A Test of Flamers (Full Version)

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



Message

Kharan -> A Test of Flamers (8/20/2001 11:16:00 PM)

60 Flammpanzer II's with only one flamer enabled versus 60 rifle squads at a range of 2 hexes in mixed terrain. Both sides have experience set to 70. Of the 60 first round shots: 20 squads were destroyed completely.
10 squads dispersed after receiving 8-10 casualties.
22 squads received an average of 5 casualties.
8 squads received suppression only. By the way, the 50% elimination ratio is exactly the same as in my earlier shorter test. I have no problem with infantry flamer units, but vehicle flamers with range of 2 throw the balance somewhat out of whack because they can go in and butcher 3 squads just like that from 100 meters without receiving shots themselves and then run away. So I'm asking the flamer effectiveness be toned down at range 2. Or have the flamer cause more suppression instead of casualties at that distance. I can provide the log of this test if someone wants it.



Larry Holt -> (8/20/2001 11:28:00 PM)

So flame tanks are very effective and throw off game balance if they can get to two hexes from an infantry unit? SIG33 150mm's are also very effective at two hex range as are a lot of other units. I guess if an infantry unit allows an enemy armored vehicle to get to within 100m without stopping it, the infantry should be in a lot of trouble. It seems to me that this is not an issue of a weapon being too effective but that it has a role (close in attack of point targets) and a counter weapon (defending ATGs, ATRs, tanks, etc.) and if a defender can not balance these with his force and tactics, then he will lose. Can anyone show some evidence of the lethality of these tanks in real life. Could they really disperse a squad 50% of the time? If so then this is realistic, if not then this might need to be changed. One of the strong points of SPWaW is its detailed modeling. Despite this, its still a game and some things have to be slanted to make it an interesting game. Since there are adequate means for infantry to fend off enemy tanks, I don't think that changing the leathality needs to be done to maintain balance. Just play with more balanced forces/tactics. I don't think this weapon needs to be changed to maintain play balance.



Kharan -> (8/20/2001 11:41:00 PM)

From range 2, 20 sIG33 150mm shots caused 21 casualties. So a vehicle flamer causes 7 times as much casualties on a single shot as a 150mm gun from a distance of 100 meters. [ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: Kharan ]



FrankyVas -> (8/21/2001 12:03:00 AM)

As I understand, the flame tanks were given increased range because without it they were always toast before they could fire. Also, if you allow a Flampanzer II to get that close to you, then you must be the AI. An antitank rifle will kill them things. Very weak armor. On the dispersal and killing of squads. Look at pictures of these things firing and tell me if you wouldn't run away. And onto the casualties, if one of you guys gets flamed, one or two of his buddies are going to try and put him out and take him to the rear. So for every crispy soldier, you get two other guys out. Two actual casualties, six game casualties, bie bie squad. Frank V.



Belisarius -> (8/21/2001 12:07:00 AM)

I'm totally un-scientific here, but I imagine that it's easier to avoid shell damage than flamers at close range. Given that you're not caught in the shell blast, that is. At least the psychological effect would be greater with flamers... ehh whatever



Kharan -> (8/21/2001 12:39:00 AM)

I don't follow why a flamer casualty would need more men to carry to to the rear than a HE casualty. I'm not arguing against the range 2, just the effectiveness of flamers at that range (100 meters isn't exactly close). The psychologic effect can indeed be argued about; flamers may cause fear of burning alive and the heat must be intense too. High explosive on the other hand causes a massive shockwave and dirt and shrapnel flying everywhere. How can you scientifically compare these? And even if you could, I doubt you'd come up with results that would suggest the difference displayed in the tests was anything but insane.



Paul Vebber -> (8/21/2001 1:27:00 AM)

As always, what number, based on what criterea would you change it to? Yes Flame weapons tend to be overrated against men in the open, so they have proper effect against caves, pillboxes and other such sturctures. Unfortunatley, there is no way to designate "locations" in a hex in SP so there is no way to account for teh dispersion of troops in the open and concentration when in certain types of cover. Vehicle flamethrowers in general had fearsome reputaions, The current difference is based on the rate of fuel expendiutre, many times higer in a vehicle flamethrower than a hand help one. If hand held results are OK, based on what do you evaluate vehicle FT effectiveness?



listy the treadhead -> (8/21/2001 1:36:00 AM)

i like the way it works now. of all the people i play against the main targets are: Tank destroyers, flametanks, egnier tanks, comand tanks. we try to single these out and destroy them as soon as possible, which is what happened in real life! and hte range of most flame tanks was infact close to the 75-100 meter range.



Kharan -> (8/21/2001 2:31:00 AM)

You altered the effectiveness of rifles and MGs on different distances in v6.0. I'm not sure if that was done by weapon stats or code changes, but why can't that be done to FTs? For example, maybe you could halve their effect beyond 50 meters. What about my suggestion of moving some of the effect from casualties to suppression? I don't necessarily know the means, but I just want to get rid of the 50/50 whole squad barbeque ratio. ACC:10, KILL:50, Warhead:20 seems to be the norm (except the soviet tanks that have the same stats as inf FTs). So because the FT is mounted, it has better ACC (That much? It doesn't kick and aiming is done by strafing anyway) and the KILL factor is 2.5 times higher than on inf FTs because of a higher ROF. But why's the warhead number bigger? So I'll try with ACC:6, KILL:50 and Warhead:15 and see if that gives more reasonable results in the open. Does anyone have footage of (preferably WW2) flamer vehicles in action?



Kharan -> (8/21/2001 2:47:00 AM)

What the... I changed the Flamm-anlagen's ACC in the OOB editor from 40 to 24 so encyclopedia ACC changed from 10 to 6 and changed warhead from 20 to 15, but now it creates a bigger firestorm effect and the crispy ratio is 85%.



nexus -> (8/21/2001 3:00:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Kharan:
You altered the effectiveness of rifles and MGs on different distances in v6.0. I'm not sure if that was done by weapon stats or code changes, but why can't that be done to FTs? For example, maybe you could halve their effect beyond 50 meters. What about my suggestion of moving some of the effect from casualties to suppression? I don't necessarily know the means, but I just want to get rid of the 50/50 whole squad barbeque ratio. ACC:10, KILL:50, Warhead:20 seems to be the norm (except the soviet tanks that have the same stats as inf FTs). So because the FT is mounted, it has better ACC (That much? It doesn't kick and aiming is done by strafing anyway) and the KILL factor is 2.5 times higher than on inf FTs because of a higher ROF. But why's the warhead number bigger? So I'll try with ACC:6, KILL:50 and Warhead:15 and see if that gives more reasonable results in the open. Does anyone have footage of (preferably WW2) flamer vehicles in action?
hallo. these are in general my experiences,too.
would be cool if it would be changed. not to mention the effectivenes of ft against
tanks...at 100 meters. kill a tank with one ft shot...mhhh...okay...under 50 meters..okay...mhhh..donīt know if itīs right?



Kharan -> (8/21/2001 3:27:00 AM)

Well, I don't know what's up with warhead, but with just the vehicle FT's ACC reduced to 6, the crispy ratio becomes 40%. Still too big.



Nikademus -> (8/21/2001 4:24:00 AM)

Flame tanks are very powerful and i see nothing wrong with their effectiveness, especially if the unit is veteran or elite status. Like engineers though, the "imbalance" will come from their being an ahistorical amount of such units for a single battle or in a core force for a campaign. In the interests of historical accuracy i've only a single section of flame tanks (2) in my core. Their power is also more than balanced by the fact that they are one T-26 hulls and are hence vulnerable to any and every AT weapon in the game. (In fact i just lost one to a ATG last battle....that hurt as i thought the coast was clear enough to deploy them) Course once the OT-34 is available the vulnerability issue will be addressed
somewhat the point though, is that its not the weapon thats ahistorical IMHO.....its how the players use em in the game. Making them more expensive and increasing their rarity factor would help address this.



Kharan -> (8/21/2001 5:02:00 AM)

Weren't FTs used mostly against bunkers, buildings and trenches anyway? It makes sense that they are effective against them, but the problem in the game is that they're most effective by a large margin (enought to set off my gamekiller alarm) against mobile troops in a clear hex where there's nothing to burn and infantry can move freely. Is there really nothing that can be done to lessen the overkill in clear hexes without compromising their effectiveness against pillboxes, caves and suh?



Nikademus -> (8/21/2001 7:41:00 AM)

In previous incarnations of SP (including SP:WWII) flamethrowers were ridiculously ineffective. Even when using elite/high veteran units against infantry caught out in the open you'd be lucky to get one casualty. So again, i dont see a major problem with infantry taking heavy casualties (remember, a "kill" in SP:WAW does'nt necessarily mean a death, but combat ineffective), especially in open/mixed terrain. After all, how fast can an burdened infantryman run vs how fast a stream of flame can be hosed? And what if the unit is already being pinned and supressed so that they cannot "move freely"? If caught out in the open i'd say, and sorry if this sounds crude, but i'd say that it would be serious BBQ time



Lynx -> (8/21/2001 8:50:00 AM)

If the flame spewers scare you that much, just make them a restriction in your games you play.
They're only deadly once, then it's all fire directed at them and you'd probably loose them soon after. Whats the big deal, losses are part of the game.



Kharan -> (8/21/2001 9:37:00 AM)

quote:

In previous incarnations of SP (including SP:WWII) flamethrowers were ridiculously ineffective.
Yeah. Now they're ridiculously overkill. Isn't the first time this from-one-extreme-to-another has happened.
quote:

After all, how fast can an burdened infantryman run vs how fast a stream of flame can be hosed?
A stream hosed from 100 meters isn't exactly a pinpoint weapon. It is an area weapon, therefore the effect should be more suppression and less casualties than it is now. I don't mind losses. I was infact using flamers myself when I noticed their new kewl effect. But everything must bear relation, and taking out experienced squads with a single burst at this distance makes no sense, realism or gameplay wise. It's a jarring effect that feels out of place in an otherwise polished combat system, especially when compared to HE. If flamers really were this effective, no-one would have used SP-guns. Rarity and cost may help with the symptons but won't heal the disease.



Nikademus -> (8/21/2001 10:54:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Kharan:
A stream hosed from 100 meters isn't exactly a pinpoint weapon. It is an area weapon, therefore the effect should be more suppression and less casualties than it is now. I don't mind losses. I was infact using flamers myself when I noticed their new kewl effect. But everything must bear relation, and taking out experienced squads with a single burst at this distance makes no sense, realism or gameplay wise. It's a jarring effect that feels out of place in an otherwise polished combat system, especially when compared to HE. If flamers really were this effective, no-one would have used SP-guns. Rarity and cost may help with the symptons but won't heal the disease.
Its not overkill if one is using the example you've postulated. An infantry squad, caught in the open is meat for most any weapon in the game, but the MG and the flamethrower (and artillery) will be the most devastating. Thats not overkill, thats hard reality. i've used flamethrower tanks against the Fins, entrenched and in good cover terrain and i can assure you i've never wiped out an entire squad under such circumstances As for killing at a distance. Only a very select few flame tanks have a 2 hex range. In fact the only one that even comes to mind for me is the flame-Sherman. But my Soviet OT tanks and the German tanks all have a one hex range. Even in the case of the Sherman its part of the game limitations, not overkill. SP can get no more specific than 50yard measurements so one must make a compromise decision about which is more 'accurate' a one hex range or a two hex range. One could argue just as strongly that the 'one hex' range is the more limiting factor as, unless heavily supressed it can give the target infantry the chance to assault the attacker even though in "reality" the tank will in most cases prudently stay well out of striking distance from the infantry.



kao16 -> (8/21/2001 11:18:00 AM)

Consider... Infantry under fire from missile weapons (bullets and HE rounds) can hit the dirt and find cover (pinned) reducing the level of casualties. Against a flame weapon, hitting the dirt to find "cover" has much reduced utility as the flame will cause casualties similar to what you could get from a airburst.



Arralen -> (8/21/2001 6:06:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Kharan:
Well, I don't know what's up with warhead, but with just the vehicle FT's ACC reduced to 6, the crispy ratio becomes 40%. Still too big.

warhead size
..compared to survivability rating to determine damaging/killing of vehicles/bunkers etc.
I'm not shure about inf., though HEkill
.. determines amount of possible inf casualties .. acutal casualties depend how 'good' the hit was. Acc
As there's not a hit/no-situation with infantry etc. as there's with vehicles, the better Acc will give a greater chance of getting a 'high-%tage' hit wich will result in damage being a large &tage of the HEkill. ..all of this AFAIK, o.c. A.



Kharan -> (8/21/2001 11:52:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus:

As for killing at a distance. Only a very select few flame tanks have a 2 hex range. In fact the only one that even comes to mind for me is the flame-Sherman. But my Soviet OT tanks and the German tanks all have a one hex range.
I think it was acknowledged that the FT effect in the open is exaggarated. But have the ranges changed in v7 OOBs? AFAIK all FT's on halftracks and tanks (except few Soviet and Finnish OTs) in v6.1 have a 2 hex range. Here's the scenario I did the test with. [ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: Kharan ]



bradmbrown -> (8/22/2001 12:31:00 AM)

Here is what I do when confronted by a suprise flambe.
I walk a U.S. infantry squad into some woods and it gets barbecued... I say, "Holy Cow Batman!!" Then I call in as much arty on the flaming bugger as I can. If more of my units get roasted next turn or two, I say "Holy Cow!" some more and call some more atry in. Air strikes. Big guns from ships off shore.
I don't even need an electronic calculator do do this stuff, very unscientific.
If a whole platoon is broiled, I ask myself, "How can I avoid this happenning next time?"
Many REAL commanders, after having their commands destroyed were left no options except ONE...!

Thank goodness this is just a game! All I have to do is rack em up and try again.



Kharan -> (8/22/2001 5:19:00 AM)

I tested the effectiveness of MG's with the same configuration as in the earlier tests and came up with an average of 2.2 kills per first time MG42 round. So FT's are 7 times as effective as high-caliber HE and 3 times as effective as MG's. Naturally, you have to be close to use them and there's counter-tactics to them, but I feel that's beside the point. So to quote Stan from South Park: "This is pretty f****d up right here." Ps. I don't expect them to be changed. But I have to try anyway.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.015625