Who Uses Flame Throwers?

[CGGrognard]

Let's face it, with the larger map sizes in a Panthers in the Fog, there's little opportunity to use the support of a flame thrower. Plus the limited support slots
gives mr little inclination to use them. On occasions that they have been used, they have a shorter life span than an Opel transport! There just doesn't
seem to be a good battle to use them, unlike The Stalingrad mod for CC3 where "close combat" was actually a reality. That said, has anyone had any success (I.e. a kill, team survives battle) with a flame thrower team?

[Chris77]

I absolutely agree with you. Once again we are back to the main problem, with this otherwise good looking game. The way the "requisition" system works, combined with the size of the maps, leaves little room for single flamethrower or sniper teams. When you can get a tank, you definetely go for that.

I guess Matrix went for realism with regards to the way the forces were deployed, and how the forcepool is put together. Had there been a "pioneer" or "assault" squad to choose, which would include a demolishion/flamethrower unit, it would have been a different talk.
It´s quite simply the biggest problem with the game. A force selection screen that allows the player to costumize his units with a higher degree of freedom, is the biggest wish I have for a future update and/or new release.

[CGGrognard]

It was the intention to make PitF historical, but in doing so, some of the things that were admired in previous issues, have become irrelevant. Battle group organization is important historically, but at the same time, players want to develop their own Battle Group organization. The question is how to bridge those two ideas?
Historical Battle Groups are good in that you as a commander must utilize your limited resources in the best manner possible. Given that there are larger maps limits the use of individual soldiers or teams effectively, especially flame throwers or snipers (are there snipers in PitF?). However, the player can use these limitations to enhance their skills. I'm certain any Commander would love to have their own choice of force structure given the mission.
A requisition system allows an open structure to build a Battle Group, and perhaps just as important, allow a Commander to develop their soldiers through out a campaign. Although not historical, it raises another set of challenges in how to build your Battle Group for any given engagement. If overpowered, the battle becomes boring as the enemy is easily discharged; underpowered groups just the same.
Personally I like historical builds because I believe it provides an opportunity to understand what Commanders at that time were dealing with. So flame throwers, snipers, AT teams do have a place in PitF, albeit limited.

[mooxe]

There's nothing wrong with leaving it to the player to form a historical selection of troops for battle. Most games are vs the AI anyways.

[CGGrognard]

In a number of single player battles, I chose flame throwers over tanks, guns and AT teams. In every battle, not only were the flame thrower teams lousy shots, they were quickly dispatched. Perhaps it's why flame throwers are no longer used in armies.

[Pvt_Grunt]

Our man Kim does......
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... er-3386271

[CGGrognard]

That's sick! Especially what was suspected to be done with the remains.

[STIENER]

the "requisition" system BLOWS in this game. simple as that . it made what could have been a great game...mediocre at best. im hoping but have my doubts that the battle for Caen or what ever its called, will have some up grades to the "requisition" system.
Matrix should have stayed with the LSA "requisition" system and options.

i stopped playing PITF months ago and am playing LSA GJS mod.....which is very very good, but sorely needs some tweaks...Cathartes....where are you bro [:)]

[Ozymandias2]

I use them specifically in a situation (Grand Campaign game H2H generally) where a cluster of buildings is closely contested (especially where both sides can start in the same building near a VL.) I never take more than one per battle, but, when I do, some 1/3rd of the time it can be a decidedly nasty surprise [:D]

[vobbnobb]

Searched for the US flamethrower team but didn't find, am I missing something here?

[SteveMcClaire]

Flamethrowers were not issued to US Army units as part of their regular TO&E. They were handled by the Chemical Weapons service and issued for special situations like assaulting fortifications. So a US Army infantry or armored unit would not normally have any flamethrowers at all.

Steve