Current game effects of thermobaric ammo

[Wdll]

I never have fast arty on.
Merkava's went to the heavens in one hit.
So did any vehicle it hit at other parts of the battle. Be it tanks, APCs. Yes, TOS-1 series.
It has less effect than CM artillery in the sense that it destroys only what it hits (hex), where CM artillery doesn't care about that, it will destroy and damage tanks not only in the same hex but all the neightbouring+hexes in a radius of 2+1 hexes. So yes CM arti is far more powerful in that you have a better chance of hitting enemy.

But yeah, I stopped using them both PBEM and against the AI. They feel very unfair.

[Kartoffel]

The TOS-1 looks like something from science fiction

I wish there were more vehicles like them.

[DRG]

The Tos graphics currently don't do the weapon justice because the weapon class is 9 whereas it should be 18 ( and is now ) like any other flame rocket

Don

[Suhiir]

I'm just a bit annoyed by the residual burning hex effects from the way FAE's are currently modeled in the game. It's not that big a deal, I was just thinking since they're really more of an explosion then a "real" flame attack they might possibly be modeled differently.
As I said, just brainstorming.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I'm just a bit annoyed by the residual burning hex effects from the way FAE's are currently modeled in the game. It's not that big a deal, I was just thinking since they're really more of an explosion then a "real" flame attack they might possibly be modeled differently.
As I said, just brainstorming.

OK, lets start with the weapons. Which ones specifically ? Give me a couple of examples. There are at least three ways a flame weapon could be modeled in the game so I need specifics not generalities

Don

[Imp]

Again flame-throwers can be used to 'roll your own FAE' - it was common practice in WW2 for Churchill Crocodiles to hose down a bunker with raw unlit fuel and let it soak in for a few seconds, to emit petroleum vapour which would pool in the enclosed spaces of the building as the fuel splashed about. Then fire a final live flame shot for a nice big WHUMP.

Jez what a way to go, you get a couple of seconds to realise you are about to become toast.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

OK, lets start with the weapons. Which ones specifically ? Give me a couple of examples. There are at least three ways a flame weapon could be modeled in the game so I need specifics not generalities

Don

OOB 13 USMC (of course!)

Weapon #30 - 40mm TB Grenade (Wpn Cls 8 - Inf Flame)
Seems a bit odd that a 40mm round sets a 50m hex on fire.

Weapon #162 - SMAW-NE (Wpn Cls 18 - Napalm)
I can see the larger SMAW round starting a fire in a hex - but...

Weapon #185 - CBU Incendiary (Wpn Cls 18 - Napalm)
Thinking this might be "better" (better being of course subjective and relative) modeled more like Weapon #203 - 1000lb Airburst.

[DRG]

Four tanks were concentrated at the centre of a cloud of highly explosive gas. What did you expect would happen ???

Don

[Wdll]

Sigh...I am not saying the unit is not implemented correctly in the game. I am saying it is too powerful for my (and opponents) taste and thus we don't use it any more.

Don't confuse my view on the CM artillery and the TOS-1.

[DRG]

The words you used were "Way overpowered" The concept of "my (and opponents) taste " didn't enter into the conversation until later .

I'm suggesting if you think it's overpowered then present me with some evidence to support that contention and I'll consider a change but we are dealing with a weapon that in real life turns an area 400 metres by 200 metres into the eye of a firestorm.

Don