FlameThrowers/Fires/Burning/Hothothot

[Lanzfeld]

Will flame throwers and fires in fields and buildings come later?

[Pandur]

hopefully, i was asking about it a year or a half ago and others asked befor and after i did. so its desired for sure and i am pretty sure its on the "list" but it will be way low priority i guess.

[Lanzfeld]

Lots of great stuff here. Very happy.

I did LOVE it in CMBB when a burning tank started a field on fire. Progressive building fires that eventually lead to a collapse were the best too.

[Battlefront.com]

Flamethrowers were cut a while back. This is one of those features which has a cascading impact which we felt we couldn't dedicate enough resources to for the first Normandy release. Despite people LOVING the flame belching devices, they played a very minor role in the combat of Western Europe. Significant at times, no doubt, but they could be put aside for another day without harming the overall simulation of combat. Contrast this with not including something like AT Guns or on-map mortars.

Steve

[Pandur]

yea, i remember it as if it was yesterday, my first CM battle was a CMAK battle, the tutorial scenario(i got CMBB and CMAK as bundle).

one of the PSW´s catched fire and lit up the brushes around, dislodging(sp?) a squad few turns later. this was absolutely cool, i mean its a rare thing to happen but the fact it could happen in the game was breathtaking. same goes for the burning buildings! now with CMx2´s more accurate depiction of things graphically, i think fire is hard to do. huge performance hit from the loads of smoke and the fire will still look ugly if it looks like the CMx2 vehicle flames we got now.

edit: well steve was first

[Battlefront.com]

The big problem is simulating the tactical impact of flamethrowers correctly, which means fairly. This was difficult enough back in CMx1 days when things were a lot more abstract. In CMx2 in some ways it is easier because of the more direct and fine resolution of terrain and combat, but overall it's made more difficult due to the complexity of the new environment.

We will add flamethrowers at some point. They are just too fun to not have in the game. But we're not going to allow the fun of the entire game to be jeopardized by "gamey" flamethrowers.

And for the record, I was far less enthusiastic about flamethrowers after I used one for a few seconds. You guys have no flipp'n idea how hot hot can be without setting your clothing on fire. After just a couple of bursts my right arm looked like it had been in a tanning bed for a week and then was accidentally given a Brazilian

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Flamethrowers were cut a while back. This is one of those features which has a cascading impact which we felt we couldn't dedicate enough resources to for the first Normandy release. Despite people LOVING the flame belching devices, they played a very minor role in the combat of Western Europe. Significant at times, no doubt, but they could be put aside for another day without harming the overall simulation of combat. Contrast this with not including something like AT Guns or on-map mortars.

Steve

Will this "another day" possibly be any of the modules? It won't be Normandy without the Crocodile especially.

[Pandur]

maybe in the "get the rest" module no.3?

[MikeyD]

If CMx1 experience is anything to go by, a soldier carrying your flamethrower into combat would be highly likely to die before using it anyway. Something you can't say about a battleship's 12 inch guns (which are in the game).

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Not sure I agree there, MikeyD. I could get good use out of flamethrower infantry. And not just defensively. Especially in woods and urban terrain they could be real monsters. It was the WASP I had trouble with. Not as easily hidden as infantry and not as survivable as the Croc, I rarely the WOOSH for my buck out of them.

btw

12"?! That's tiny! What am I going to do with such puny little pop guns? 14" please, and that only as a stop-gap measure until the Brits show up with their 15" and 16", of course.

[Battlefront.com]

Normally we do not add major features for Modules. However, we are planning on introducing a few new features into the CM:BN Family as we go. Flamethrowers are one that is being considered.

As stated above, the fun factor is way out of line with the actual use of these in combat. So it is understandable that people want them in, and therefore they will get in. But they certainly aren't important enough to delay the release of CM:BN by even a day (and it would take a LOT longer than that anyway). They were not a regular feature in a CM type tactical battle.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

12"?! That's tiny! What am I going to do with such puny little pop guns? 14" please, and that only as a stop-gap measure until the Brits show up with their 15" and 16", of course.

I noticed that too, but then I looked it up and the Florida, Wyoming and Texas class battlewagons main batteries consisted of 10X12" guns. the Texas was definitely part of the Neptune invasion fleet, and I will have to do further research to identify the rest of the BBs.

Michael

[jeffsmith]

Seven battleships took part: four British and three US:

* USS Arkansas, BB-33, eastern Omaha Beach (Wyoming class, 26,100 tons, main armament: 12 - 12"/50 cal. guns) primarily in support of the US 29th Infantry Division.

* USS Nevada, BB-36, Utah Beach (damaged and beached to avoid sinking at Pearl Harbor, Nevada class, 29,000 tons, main armament: 10 - 14"/45 cal. guns).

* HMS Nelson (1925, Nelson class, 38,000 tons, main armament: 9 - 16 inch guns). Held in reserve until June 10.

* HMS Ramillies (1915, Revenge class, 33,500 tons, main armament: 8 - 15"/42 cal. guns).

* HMS Rodney (1925, Nelson class, 38,000 tons, main armament: 9 - 16 inch guns).

* USS Texas, BB-35, western Omaha Beach (New York class, 27,000 tons, main armament: 10 - 14"/45 cal. guns, Flagship of Rear Admiral C.F. Bryant) primarily in support of the US 1st Infantry Division.

* HMS Warspite (1913, Queen Elizabeth class, 35,000 tons, main armament 8 - 15"/42 cal. guns).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings

[Michael Emrys]

@jeffsimth,

You are right. I was consulting Conway's, but far too hastily. The only extenuating claim I can make is that the data for the older BBs is in not so easily retrievable form for one in a hurry as I was. Otherwise, mea entirely culpa.

Michael

[phil stanbridge]

I can totally understand your reasons for excluding them at this point in time, but they are a must for the commonwealth module in my honest opinion. Hobart's funnies anyone?

[futon river crossing]

I can still remember the shock of a flamethrower killing my troops in a PBEM, for the first time, all those years ago! A must for this this family of games - surely.

[MikeyD]

Hobart's funnies anyone?

The people who know the answer to this are few and I'm not one of them. But Steve did say the final module to this title is going to be a grab-bag of all the obscure, rare and 'funny' equipment overlooked in the earlier modules. So lets keep in mind there's a difference between something being "not in the game" and "not in the game yet". Though a Churchill tank altered to unroll a carpet over a stretch of beach shingle seems of limited utility.

[c3k]

Hmmm, just musing here...

Imagine a defending unit igniting burning oil from their flamethrowers on the water's surface as submerged enemy engineers attempt to set satchel charges on the bridge's pilings. A thing must be done correctly, or it shouldn't be done at all.

Ken

[Wicky]

I see a mod on the way....

The people who know the answer to this are few and I'm not one of them. But Steve did say the final module to this title is going to be a grab-bag of all the obscure, rare and 'funny' equipment overlooked in the earlier modules. So lets keep in mind there's a difference between something being "not in the game" and "not in the game yet". Though a Churchill tank altered to unroll a carpet over a stretch of beach shingle seems of limited utility.

[Lanzfeld]

I can still remember the shock of a flamethrower killing my troops in a PBEM, for the first time, all those years ago! A must for this this family of games - surely.

Flammers were my favorite for dislodging that stubborn SMG squad that was burried deep in a house.

[Copper]

Ok, we have an idea that flamethrowers will maybe come in the future releases but what about burning woods, fields and buildings? The flame and smoke would add some more realism to the battlefield.

[Copper]

Steve ,

Any thoughts on burning buildings,fields, woods and the like?

[Steiner14]

No flamethrowers: does that mean no Sdkfz 251/16 (and other flame-throwing vehicles), too?

[Mord]

Yep, things catching fire is in the top five things that I've missed most from CMX1...with all the wooden structures it's a must have at some point, before Normandy ends. I don't so much care about being able to make things burn, it's the accidental stuff I am hoping for most...(though I do want flamethrowers and flame throwing vehicles!) I remember in CMBO, catching a small house on fire one time after firing a shrek or zook from inside it. It was one of those "wow" moments that the game liked to throw at you unexpectedly. It caused my guys to vacate ASAP...and if memory serves it didn't end well for them!

Mord.

[Copper]

Yes Mord, the random stuff in CMX1 was cool stuff. Flames starting up from all kinds of random stuff added greatly to the realisim.