Flamethrower in 6.1

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Flamethrower in 6.1

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Flamethrower in 6.1

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Flamethrower in 6.1 - 7/29/2001 11:42:00 AM

Kerg

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Joliet IL
Status: offline

68 posted July 23, 2001 11:24 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think paul is on vacation but I have a comment. Not a bug but maybe a tweak is needed with flammers. As all my opponents know I love the BBQ as much as the next guy...maybe more. But after 10 or so games with 6.1 I find the flamethrowers a bit much. As a regular occurance a flamer will take out 7, 10, or more guys in a single shot. Often a complete SQ gets it. This has happen with both german and soviet flame units. This needs to be tweaked down, maybe the numbers used in 5.1 would be good.

_____________________________

Field Marshal Kerg, Combat Command Stats-> Games Played = 141, Points/game = 4179, <br />Average Placing = 3.4, W% = 28%, L% = 29%, D% = 44%, Total Points 589,232, Leagues Entered = 10, Top Three Finish % = 80

Post #: 1

- 7/29/2001 12:58:00 PM

lithium01

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/23/2001
Status: offline

I think the flamethrowers are representative of what really happened. Flame tanks are thin skinned and must be *very* close to do their job...from my experience they are only very good at mopping up already heavily suppressed and unsupported units (i.e areas you already effectivly control and dead units anyway). In any other offensive capacity, especially in the open deserts or plains, they are very restrictive in their uses that does not get them killed. That being said, I wouldn't argue against a slight price hike, but the weapon is fine IMHO. [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: lithium01 ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 2

- 7/29/2001 11:31:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

THis was discussed in great detail in another thread. Unit costs are currently being addressed for version 6.2

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 3

- 7/30/2001 12:25:00 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

in the meantime I will continue to BBQ Kerg's paratroop squads. :D

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 4

- 7/30/2001 1:30:00 AM

Bing

Posts: 1366
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Gaylord, MI, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Drex: in the meantime I will continue to BBQ Kerg's paratroop squads. :D

The BBQ isn't as certain as I thought earlier on in playing v6.1. See elsewhere in today's threads, I just frydaddied a Norwegian inf unit with three German FT's (handheld) and the first two had not much effect. FT efficiency or lack thereof I guess depends upon a number of factors. The jury is still out, the way I see it. But it sure ain't a sure thing, either. Bing

_____________________________

"For Those That Fought For It, Freedom Has a Taste And A Meaning The Protected Will Never Know. " -
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 5

- 7/30/2001 6:33:00 AM

Hot Shot

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Tenerife
Status: offline

I think that we shoulnd'nt talk about the efficiency or not of th ft and their use, the fact is that the ft weren't used so much in the reality as used in the game (who not spent a hundreds of points if flametanks if his opponent purchases them and BBQ his AT guns or MG after a few rounds of LMG or rifles to suppress them?). The units with FT should have a more rarity ratings, and I still thinking that the ft must be removed from all the engineer squads, perhaps present as a separate unit attached to the engineer platoon. Please excuse me,my english is very poor.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 6

- 7/30/2001 7:12:00 AM

Kluckenbill

Posts: 278
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Lancaster, PA, USA
Status: offline

Maybe you've had really good luck, or I've had really bad luck, but my experience with flammenwerfers is not nearly as good. I'm currently 7 battles into a German WW2 campaign. I've upgraded all of my grunts to Engineers, so I have 20 squads of the little devils, all flamethrower equipped, and I have yet to get more than 5 casualties at a time, and that's the exception. I'm quite satisfied with the results, I think Engineers are one of the most effective units in the game, I just haven't found them to be all that powerful.

_____________________________

Target, Cease Fire !

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 7

- 7/30/2001 8:50:00 AM

Kerg

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Joliet IL
Status: offline

Maybe they get a bonus to hit in city fighting. I have played 5 or 6 games with them now in Combat Command and they are deadly in the streets of stalingrad.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 8

- 8/1/2001 8:16:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Kluckenbill: Maybe you've had really good luck, or I've had really bad luck, but my experience with flammenwerfers is not nearly as good. I'm currently 7 battles into a German WW2 campaign. I've upgraded all of my grunts to Engineers, so I have 20 squads of the little devils, all flamethrower equipped, and I have yet to get more than 5 casualties at a time, and that's the exception. I'm quite satisfied with the results, I think Engineers are one of the most effective units in the game, I just haven't found them to be all that powerful.

FWIW I think that leg engineers don't need to be substantially increased in price. What is interesting is recent threads which suggest FTs weren't all that common. Now, not having been born during the time of WW2, much of my views about it have been derived from reading, but probably more influence is from hollywood, it's no wonder I've never questioned FTs before. Looking into George Forty's US army handbook, under T O & E for an Engineer Battalion no mention is even made of FTs being used as a weapon! Frustrated I abandoned the allies for the Axis. Dr Leo Niehorster's WW2 German T O & E's list for all the Mechanized Army Divisions as on June 1942 at the outset of Fall Blau, as the second summer offensive of Barbarossa was taking place, just past the half-way point of the war, german engineers at battalion level had None. So who had them? Dr Niehorster states that in each company of the elite grossdeutschland infantrie division, at that time a motorised division, two leg units of FTs were assigned to company HQ, furthermore each grossdeutschland engineer company had 6 FTs. G Nafzinger's German order of Battle confims these numbers. Without exhaustive study it seems that not until a typical '43 Panzer Division were Fts relatively common. '43s should have two regiments each with a an individual Motorised Pionere company of 12lmg and 18 Ft. Thats almost 2 per company also. Another 18 Ft were assigned to the Poineer Bat. (6 per co). 54 per Division. much the same in '44 . Pionere companies of 3 officers, 34 NCOs and 180 men authorized to have 24 Ft, 26 Lmg, 2 Hmg, 2 80mm Mortars, 1 20mm gun, in 4 platoons supported an entire regiment. Again about 2 FTs per company. An independent Armoured Pionere Bat. of 730 enlisted men was able to operate indepentently but only added an additional 6 FTs. Anyway I'm not advocating the removal of FTs, perhaps just some thoughts that have come acoss the forum lately deserve some further mention. i.e. Having the FT as a seperate unit such as the AT-Rifle. (Ironically the AT substitute in most german engineer battalions prior to '43). FTs could only be bought at company level. (all chicanery aside). i.e. as support units, AT,PF,or FT. Does anyone know how the allied leg Fts were organised? [ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ] [ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]

_____________________________

"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 9

- 8/1/2001 8:23:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: THis was discussed in great detail in another thread. Unit costs are currently being addressed for version 6.2

I think that's a great idea. Maybe putting a higher pricetag on rare and potent weapons is a good way of balancing game play. God know we would all be driving corvettes if they were cheaper than chevettes. ;) I had raised questions about the power of FTs previously. My gaming partners at the time seemed to have been getting good use out of FT tanks and SPWs (Schutzen-Panzer Wagons; or German HT's). I've been taking stats for the last week or so of the effect per spritz on infantry targets in PBEM play. In 8 Spritzes once No men were ko'ed twice 5 once 8 four times the entire squad of 9 or more men were taken out, one time two entire squads were taken out in one spritz. I had done a test previously were 4 SPW FTs were pitted against two Soviet leg companies. Similar results were acheived until the darn things were overrun. I'd like to have said that they could have held off the russian inflicting greivious losses, but alas I cannot. I'll still be glad when they're not so cheap, but I'd like to withdraw my complaint that they are too potent.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 10

- 8/1/2001 6:29:00 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

My question is, why does anyone let those FT engineers and FT tanks get so close? To me they represent a major threat and are prime targets. Is everyone playing in cities all the time?

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 11

- 8/1/2001 6:40:00 PM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

Another way, if possible is to make FT units more vulnerable to gun fire (I believe this is the way it portrait in Close Combat) Imagine getting shot at while carrying a tank full of flammable liquid :eek:

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 12

- 8/1/2001 11:46:00 PM

A_B

Posts: 296
Joined: 4/11/2001
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

I'd like to see flame throwers taken out of the engineer squads and made a two man detachemnt, one or two per engineer platoon. I think this would allow them to be used the way they were intended to be used, and make engineer squads more balanced.

_____________________________

Unconventional war requires unconventional thought

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 13

- 8/1/2001 11:54:00 PM

Warhorse

Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline

I've made all my FT's in 3 man seperate teams, attached only at the platoon level, 3 max to a company, per German handbook. Some other countries had more or less, indeed some NEVER had them, though for the most part in going thru the oob's, this is pretty much accurately portrayed. Having themn seperate really makes me value them more, now I protect them to the max, and only bring them up to take out bunkers, once the bunker is suppressed very well. More true-to-life way to use them IMHO.

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre hei�t Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 14

- 8/2/2001 12:18:00 AM

A_B

Posts: 296
Joined: 4/11/2001
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

I've made all my FT's in 3 man seperate teams, attached only at the platoon level, 3 max to a company, per German handbook. Some other countries had more or less, indeed some NEVER had them, though for the most part in going thru the oob's, this is pretty much accurately portrayed. Having themn seperate really makes me value them more, now I protect them to the max, and only bring them up to take out bunkers, once the bunker is suppressed very well. More true-to-life way to use them IMHO.

Makes a lot of sense. I vote we do that with all flamethrowers

_____________________________

Unconventional war requires unconventional thought

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 15

- 8/2/2001 3:09:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by A_B: I'd like to see flame throwers taken out of the engineer squads and made a two man detachemnt, one or two per engineer platoon. I think this would allow them to be used the way they were intended to be used, and make engineer squads more balanced.

This is true! This is the way that I would like to see them. Actually I'd like to see 2 or 3 man improvised AT teams (using mines, molotovs, etc.) also for the Germans as they trained seperate teams this way (at least on the Eastern front)

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 16

- 8/2/2001 10:44:00 AM

lithium01

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/23/2001
Status: offline

Galka - Check out the United States Marines maunual (and the Army as well) in the Pacific campaign. You you find lots of flamethrowers. The reason why they were not used so much on the Russian steppes and the plains of Aquataine is because of two reasons. Like in the game, they have to get extremly close to do their job and have effective overwatch and a heavily suppressed opposition - without which these units were ineffective. They were specialty units by nature with limited uses and thus not a good strategic or tactical choice to acrue many units. Secondly, it took an awefully brave soldier to carry this virtual detonation pack on his back. Needless to say, even his best friend stood FAR away from him. A stray bullet or piece of shrapnel and **poof**. Volunteers were not forthcoming. As for the "there were not so many of these..." argument I am not sure how useful this is. The Germans did not have hordes of Tigers nor the Russians T34s, yet in the game, this is the impression one would be left with.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 17

- 8/2/2001 11:40:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by lithium01: Galka - Check out the United States Marines maunual (and the Army as well) in the Pacific campaign. You you find lots of flamethrowers. As for the "there were not so many of these..." argument I am not sure how useful this is. The Germans did not have hordes of Tigers nor the Russians T34s, yet in the game, this is the impression one would be left with.

Thanks for the tip about the Marines. I have no doubt the US Army employed Fts, it's just I can't find any in my meagre resources. I did find however a tables compliled by Col. John Sloan Brown in his book called Draftee Division In table One dated 1941 listed every type of weapon assigned to an infantry division. Again no mention is made of Fts, throughout mg,smg, .30,.50,at37mm, rifleautomatic.30, rifle etc. By 1943 however the flamethrower M-1 is listed. Unfortunately only 15.4 per cent of the authorized amount were on hand for new divisions 6 April 1943. It is vague however on the status of division on the line at that time. Your right about the hoards of Tigers, but I disagree about the T-34. I hope that the designers will revamp all of the weapon values. I'd like to see costs for Tigers to be exponentially higher than T-34s not just modestly higher. I think I remember a version of SP when it was prudent to purchace Mk IV's, T-34s and Short barrelled Shermans. These were the real battle vetrans of WW2.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 18

- 8/4/2001 8:50:00 AM

Hot Shot

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Tenerife
Status: offline

I agree with the two or three man team with FT, and yes, this is the right way the must be used in the game I think. Please let me know if you are using the same modified oob to make a "more standar" oob for my battles.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 19

- 8/4/2001 10:18:00 AM

Bing

Posts: 1366
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Gaylord, MI, USA
Status: offline

I would like to tack on a footnote here, based on my experience of two years in a US Army supply room: TO&E are not exactly what you would call fiction, but during combat especially the actual forces deployed can be radically different from the tables. I was once told that not a single unit in the US Army was 100% faithful to their TO&E, but I have no way of verifying that statement. Actual force composition for front line units is going to depend a lot upon the mission, so that FT's don't have to be on the TO&E - they can be issued for an assault, then returned to ordnance upon mission completion. Just a thought, Bing

_____________________________

"For Those That Fought For It, Freedom Has a Taste And A Meaning The Protected Will Never Know. " -
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 20

- 8/6/2001 9:45:00 PM

murx

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

TOEs ar just fun & for the gouverment who pays it ... At my army time we had never all the equipment we need to have by TOE, had spare equipment of stuff we shouldn't have and never got stuff assignede w really needed... Some stuff we had was so 'undernumbered' they could have left it completely out (4 AT mines for a full Leopard 2 Company - what's the trick ?) murx

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 21

- 8/7/2001 8:40:00 PM

bumper

Posts: 21
Joined: 5/15/2000
From: Hilversum, The Netherlands
Status: offline

I want to look further into this for a correct oob.. Galka, could you drop me an email at patrick@cyberbump.tmfweb.nl

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 22

- 8/7/2001 9:28:00 PM

Hot Shot

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Tenerife
Status: offline

I would be interested in that too. cesarls@terra.es :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 23

- 8/9/2001 9:18:00 PM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

I agree that especially vehicles with flamers are ridiculously overpowered... I just wiped out 3 experienced squads in the open with 3 shots. What makes it worse is the 2 hex range which makes it possible for the flamer to get in and get out without receiving shots. I thought that the flamer guns were very hard to aim with, so hitting 8 men at 100 meters with one shot is a bit too much! The main effect should be suppression anyway, since it's an area weapon.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 24

- 8/10/2001 4:24:00 PM

Hot Shot

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Tenerife
Status: offline

Yes, I think if it has less warheadsize and less accuracy, it will do the same suppresion but not as many casualties. What do you think?

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 25

- 8/10/2001 10:23:00 PM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

Are flamers going to be modified in v7?

_____________________________

(in reply to Kerg)

Post #: 26