Flamethrower in 6.1

Kerg · Post by **Kerg** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 8:42 am

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.

lithium01 · Post by **lithium01** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 9:58 am

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 ]

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 8:31 pm

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

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 9:25 pm

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

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 10:30 pm

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

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

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Mon Jul 30, 2001 3:33 am

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.

Kluckenbill · Post by **Kluckenbill** » Mon Jul 30, 2001 4:12 am

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.

Kerg · Post by **Kerg** » Mon Jul 30, 2001 5:50 am

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.

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 5:16 am

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 ]

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 5:23 am

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.

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 3:29 pm

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?

lnp4668 · Post by **lnp4668** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 3:40 pm

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

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:46 pm

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.

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:54 pm

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.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:18 pm

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

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Thu Aug 02, 2001 12:09 am

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)

lithium01 · Post by **lithium01** » Thu Aug 02, 2001 7:44 am

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.

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:40 am

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.

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 5:50 am

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.

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 7:18 am

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