the AI. It wasn't in close or urban terrain either. It was at the top of a hill, and the terrain types were open, rough, and brush.

I didn't say it was easy or common either, just that I managed it in an attack on a PB. Pretty much the only time I've been able to use one though

[xerxes]

If an engineer platoon can't take on 2 platoons of volks smg'rs then FTs are undermodelled?

That can't be a serious argument. Everyone knows that smg's have mismodelled ammo usage (actually that is your position Jason) and are underpriced (which I'm sure you'd agree with). Hence, most QBers restrict their usage. For some reason BTS thought a SMG should be cheaper than a rifle. LOL. The argument of superiority of SMGs over FTs has no bearing on the modelling of FTs.

Point. A platoon of smg's can't take a well defended (2 squads) heavy building if the defender is good. A FT and one squad can.

QB townfights are NOTHING like a well designed cityfight scenario, NOTHING LIKE. Try playing some of the better city scenarios and then come back and tell me FTs are useless.

Unless your point is FTs aren't worth the points in a player pick QB. That I agree with completely, but then again, 90% of CM forces are "point drains" in a player pick QB.

BTW, the problem with Towns in QBs are that a town ME is nothing like two equal forces contesting a town. The problems are:

1. You have to run fast/ride into town

2. The buildings are fairly far apart, often too far for an FT shot.

These two drawbacks amplify FTs weaknesses.

-marc

[Andreas]

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

On Andreas' comments, sorry I don't find an offer of "maybe I even will, if somebody else makes a map I like" an actual offer. If you think the present FTs aren't broken, then you ought to be willing to take them as they are and use them against the de facto reigning CM close combat weapon, which is the SMG<hr></blockquote>

I seem to have trouble getting this through to you, so let me repeat for the hard of reading Jason.

You are talking QBs, pricing, and the effectiveness of the FT in comparison to the SMG. I am talking about the effectiveness of the weapon when used in a less artificial environment (a canned scenario) where pricing concerns are irrelevant, and SMG troops only reign if the scenario designer so decided.

To sum it up, we are talking about two totally different things, and your point about their price/effectiveness ratio concerns me about as much as a bicycle falling over in Beijing. It has nothing to do with the modeling of the weapon itself.

I don't play QBs, because I don't have time for what I think is the most boring aspect of CMBO. Since my offer is not an offer to you, please feel free to ignore it too, you are doing a pretty good job at ignoring my argument already.

[Berlichtingen]

Gotta chime in on this one. Flamethrowers are one of the most effective weapons in the game, and worth every point. You have to be careful using them, but if you do they are devastating. Like Andreas, I stay clear of QBs and play either scenarios or Not So QBs... purchased troops on a custom map. I have seen to many SMG platoons thrown into a panic because of one FT to think they are overcosted or under modeled

[Slapdragon]

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

Gotta chime in on this one. Flamethrowers are one of the most effective weapons in the game, and worth every point. You have to be careful using them, but if you do they are devastating. Like Andreas, I stay clear of QBs and play either scenarios or Not So QBs... purchased troops on a custom map. I have seen to many SMG platoons thrown into a panic because of one FT to think they are overcosted or under modeled<hr></blockquote>

My friend, this has been my experience exactly. I got my butt whooped by Big Dog because of a flamethrower, and whooped a bit on Gustav with one. Narrow windy places, veteran or better throwers, and good support, and you have a dealy combination. Even with one or more factors missing they can break and send running a platoon charge against an important part of the map.

[Redwolf]

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

You are talking QBs, pricing, and the effectiveness of the FT in comparison to the SMG. I am talking about the effectiveness of the weapon when used in a less artificial environment (a canned scenario) where pricing concerns are irrelevant[...]<hr></blockquote>

I'm afraid it is not that simple. The knockout points still upset the final score. I don't doubt that you can actually use them in the right scenario, but if they are overpriced, that is still a problem in a scenario. If some defenders sit on a small flag and you would have to decide to push them off with two flamethrowers and some rifle squads, with a 100% chance to get the flag, but a 50% chance to loose the FTs, it is not worth it, considering probable other losses.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Well, I guess we move a little bit into the wrong direction - are city fights modeled well or not (partially my fault).

Just to make it clear: what are excactly your arguments against the idea?

[Redwolf]

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

Just to make it clear: what are excactly your arguments against the idea?<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, whom do you speak to and what idea do you mean?

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Ehm, I speak to all who think that nothing should be changed. I have still a problem to understand their concerns and what they fear to loose, or the disadvantages they see.

Maybe I misunderstood them. Maybe my point should be redefined. Regarding FTs & engineers (it is important that they are seen together):

The question is not 'Is the current model completly wrong?' The question should be 'Can it be done better, and if not, why not?'

I'm convinced it can and should be done better and have explained all my arguments about the 'hows' and 'whys' it can and should be done. I would like to hear the opposite again in concentrated form, cause I fear I have missed something.

[xerxes]

FTs are expensive to lose, but realistically, if you just hide them you are removing one of your critical assets. It would be a strategy, but probably not a very good one. In a city you will encounter strongpoints, you can choose:

1. Mass: mass your infantry and rush across an open street. That will work, you will suffer heavy casualties, and you've stripped forces from other sectors. Risky, but sometimes pays off bigtime and you can use the strongpoint afterwards.

2. Bypass: If this can work it's preferable.

3. Bring up the FTs and burn out the strongpoint. Problem is the strongpoint is unusable by your forces. You also may lose your FT without accomplishing the eviction.

4. HE: Bring in your tanks and blast the strongpoint. In a close-in city fight your direct HE weapons will be in grave danger. You can't rely on tanks to take that critical strongpoint because you can't get a clean shot without risking the tank. Sometimes you do risk the tank. Sometimes you take out the strongpoint, sometimes you watch 2-3 of your tanks burn. Other strongpoints can be HE'd safely, then tanks are the preferable approach.

FTs are critical in your mission to control the city, if you're lucky the opfor will not use them carefully.

As for integrating them into engineer squads, ammo would have to be tracked seperately. The engineer squad would need to be slower than regular inf. It would be cool if a split engineer squad had an A squad that had normal infantry speed and a B squad that had the FT and a couple of engineer "guards" that moved at FT speed. That might work.

-marc

[Andreas]

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

I'm afraid it is not that simple. The knockout points still upset the final score. I don't doubt that you can actually use them in the right scenario, but if they are overpriced, that is still a problem in a scenario. If some defenders sit on a small flag and you would have to decide to push them off with two flamethrowers and some rifle squads, with a 100% chance to get the flag, but a 50% chance to loose the FTs, it is not worth it, considering probable other losses.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]<hr></blockquote>

Okay - by how much are they overpriced? Say, 30%? That is, for a regular German FT, 13 points or thereabouts. Say you have two - four in a 2,000 point force, losing them costs you 26-52 points. I have never been interested in the arithmetic of winning or losing, but assuming that things have gone to hell in a handbasket if you lose all four anyway, I just can not see what kind of a difference it would make?

[xerxes]

Just to clarify, I agree that manpacked flamers are somewhat overpriced. I'd prefer to see them discounted by 30-35%.

-marc

[Andreas]

As for Puff's question as to why I am not interested in the change.

1) I don't feel it is needed, they work fine as is.

2) Until proven otherwise, I tend to believe CMBO to portray/abstract historical reality as close as possible. Same in this case. If that is wrong, by all means change it.

I don't know the standard organisation of an assault pioneer unit. For the Germans the book ordered by Puff will hopefully clear it up. If the Germans (or anyone) had these FTs as part of the squad, then by all means integrate them into it. If not, leave them as part of the platoon (an independent team) as they are now. In the Commonwealth platoon, the PIAT and the 2" mortar were part of the platoon HQ, but are currently protrayed as independent teams, because that is how they were used. You could make the same arguments for the inclusion of FT teams into the squad to include PIATs into Commonwealth squads or Schreck teams into German squads (wouldn't it be nice if they were inherently covered? someone would pick it up, etc.pp.).

The Marines example from the Pacific is probably not particularly relevant here.

[JonS]

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

...As for integrating them into engineer squads, ammo would have to be tracked seperately. The engineer squad would need to be slower than regular inf. It would be cool if a split engineer squad had an A squad that had normal infantry speed and a B squad that had the FT and a couple of engineer "guards" that moved at FT speed. That might work.

-marc<hr></blockquote>

That might work? That is effectivly what we have now! LOL - you just closed the circle.

Regards

JonS

[Redwolf]

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

Okay - by how much are they overpriced? Say, 30%? That is, for a regular German FT, 13 points or thereabouts. Say you have two - four in a 2,000 point force, losing them costs you 26-52 points. I have never been interested in the arithmetic of winning or losing, but assuming that things have gone to hell in a handbasket if you lose all four anyway, I just can not see what kind of a difference it would make?<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, Andreas, you misunderstood me. I think they should be part of a squad and hence get more robust. In that case, the engineer squad that carries the FT should be fairly expensive, maybe by an even larger offset than a FT teams costs now.

As so often with CMBO unit prices, it is not the price that is wrong, it is that some game mechanics (usually things not coded due to time limitations) make them too vulnerbale (flamethrower) or ineffective (MGs).

If I had to choose a price for the model as it is now, I'd probably make it less than 37, but that doesn't really solve the problem we have now, and in addition it may lead to overuse of FTs. You can't really fix mechanics problems with pricing changes, except maybe you can lighten the problem if you seperate the purchase and the knockout price (like it is done for artillery spotters) and make units that are very effective with luck but also very fragile more expensive to buy than to knockout.

As for scenario design, a person understanding the victory point system and plays for victory or even maximum victory points will not use the flamethrowers as the scenario designer intended. That is bad, causing a fraction between designer and player.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Andreas]

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

Sorry, Andreas, you misunderstood me. I think they should be part of a squad and hence get more robust. In that case, the engineer squad that carries the FT should be fairly expensive, maybe by an even larger offset than a FT teams costs now.<hr></blockquote>

Okay, I am beginning to think I am dense now. What is the justification for them being more robust when they are in a squad then they are now. To me there are two underlying assumptions for this desire:

1) The AI would not prime-target them.

Fine, but it would make it less realistic, since they were prime-targetted. If they are part of a squad, the AI would then have to prime-target them in the squad, something that would take major recoding I believe.

2) The rest of the squad would cover them.

Again fine, but you can do this now through overwatch.

3) Their survivability would be higher because somebody would pick up the weapon and continue to use it.

Let's think about that - Joe Bloggs the FT carrier marches onto the enemy line and gets wasted by a stream of 7.92mm rounds, almost shredding him in two, every 10th round tracer. On his back was this interesting contraption filled with Napalm. Since he is certifiably dead, it means that someone had a bead on him, and continues to have one on his now defunct body. You also have no idea what the bullets did to the tank.

Do you a) try to get the VC by crawling over, taking the tank off Joe, strapping it on, and continue where he failed; pretend you are a birdwatcher and just wandered into the place; c) press your face in the mud and pray that the Napalm does not ignite?

If there is more than 1), 2) and 3), I'd like to hear it, because it would help me understand better why this change is wanted. Unless I have missed it somewhere.

[Berlichtingen]

I am absolutely against making FTs part of the engineer squad. The engine as it stands does not target specific weapons within a squad, and because of this, FTs gain a certain protection they never had. If a FT is spotted, everyone shoots at it period. That has been a universal truth since WW1. By making it part of a squad it rewards players who can't figure out how to use the weapon. My suggestion is learn to use the weapon rather than recode the engine

[Kingfish]

Something to consider: There isn't a unit in CM that can change its movement rate based on casualties or ammo expenditure. IOW, a 60mm mortar team that has fired it's last round will move just as slow as a fresh team w/ 35 rounds.

If you include the FT within the Engineer squad then the squad must move at the same rate as the FT. Agreed?

Now, during combat FT team gets killed, what now? Does the squad keep the same speed? Unrealistic. Or, Add more coding changes to get the squad back up to full speed? Unnecessary.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Okay, I am beginning to think I am dense now...<hr></blockquote> Excellent. Your first step into a bigger world .

About 1) & 2)

Were the FT a prime target in reality? Yes, I agree.

Did the squad covers it with fire? Yes, you agree. So we share our opinion at least in this points.

The problem is, covering fire simply don't work. You advance with three squads and two FTs. The first thing that is killed will always be the FTs, because all enemy units will target the FTs first. To surpress an enemy unit that attacks the FT, you must have another unit close to the FT, cause you must guarentee LOS to the attacking enemy. Especially in a city or other heavy terrain is LOS a very tricky thing. And CM just don't take care of things like 'Oh, this FT we should cover receives fire from a unit three meters out of our LOS, let's move there and protect it'. The engine isn't able to do this, as you know. But this would be negated when the FT is part of the squad. And any other squad has also primary targets (the MG, the leader), and the engine also can't target them seperatly, and you seem to be very contendet with this system. Beside that, as Charlie Rock has explained above, FT attacks are part of a system. They surpress the enemy, so other troops can advance to take out the enemy position. For this it is necessary that the FT advance together with the squad. But this is not possible, because the FT is at maximum speed much slower then the minimum speed I can order for engineers.

You may argue that this kind of attack can't be ordered in CM anyway. But with the CM:BB 'Assault'?

About 3)

I never proposed that!!! Indeed I said 'when the FT is killed, it gone'. Like a lost Faust. To repeat: when one Faust carrier is killed, one Faust attack is lost. When the FT is killed, 9 FT attacks are lost. Point. Finish. No one should be able to take the FT and move on.

Berlichingen See above. Andreas has said 'It isn't broken, so i don't need to be fixed'. Well, CM:BO in general works. But does this mean that BTS should never return to this part of the war in some years and produce a CM:BO II, only because CM:BO has worked? It is not necessary that something is broken to make it better. And CM will not loose it's attraction, only because a difficult thing like the use of FTs is made easier.

Kingfish I have already explained that. The key is abstraction. The speed of a unit is only it's average speed. The light squad MG can move faster the the ligh MG team, cause the whole squad carries the ammo. For FTs it would be vise versa. Once the FT has used up all fuel, he and especially his assistant would be free to support the squad in other ways. Please read the other posts, I have explained it somewhere above, but I'm to tired to repeat it again.

[Berlichtingen]

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

Berlichingen See above. Andreas has said 'It isn't broken, so i don't need to be fixed'. Well, CM:BO in general works. But does this mean that BTS should never return to this part of the war in some years and produce a CM:BO II, only because CM:BO has worked? It is not necessary that something is broken to make it better. And CM will not loose it's attraction, only because a difficult thing like the use of FTs is made easier.<hr></blockquote>

Ok, you haven't convinced me that anything needs improving yet. I enjoy about an 80% success rate with FTs, which leads me to believe that the system works correctly now. the only engine improvements I can think of that would improve things for FTs are all dealing with the map

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Well, I guess it would be kind if BTS could explain their point of view. We start to repeat the same arguments over and over again.

At least I do.

[JasonC]

First I address Xerxes' many fine points. On SMGs compared to FTs, I think SMGs are given too much ammo and are underpriced, while FTs are overpriced and undermodeled. All four are true, in my opinion. All four are also routinely denied by some people on this board. As for his preference for a lower price, around 25 pts per team, it would obviously reduce the pricing to effectiveness discrepancy and I am therefore all for it.

As for the picture of an alleged critical role for FTs in cities, I do not recognize your list of options as exhaustive. I think HE works far more easily and safely if the range is available, but you are right that it often isn't. But your "mass" opposite the target option envisions charging across the open street with infantry, and you do not explain why I should want to or have to.

FTs and HE can clobber such positions without needing to physically enter them. But the FTs need to get quite close. Well, ordinary infantry can also clobber such positions without needing to physically enter them, provided they can get about as close. By sheer short range firepower (by far the most important portion), slightly supplimented by grenades. It is simply not the case that heavy building cover is effective enough that small arms can't do the job if there are enough of them and the range is short. And FTs are used at the expense of quite a few ordinary infantry, with plenty of ammo.

Obviously, if the FT team had to cross the street into the teeth of the defender's firepower it would be deader than a doornail, far faster than a group of ordinary (or SMG-heavy) infantry. There is no more reason for infantry firepower to leave cover than for the FT to do so; if one can hit the target without moving into the open then so can the other. The small arms do not need to get any closer than FTs need to get.

It was stated by someone that an SMG platoon can't get two squads out of a heavy building. If the infantry in the building are standard squad types, mostly riflemen, and the building can be approached to within FT range while still inside cover, I do not recognize this as remotely accurate - sure they can.

One SMG squad and the HQ will be unsuppressed, pour their fire on one defender and suppress him, freeing another SMG squad from effective reply, and off the snowball goes. Fire ascendency will quickly leave the SMGers up and firing and the defenders ducking, after which the outcome will follow rapidly.

It is stated that one squad and an FT can do the job routinely. I don't recognize that as accurate either - the FT will get wasted by two squads firing at a tiny team, even still in cover, and one remaining squad of attackers will face two of defenders, without a prayer of outshooting them.

Andreas begs off pricing issues, without noticing that his claim that FTs are correctly modeled, while he claims he doesn't disagree with my statements (that they are just about different things), implies he agrees they are overpriced. He may not *care* that they are overpriced, but he thinks they are. Otherwise he would not recognize the difference between his claim and mine. His position is consistent only if he thinks they are overpriced. If he does think so, whether he cares about it or not, he could reduce the confusion considerably by admitting as much, directly.

Berli and Slap think FTs rock, because they can remember individual cases in which they were effective. Compared to what? Obviously, anywhere you have 37-74 pts of your force, you will sometimes hurt the enemy with them. An FT being useful compared to not having anything is not sufficient to prove they are useful as they are priced. But they may well mean that too - that they think FTs are a great buy and people who "know how to use them" should clean up against dofuses like me who don't buy them.

I simply ask them to prove it at my expense with something other than words, by taking US combat engineers - they can have a whole company of the blighters if they like - and smoking my German SMG infantry with it. If they dislike SMG infantry, I will settle for SS Pz Gdrs. That will prove either that FTs are great bargains, properly effective and priced at least as cheaply as other firepower bargains, or that they are ubercommanders, or that I am incompetent - any of which should be sufficiently flattering to their position in the argument that they ought to leap at the chance. Since they know themselves to be right, it is also the surest possible thing.

So come on, waltz over my German infantry defenders with your magically "proper" use of lumbering 2-man teams with 45m of range, in place of more than a squad of guys with LMG42s, MP44s, and MP40s, apiece.

[Redwolf]

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

Okay, I am beginning to think I am dense now. What is the justification for them being more robust when they are in a squad then they are now. To me there are two underlying assumptions for this desire:

<hr></blockquote>

Hm. Good points. As I said, I definitivly don't want it to be passed other squadmembers. (It is being passed between two persons now, BTW)

Keep in mind that I entered this thread thinking they should not be part of the squad and changed my mind, so I have to think things through while we're going.

I guess what I really want is better covering fire and a concept to synchronize a fragile's unit with supressive fire being delivered. Part of this is the undermodeling of the MG (it should be able to burst-fire the moment the FT goes forward, until the FT does his own supression).

In real military there is a concept of fire superiority and you can tell whether you have it. Obviously, the real-world FT would only close the range when the units around him have this, which means the ability to supress whoever sticks his head out. In CMBO we have no way to tell and we don't have SOP settings for units which says "if we don't have fire superiority, cancel all orders and take cover", which woould be meant not to move out of cover in the first place.

Now, there are two ways to implement this: with seperate squads and flamethrowers we would need better MGs (promised for CMBB), but we would also need SOPs, or maybe a changed TacAI for flamethrowers that does the cover thing automatically. That is a lot of work.

But the other way, to integrate the flamethrowers into the squad, would abstract all this and say "assume it is done the right way". This is how squad movement works anyway between LMGs and other team members. Movement of a squad as shown by the CMBO graphical engine is really an abstraction for leapfrogging between the various weapons in the squad, not all of them moving side-by-side. If the CMBO engine would not make this abstraction, the player would have to do all the cover-searching, stopping, proceeding part of the various parts on his own, except it can't work with the command tools given to us. If you don't believe me, try to do it with the 2-man LMG unit we have now. Coordination is nowhere near as good as with the squad-internal LMG, however, the good integration is more realistic.

I want the same principle to apply to the flamethrower. I want decent covering fire from the riflemen by the flamethrower, and decent coordination. Keep in mind that the distance to abstract is much less for the flamethrower than for the LMG. The LMG's leapfrogging definitivly puts a bigger distance towards the riflemen than the flamethrower does.

The is one big difference between LMG and FTs: for the FTs I could do it manually, if someone implemented the neccessary SOP and coordination tools, whereas I couldn't do it for the LMGs, there are just too many of them and the rifle squads move too much. But given the programming time needed for all the SOP and coordination orders I guess we won't see it soon, so I still want the FT in the squad and have it assumed to made right.

I hope this sheds some light on my opinion. From my view, the LMG-in-squad abstraction is a pretty decent way to keep detail down, which is both good for the player's mousekeys and the for implementor. I think that the same issues apply to the flamethrower.

P.S.: the abstraction as it is now is far from perfect: the FT is getting passed between two man and I am quite sure (we have to wait for the book) that the second man in the team is really carrying a MP44 to do some of the covering part - which he doesn't in CMBO.