Engineers (Full Version)

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



Message

Paulus Pak -> Engineers (1/25/2002 3:51:00 AM)

I think that flamethrowers should disappear from engineers/sappers sqds. They became most powerfull weapon in this game. Infantry is being decimated by engineers with flamethrowers, when odds are even, engineers are kings of battlefield. Maybe flamethrowers should became a separate weapon, like mmg's, hmg's or mortars. 2-3 men teams, armed with flamethrower and smg, like in Combat Mission:Beyond Overlord. IMO that would be most reasonable and realistic situation.



Phil Buster -> (1/25/2002 4:05:00 AM)

I agree with you about the flammetrhowers. I also consider they should be considered as ATR,HMG or any other infantry support weapon, but not included in all end avery engineers squad. BTW, I also find dissapointing to find every single soviet infantry squad armed with Molotovs. Its effectiveness is much higher than any grenade and, maybe Iīm in a mistake, but I find it unreal. I canīt imagine every soviet soldier carrying three or four bottles of gasoline in his hands or wearing them hanging from their uniform.



Paulus Pak -> (1/25/2002 4:10:00 AM)

First, sorry for double posting. I have some problems with adding new posts here. I tried several times and I got reply :
"The form you submitted appears to be incomplete!
You did not complete: your_name ŧ Please use your browser's back button to return."
Administrators, please delete one of "Engineers" A propos molotov's, they are treated as HEAT-class ammunition, isn't it?



Bing -> (1/25/2002 4:24:00 AM)

You can edit the flamethrowers out of any and all scenarios you want. You can also change the OOB for a particular country or for all countries. I believe there are Engr units in some of the OOB's that do not have FT's. Personally, I love them, its the crispy-crackling sound that appeals! Bing



achappelle -> (1/25/2002 4:27:00 AM)

I would tend to agree with you on the flamethrower issue, they are quite powerful. The Italian OOB already has a 2man flamethrower team. I have been thinking of modding the Soviet OOB to have no flamers in the eng squads, and a seperate flame team. Re the Molotovs, they do have the disadvantage of not being usable against infantry, where grenades are. i've often thought grenades were under-powered against infantry, just haven't sat down and modified the oobs. Great thing about this game is how dynamic and adjustable it is. Any other comments?



asgrrr -> (1/25/2002 5:49:00 AM)

The only problem with flamethrowers that I can see is that there are too many of them. Not every engineer squad should have one, apparently. My approach is to have two types of engineers in a platoon, one without flame (type: engineer) the
other with (type: motorized engineer).



Alby -> (1/25/2002 7:06:00 AM)

This has been discussed before in the OOB forum ,
I think the reason flamers werent made into seperate units was because it would screw up scenarios or something.



Tomanbeg -> (1/25/2002 8:14:00 AM)

Does anyone have any evidence that supports the use of Flamethrowers at other then a squad level? Or has everyone forgotten that the weapons teams (MMG'd. ATR's, etc. represent a Weapons platoon that has been seperated into elements by the company commander? I know that in the US Army, Flame throwers were standard equipment for Engineer squads. I think the problem is your Tactics, Paulus. I don't have any serious troubles handling Engineers. They are easy compared to Snipers. Remember that you have a critical range of 3 to 4 hexes where you can really put a hurt on an Engineer without it getting back at you. DO NOT EVER fight an Engineer at 1 hex range. Either back up or go for the Melee. If you find yourself in a lot of 1 hex range fights against engineers, you are being out smarted. If it's the computer that is out-smarting you, stck to combat missing. If you are serious about learning tactics, forget the AI and all those silly scenarios and get on the PBEM list. Take your lumps and ask, "How did you do that" Most players will be more then happy to tell(brag) how they managed to get that bazooka team right behind your panther.
T.(who is the only player to ever lose a game because he did something really, really stupid. Everyone else loses because the game is flawed, or their opponent is cheating)



Redleg -> (1/25/2002 8:50:00 AM)

I don't have any major problems with the flamethrowers. Only time I ever seem to get hurt is if I am hurrying and careless. Once I locate them, they become a priority target.



El_Peco -> (1/25/2002 5:26:00 PM)

I think that engineers with FT are very strong in urban fights, but probably it's right.
About hold them away from your units to 3-4 hexes is right, but it's not easy when the battlefield is full of smoke or urban hexes (like Stalingrad!).
Finally molotovs can be used against infantry, when there are he ammo.
I'm currently playing the Suvanto river scenario with russian and the finns are burning my poor ruskies with their molotovs!



Antonius -> (1/25/2002 6:05:00 PM)

I have the feeling FTs AND SMGs are too powerfull while grenades are too weak. Whenever the fighting is done at a 1 hex distance (dense urban, smoke, forests...) a defenfing engineer will kill anything until it runs out of FT ammo. Of course one can make it easier with artillery preparation to supress them, send in cheaper unit to make them expend their ammo on second-rate targets, make sure one only plays with reduced ammo on... but why should it be so easy for a FT
to take out en entire sneaking squad with one burst ? As I understand it a FT is a cumbersome and vulnerable weapon that requires the firer to expose himself. Likewise I have trouble firguring out how SMGs could be so lethal at a range of 100-200 meters. They spread a lot of bullets but are hard to aim..
And if you fire them in non-automatic mode to get a better aim, they should be less efficient than rifles at such distances. On the other hand I seldom see a grenade inflict any casualty and never more than one. Shouldn't a grenade be able to (sometimes, when the thrower was lucky) take out a MG, gun, half a squad ?
Maybe it's because it's hard to throw a grenade 50 meters away and they are mostly used in "melee" fighting. I would have no problem with that if other weapons (SMGs, FTs ... )were less lethal and it was easier to engage the ennemy in melee. This is no complaining about unfair game-play; I have adapted my tactics to the units and weapons in the game but I would prefer some more realism and, well yes, perhaps a return to 5.x infantry combat.



Svennemir -> (1/25/2002 8:02:00 PM)

Flamethrowers are strange weapons. Playing a Stalingrad scenario with some flame panzers, I discovered that dug-in infantry usually suffer no (or low) casualties at the first burst, but the second burst is devastating. If the infantry was in wooden buildings, however, I wiped the whole squad(!! 12 men !!) in burst one, each of the three times I tried.



panda124c -> (1/25/2002 8:34:00 PM)

Everyone talks about the damage caused by the flamethrowers to enemy troops, I remember reading some where that nobody wanted to be near a flamethrower because a singel bullet in the tank would cause the thing to explode. So maybe the approach should be that engineering units with flamethrower should have a higher probility of being destroyed when fired at by enemy troops. Although there is much to be said for seperating out the FT from a squad, these would be two man teams which would make them harder to spot so they could sneak up on the front of bunkers and destroy them. The reasoning that making them into seperate units would mess up some scenarios doesn't hold water since every time you change the OOB you will mess up scenarios. And since the Italain OOB does not have any problems there should be no other problems. Incidently the Italian OOB has gone through some very interisting changes. At one time all light MG were seperate units(just like Squad Leader does), now there are two in each Infantry squad, their FT's are seperate units and they have this realy wicked 13.7mm Heavy MG Squad with 12 men.



Charles2222 -> (1/25/2002 10:02:00 PM)

Oh dear, there's more than one of this thread. Well, I'll post my comments on the other thread here as well:I basically agree with Penetrator, if there's reduction in order. If they're in a regular sized squad, at least the flamethrower has a chance of getting used even after the unit has taken some losses, but if it's only a two-man or three-man separate unit, then fire can be too easily wiped out with little or no hope of distance retaliation. In the case of MGs, that's another matter, because the MGs weakness, if it has one, is at close quarters, so that it's not so easily wiped out once it's spotted at a distance. IOW, what you would have would be the thorough elimination of flamethrowers from the game, when put into small separate units, particularly with the new vulnerability for moving infantry units effective. In such a situation, I would predict for the most part you would see flamethrower mini-squads destroyed with the span of one turn, certainly, and probably just within the span of two AFVS firing on them. True, I may be a bit overdramatic, but I think having them off in some small squad would prove a lot more ineffective and useless than we tend to think. HMGs can still work pretty well since they have power of distance, but not so with flamers.
It would be the same way things are when you spot the enemy HQ. The unit wouldn't stand a chance once you knew what it was (although at least the enemy HQ has 6 men). We all know engineers have them, so they will get some concentrated fire, but the net result would be something of a disregard for engineers, while a huge emphasis on eliminating the relatively defenseless mini-squads. Even if the mini-squads have a rifle or something similar to complement them, what's the effectiveness of the distance power of two rifles? Certainly not enough to have any real effect in their quick elimination at greater than 1 range. I think they're better intrinsic to engineers, only perhaps a special heavy engineer squad could be created, which would never be available in greater quantities than one per platoon of regular engineers (or maybe two). One last thing. I'm sorry if I'm getting SPWAW and SPWW2 mixed up here, but another bad thing about taking out flamers completely out of engineer units, is that a number of engineer units suffer for want of LMGs. They sacrifice LMGs to have flame. If you take away the flame, and some of them have no LMGs, aren't they actually about the weakest unit you have, which are only good for clearing mines? For units that don't have LMGs, this is even more profound a difference these days, because we know how the current small arms fire system makes rifles all but useless. Think about it.



Jeff_Ewing -> (1/25/2002 10:52:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Antonius:
I have the feeling FTs AND SMGs are too powerfull while grenades are too weak.
(snippage)
quote:



Likewise I have trouble firguring out how SMGs could be so lethal at a range of 100-200 meters. On the other hand I seldom see a grenade inflict any casualty and never more than one.
While I agree that SMGs are a tad lethal at range, I cannot agree about the grenades: they were the 2nd least effective weapon used on the WW2 battlefield. The US Army did extensive tests after the war, eventually leading to the current "wire coil" models. Especially deficient was the stielhandgranate, which had a notoriously small bursting charge. Give my druthers, grenades would put on a lot of supression and keep their low casualty infliction. All in all, I think they're not broke, however.



Paulus Pak -> (1/26/2002 2:59:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tomanbeg:
[QB]I think the problem is your Tactics, Paulus. I don't have any serious troubles handling Engineers. They are easy compared to Snipers. Remember that you have a critical range of 3 to 4 hexes where you can really put a hurt on an Engineer without it getting back at you. DO NOT EVER fight an Engineer at 1 hex range. Either back up or go for the Melee. If you find yourself in a lot of 1 hex range fights against engineers, you are being out smarted [QUOTE] Sorry, Tomanbeg, but please don't teach me obvious things. You say, that engineers are easy in comparison with snipers? Well are we playing the same game? Sniper will kill single soldiers in squad, when engineers are albe to destroy entire or half of squad in one salvo. You say about keeping distance when fighting enginneers. You cannot keep distance in urban enviroment, in dense forests. I can understand, when engineers use FT in assaults, on fortifications or heavily dug-in infantry, but in DEFENSE??? I cannot imagine engineer sqd sitting in defensive position and only waitnig to use FT's against enemy infantry. During IInd WW FT's were only used in assaults, not in open, monoeuvre operations.
In scenarios, when you have balanced forces on both sides, without much support (armor, offboard and onboard artillery), infantry is completely inferior to engineers in close-in fight. It is completely a non-realistic situation, when creators of this game tend to make it as realistic as they can.



mogami -> (1/26/2002 3:13:00 AM)

Sorry, Tomanbeg, but please don't teach me obvious things. You say, that engineers are easy in comparison with snipers? Well are we playing the same game? Sniper will kill single soldiers in squad, when engineers are albe to destroy entire or half of squad in one salvo. You say about keeping distance when fighting enginneers. You cannot keep distance in urban enviroment, in dense forests. I can understand, when engineers use FT in assaults, on fortifications or heavily dug-in infantry, but in DEFENSE??? I cannot imagine engineer sqd sitting in defensive position and only waitnig to use FT's against enemy infantry. During IInd WW FT's were only used in assaults, not in open, monoeuvre operations.
In scenarios, when you have balanced forces on both sides, without much support (armor, offboard and onboard artillery), infantry is completely inferior to engineers in close-in fight. It is completely a non-realistic situation, when creators of this game tend to make it as realistic as they can.
OK so now we are back to your being one hex away from an engineer only this time they are in the open so you feel they sould not use their flamethrowers? In cities flamethrowers are a weapon of choice. But if you get next to one in the open it works fine. Put some recon in front!!!! Flamethrowers don't have a lot of shots.
Have the poor recon get toasted and then fight the engineer from a decent range. Each unit has a point cost. If you don't use rarity you will see more uneven enemy forces. I have seen Tigers carrying engineers supported by those horrid Wurferman thingys sitting on ammo trucks. If you play the same opponent more then once your tactics and stratagy have to evolve to counter their methods and quirks. Modifying units that cause you trouble is not the solution. Stop doing what gets your entire squad killed. (I at last learned to stop using Shermans or T-34's to scout for Tigers)(really if a flamethrower gets a hit on a dozen men standing less then 50 meters away it tends to leave few survivours.) P.S. don't let Tankhead see this thread. I remember when he was a mild mannered Canadian commander who thought arty a waste of points and all that was need on a battle field was fast moving vehicles that would run around both flanks.
(Hehehe he didn't know you could use mines in a meeting engagement) Now he is the god of the rolling arty barrage with bag pipe tooting infantry close behind with dozens of flame spitting tanks roaming about looking to make 'Volksgrenadier BBQ' hint check out the range on Brit flame tanks ) [ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



Frank W. -> (1/26/2002 3:39:00 AM)

i agree with the flame thingy...but it was discussed several times in past . just got a US squad roasted by an heavily bombarded russian engineer squad.
mmhh... i donīt believe that in reality a man with flamethrower after arty bombardment and a battlefield filled with shellholes to hide for the advancing inf. can take out a hole squad. ohh..i forgot to say ONE man was killed by rifle fire,too. so,10 men disabled by one flame burst. same of course for air bombing. the TU2 aimed at my pershing,hit it once,but only dameged it,but 2 entire squads 2 hexes away were killed - among them my headquarter elite ranger squad but thatīs the game and we must deal with it.



challenge -> (1/26/2002 2:59:00 PM)

Keep in mind, when dealing with fire, it only takes a little to do a lot. When was the last time you got a serious burn and jumped right up and started doing some heavy work? Fire hurts REALLY bad. Pain from 2nd and 3rd degree burns over less than 10 percent of the human body will incapacitate the average person and demoralize even a John Wayne. When the guy next to you turns into a human torch what is the first thing you're going to do -- charge the enemy with the blow tourch? I don't bloody think so! I think you are more likely to find a hole to crawl in and hope you can pull it in after you before that fire hose hits you. This is not cowardess; it's survival instinct. How many times have people said it isn't strickly the number of people killed that counts toward casualty figures, It's also the guy trying to help stop the wounded from dieing and the ones who drop their guns and run as well. Watching a stream of fire coming toward you is a lot of incentive to be somewhere else. And if the cover in the terrain you are in catches fire, you have that much more reason. Burning is one of the most painful, serious and difficult to patch injuries possible. Yes, maybe having one in every squad is a bit much, but edit the OOB to allow two different types of Engineer units, or add in seperate FT units like there are for the AT and MG units. But don't blame the FT itself for the damage it does; that is very realistic to how people react to fire.



richmonder -> (1/26/2002 8:37:00 PM)

Well, I am interested in altering my OOBs to reflect some of the national doctrine/availability for the FT and it's proper usage. SO... Could someone give info on what the majors did? Specifically, if all engineer squads should have them, or if engineer squads for a nation should be strictly gun-toting with the addition of small FT crews, or something else?



Panzer Leo -> (1/26/2002 8:58:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by richmonder:
Well, I am interested in altering my OOBs to reflect some of the national doctrine/availability for the FT and it's proper usage. SO... Could someone give info on what the majors did? Specifically, if all engineer squads should have them, or if engineer squads for a nation should be strictly gun-toting with the addition of small FT crews, or something else?
This is how the Germans issued FTs to Pionier troops: Everything depends on what type of Division you're in (as with most of the German equipement). Infanterie Division:
2 FTs per platoon. This means not enough to have one per squad. Panzer Division:
Up to 8 FTs per platoon (halftracked). They were stuffed with these FTs and sometimes could even call for FT vehicle support. Don't ask me why and what for, but Armored Engineers had a lot of them... Between these two extremes any number is possible, mostly depending on formation types.



john g -> (1/26/2002 9:03:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by richmonder:
Well, I am interested in altering my OOBs to reflect some of the national doctrine/availability for the FT and it's proper usage. SO... Could someone give info on what the majors did? Specifically, if all engineer squads should have them, or if engineer squads for a nation should be strictly gun-toting with the addition of small FT crews, or something else?
The problem people seem to have with engineers is that they are not just combat engineers, but assault engineers. They are loaded for bear, as if they are doing a Normandy landing facing seawalls and bunkers, no matter what the battle they are used in. If you think engineers are bad, just be glad you missed the v4 Anzac jungle patrol, due to oob error it was an 18 man size 0 unit with smgs, flamethrower, grenades, that was elite recon and could infiltrate. The only thing it couldn't do was lay mines as boobytraps. My pity to anyone that had a platoon of those thrown at them. Combat engineers try to do their jobs, like laying and removing minefields, blowing up roadblocks etc without being under fire, in that case they wouldn't bring all the extra firepower. But in an assault where they are acting as specialists to remove enemy bunkers etc under fire they would bring everything but the kitchen sink. One oob change I have thought about a lot, is removing the German Wurf as a seperate purchase, and adding a section of them to the engineer company. Since they were an unit from the outset for the support of combat engineer attacks, only allow them to be purchased as part of an engineer unit. Not every engineer unit would have them, but in the role of assault engineers, the Germans used them that way.
thanks, John.



richmonder -> (1/27/2002 8:34:00 PM)

Ok, could someone now detail Soviet and British usage of FT's?



brianleeprice -> (1/27/2002 9:13:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by john g:

One oob change I have thought about a lot, is removing the German Wurf as a seperate purchase, and adding a section of them to the engineer company. Since they were an unit from the outset for the support of combat engineer attacks, only allow them to be purchased as part of an engineer unit.
Problem is that doing that does not prevent purchasing them seperately. A player could simply purchase a company containing the desired section and then eliminate all the other formations for that company that they did not want. Alternatively, with rarity on, simply buy any of the other units desired that are in that formation first, then buy all the other units in the company except the desired section until they're out of stock and eliminate them. Either way, you can't restrict purchasing in the manner you suggest. In fact, with rarity on, your opponent can't even tell for sure that you 'gamed' the purchasing system. There really is no need for an OOB modification to accomplish that sort of thing. Simply negotiate it with your opponent in a human vs human game. For scenario and campaign design, it is a non issue - the designer has a pretty free hand as is. Rather than use up precious OOB slots attempting to restrict player choice, it is my firm belief that OOB slots should be used to expand player choice. There are plenty of historical formations of different types for all nations that are not currently in the OOBs. I, for one, would much rather see them added than to burn up slots attempting to prevent players from using non-historical mixes. My 2c worth,
Brian



Antonius -> (1/28/2002 3:10:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Challenge:
Keep in mind, when dealing with fire, it only takes a little to do a lot. When was the last time you got a serious burn and jumped right up and started doing some heavy work? Fire hurts REALLY bad. Pain from 2nd and 3rd degree burns over less than 10 percent of the human body will incapacitate the average person and demoralize even a John Wayne. When the guy next to you turns into a human torch what is the first thing you're going to do -- charge the enemy with the blow tourch? I don't bloody think so! I think you are more likely to find a hole to crawl in and hope you can pull it in after you before that fire hose hits you. This is not cowardess; it's survival instinct. How many times have people said it isn't strickly the number of people killed that counts toward casualty figures, It's also the guy trying to help stop the wounded from dieing and the ones who drop their guns and run as well. Watching a stream of fire coming toward you is a lot of incentive to be somewhere else. And if the cover in the terrain you are in catches fire, you have that much more reason. Burning is one of the most painful, serious and difficult to patch injuries possible. Yes, maybe having one in every squad is a bit much, but edit the OOB to allow two different types of Engineer units, or add in seperate FT units like there are for the AT and MG units. But don't blame the FT itself for the damage it does; that is very realistic to how people react to fire.
No real disagreement about the damage done when a hit is scored, it is the probablility of hitting that seems far too high. On top of that just every FT shot leaves a fire in the game, making the hex a very unhospitable one. So a defending unit who was lucky enough not to get killed has little choice but to evacuate the hex.



mogami -> (1/28/2002 5:22:00 PM)

Hi, MG's I hate MG's more then Flamethrowers. You have to be next to the flamethrower, I always have whole squads wiped out by MG's firing from 6 or 7 hexes alway. (well sometimes closer) I just had 2 platoons of assualt Marines (7 man squads) supported by 4 engineer squads (with FT) land on a beach only to discover a Jap 5" Naval gun bunker 1hex away. When it's not shooting it's 5" gun it fires x55 rifles!!!! On each side of it are MG bunkers that fired 7mm MG's 4 times each.
So my poor 7 guys would move or shoot and the return OP fire was 8 x MG plus a 5"shell or 55 rifles.....they all died right quick (I tried to pop smoke but where to throw it when they are right next door?)



challenge -> (1/29/2002 12:06:00 AM)

Ouch about the mgs; personally I've yet to lose more than three or four men to MG fire, and tha's when I move too fast for safety. Flame throwers did ignite most cover in the area they fired into. The temperature of the fuel surpasses the ignition point of most natural thing like trees, plants, and housing materials. In addition the fuel used will lie on the surface of most non-flamible object and burn until it's used up. In the context of a game, it would burn for a considerable number of turns. In game turns, what is the effect of a buring hex?



Redleg -> (1/29/2002 12:52:00 AM)

I have lost entire squads to MG fire several times. Usually, when the MG is the property of an elite force and I am foolishly moving too fast. A very common thing in SPWAW is not having enough time to be prudent with troop movements. The pressure of time often leads to successful assaults and ambushes that wouldn't happen if I were moving more carefully. Burning hexes are supposed to have a negative effect units in or next to them. Can't prove that it actually does, though.



Belisarius -> (1/29/2002 2:01:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Redleg:
--->snip<----
Burning hexes are supposed to have a negative effect units in or next to them. Can't prove that it actually does, though.
Can't tell either, but in the first MCLV scenario I had to move three entire platoons through abt. 200-250 meters of a flaming inferno. (Woods set on fire by arty)...I kinda like leading my troops around bunkers instead of directly at them Anyway, many squads - unsurpressed ones - refused to move for some turns, then got on with it, while it was other squads' turn to get 'stuck'. Can it be because of the raging fire? I can't see any other reason, as they weren't really fired at. (I lead them through that fire 'cause it was in a dead angle between two obs posts and a pillbox). The only other cause I can find is a single squad taking some heavy damage from NKVD squads, scaring the others?



panda124c -> (1/29/2002 2:19:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Belisarius:
Can't tell either, but in the first MCLV scenario I had to move three entire platoons through abt. 200-250 meters of a flaming inferno. (Woods set on fire by arty)...I kinda like leading my troops around bunkers instead of directly at them Anyway, many squads - unsurpressed ones - refused to move for some turns, then got on with it, while it was other squads' turn to get 'stuck'. Can it be because of the raging fire? I can't see any other reason, as they weren't really fired at. (I lead them through that fire 'cause it was in a dead angle between two obs posts and a pillbox). The only other cause I can find is a single squad taking some heavy damage from NKVD squads, scaring the others?
Staying in burning hexes does increase suppression, as for getting stuck check for wire.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.671875