Flamethrowers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback



Message

Clux -> Flamethrowers (7/31/2020 5:17:56 AM)

Flamethrowers would be a great addition to the armaments in the early game, being great against infantry with low tech armor and being almost useless against advanced combat armor.

They would be used on APCs, light tanks or buggies, and they would have better soft attack than howitzer but worse hard attack against armored enemies (above 5mm of steel).

As examples of real life applications we have the Sd.Kfz. 251/16 – Flammpanzerwagen, the Kangaroo, the Sherman M4 POA-CWS H1, the KV-8, the M67 Zippo, the To-55, etc.

Also, another difference would be than they would use fuel as their armament, and would be benefited from applied techs improving their usage and effectiveness.

And since we are adding that tech already, maybe we could add an unit feat of “flamethrowers team”, being unlocked if you have at least 60 of autocracy and you have researched already “Flamethrowers”. To make them more lethal, we could add another tech called “Napalm” or “advanced Flamethrowers” which would be another weapon (so you have to make or improve the design) but with double firepower.




[image]local://upfiles/60548/07482B13F1CC4C688B4AD7D825DCCE05.jpg[/image]



lloydster4 -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/1/2020 1:01:54 AM)

They can also be mounted on guitars

[image]local://upfiles/72447/395029F28CBB4DB985DD65AA3CCA75B0.jpg[/image]



Antediluvian_Monster -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/1/2020 1:53:47 AM)

This might be neat in the sense that it could give distinction to the planet types. No oxygen? No flamethrowers, or at least flamethrowers that operate bit differently. Heavy atmosphere world with 40% oxygen? Rolling firewalls of death everywhere! (Though high atmospheric oxygen and probably it's pressure too should increase the lethality of all HE attacks).



demiare -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/1/2020 8:31:52 AM)

Honestly liquid-throwing flamethrowers are very close to be useless thing and doing more harm to your own troops. They we used as crude equal to modern single-use rocket launchers. Plus in game we already start at bazooka age and have RPG incoming - they're making any attempt to use flamethrower a purely suicidal one.

Chemical incendiary ammo is a whole another story. From obsolete-yet-still-working phosphor to modern compounds capable to burn through human bones... Major issue that they are quite complex & ammo itself isn't simple to maximize their efficiency so they're toys for very few countries in the world. But well... it's true for any weapon based on bleeding edge techs - it's available to 1-3 countries at max.



Hazard151 -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 11:11:37 AM)

Flamethrowers are perfectly viable weapons so long as you remember they are an anti infantry weapon to be used to clear hard to access fortifications. While the literal burning to death of enemies is the most visceral use of them, the poisonous waste gasses of the combustion process are at least as dangerous.

I can see flamethrowers and other incendiary weapons being very useful in the early game. Once you get to armoured envirosuits that utility drops off rapidly simply because the armour will be sealed from the environment and capable of shielding the wearer from the heat, at least for a while.



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 11:31:49 AM)

Flamethrowers. [:D]

Why would you use a flamethrower when your rounds fire accurately at much longer range? In most cases, you can hit accurately at the intervisibility (IV) line distance.

... and bangalore torpedoes for obstacles instead of the MICLIC?

Maybe we should run up to the front of bunkers with satchel charges too? [8D]

It's like discussing the merits of the pilum.

This is more WW2 creeping spooge.

[image]local://upfiles/34589/0C9026D253354B688C155B46115C212F.jpg[/image]



Atomikkrab -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 5:54:14 PM)

Flamethrowers would be great against angry xenocritters and space spiders. Having a strong early option against space spiders would be nice.



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 7:45:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Atomikkrab

Flamethrowers would be great against angry xenocritters and space spiders. Having a strong early option against space spiders would be nice.


It would only be great if it was better than something we already use. If it is better than something we already use, then it makes that current thing useless. What would you like to replace with flamethrowers?

From a game design perspective, the problem with this idea is that it has no added special capability. "Flamethrower" is pure facade. It does damage, but we have weapons that do damage already.

We don't have damage types and/or damage resistances. If we did, fire/thermal might make some sense.

Sorry to rain on your fire.

[image]local://upfiles/34589/BA7AF1B559E74738B143B908851058B3.jpg[/image]



Bremen -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 7:48:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: Atomikkrab

Flamethrowers would be great against angry xenocritters and space spiders. Having a strong early option against space spiders would be nice.


It would only be great if it was better than something we already use. If it is better than something we already use, then it makes that current thing useless. What would you like to replace with flamethrowers?

From a game design perspective, the problem with this idea is that it has no added special capability. "Flamethrower" is pure facade. It does damage, but we have weapons that do damage already.

We don't have damage types and/or damage resistances. If we did, fire/thermal might make some sense.




There's already the chemical weapons strategem that improves performance against units without sealed breathing units; I've heard it's excellent against arachnids. If true, it would probably be possible to make a weapon or unit design with a similar bonus.



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 7:51:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bremen

There's already the chemical weapons strategem that improves performance against units without sealed breathing units; I've heard it's excellent against arachnids. If true, it would probably be possible to make a weapon or unit design with a similar bonus.


See my post about chemical weapons. I wish!

That card is a serious waste of points if you use it.

Now, someone making a suggestion for different damage types and resistances I fully support. I also support orbital bombardment, and a whole bunch of other stuff we don't have yet too.

How exactly does a flamethrower work in an atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen? [:D]



demiare -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 8:38:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
How exactly does a flamethrower work in an atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen? [:D]


Some types of modern incendiary ammo will burn underwater [:D]



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 9:27:44 PM)

[8D]

[image]local://upfiles/34589/F3044BB4DCA747ACB20354725E049B3E.jpg[/image]



demiare -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/4/2020 9:44:49 PM)

You could post a image of common Li-On battery instead, you know. :P



Hazard151 -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/5/2020 8:25:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
How exactly does a flamethrower work in an atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen? [:D]


By picking a fuel that does interact with that atmosphere. Or, you know, being lucky and instead of something as calm and sedate as oxygen the atmosphere has a major halogen component.

And if the atmosphere is inert you don't use reductors as your fuel, you use oxydizers as your fuel. FOOF and ClF3 are particularly well known for their complete disregard of the notion that a substance cannot burn.



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/5/2020 11:19:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hazard151

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
How exactly does a flamethrower work in an atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen? [:D]


By picking a fuel that does interact with that atmosphere. Or, you know, being lucky and instead of something as calm and sedate as oxygen the atmosphere has a major halogen component.

And if the atmosphere is inert you don't use reductors as your fuel, you use oxydizers as your fuel. FOOF and ClF3 are particularly well known for their complete disregard of the notion that a substance cannot burn.


Sure, we could have tetrazine high in the atmosphere, and then when the shuttle comes down ...

... wait a second ... did we close the plasma ducts?

[image]local://upfiles/34589/E7FB600AADA34E98B0FC3D7866A94CB5.jpg[/image]

That said, I'm totally for spraying liquid chlorine trifluoride goo on people given a few other modifications to the combat engine; we could add it to bombs too--to get charlie out of their holes, before we go up there. Damn, there I go mixing analogies again.



zgrssd -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/5/2020 11:43:26 PM)

Two words: Chlorine Triflouride!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride

It burn with such burnable stuff as:
- concrete
- asbestos
- ash of a oxygen fire
- sand
- water (it explodes)
- 99% of all metals
- humans (not burns on them, but uses them as actuall fuel)
- glass
Indeed, it is hypergolic (spontaneous combustion at room temperature) with most of that stuff

It does not need a Oxygen Atmosphere. Compared to Flourine, Oxygen is a weak Oxygenation Agent. Oxygen deprivation does not kill this fire!

It was considered as:
- a Flamethrower fuel by Nazi German
- Rocket propellant component by NASA
For both it was too reactive, too dangerous.

Indeed, NASA once spilled a ton of the stuff:
- They could not extinguish it with water. Because a) fuel and b) explosive fuel
- they could not extinguish it with sand. Because a) fuel and b) Oxygen Deprivation does not bother it
- they could not use extinguishing foam or liquid of any kind. Because again: Oxygen Deprivation does not bother it
- they let it burn out. Through 30cm of concrete. And 90 cm of Gravel below the concrete.

I leave it to the Nasa report:
"It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water—with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals—steel, copper, aluminum, etc.—because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride that protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminum keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes."



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/5/2020 11:48:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Two words: Chlorine Triflouride!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride



Sounds perfect for military stockpiles and depots. I'm sure the lebanese military will be early adopters.

was it too soon for that joke? maybe.

This should lead to a brand new thread where we discuss troopers carrying around fusion reactors on their backs to energize powered-armor.



demiare -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/5/2020 11:54:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Sounds perfect for military stockpiles and depots. I'm sure the lebanese military will be early adopters.

was it too soon for that joke? maybe.



That was ~1.0 kT. A single artillery shell. Then imagine - attack on enemy battalion positions is planned to begin with three such shells. Now upscale it a bit - and you will get The Dissolution War in our game...



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/6/2020 7:43:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Sounds perfect for military stockpiles and depots. I'm sure the lebanese military will be early adopters.

was it too soon for that joke? maybe.



That was ~1.0 kT. A single artillery shell. Then imagine - attack on enemy battalion positions is planned to begin with three such shells. Now upscale it a bit - and you will get The Dissolution War in our game...


My point was that you want highly destructive weapons to be insensitive, so that the probability of accidental initiation or transition from burning to detonation is negligible.

[image]local://upfiles/34589/2DA938790AB04C648E0A88ED3F5FEDF9.jpg[/image]

A less timely, but more appropriate example image.



demiare -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/6/2020 8:02:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
My point was that you want highly destructive weapons to be insensitive, so that the probability of accidental initiation or transition from burning to detonation is negligible.


Hehe... Funny to hear that. Because ammonium nitrate is VERY insensitive (almost completely in case of burning). Actually there is only one reliable way to detonate it - by using other explosive as detonator.

So in that case it was a bad example. Just locals were crazy enough to store pyrotechnics together with ~3k tons of highly inert explosive. Since that decision they were doomed, it was only matter of time.



Malevolence -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/7/2020 2:14:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
My point was that you want highly destructive weapons to be insensitive, so that the probability of accidental initiation or transition from burning to detonation is negligible.


Hehe... Funny to hear that. Because ammonium nitrate is VERY insensitive (almost completely in case of burning). Actually there is only one reliable way to detonate it - by using other explosive as detonator.

So in that case it was a bad example. Just locals were crazy enough to store pyrotechnics together with ~3k tons of highly inert explosive. Since that decision they were doomed, it was only matter of time.


Ammonium nitrate alone and when in the proper percentage of N is insensitive. However, it is not at all insensitive when mixed or contaminated. It's the basis of AN/FO.

Also, while kicker charges are preferred for high order detonations, it isn't necessary when contaminated. The US's Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was actually a design failure (using ANNM). McVeigh failed to use kicker charges in all the barrels. It resulted in a low order detonation, but nevertheless still effective.

A guess, but I think the investigation in Lebanon will find that ammonium nitrate was a specific percentage of N and also contaminated over the time it was improperly stored. Otherwise, you would be very correct.

The US made very specific changes to permitted commercial chemicals over the last two decades, including issues with pool cleaners and even neutrogena (glyceride).



Destragon -> RE: Flamethrowers (8/9/2020 1:35:08 AM)

Flamethrowers could have a bonus vs entrenchment.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.96875