Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:40 am
by T2K
Double post.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:41 am
by T2K
Molotov cocktails were something that every army could use, and many did at times.

The way that men scatter when a tank comes close would have to be adjusted too. It would be hard to use close assault weapons if they couldn't get close.

I can live with the freeze up thing (I don't like it though). I can't live with trained infantrymen being helpless against a lone halftrack or tank at 5m distance.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:30 am
by Andy
perhaps only running away if the guns are pointing towards you (firing arc) for raw troops, if its shooting close range at you for regular and about to run you over for elite...
________
buy easy vape vaporizer

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:06 pm
by Knut
I suppose that for 'placed' type weapons, it could be set for them to go off if the soldier's 'halo' touched the tank's 'halo', much the same way as an infantryman will disable a gun (by 'grenade') if he gets close enough, whether or not he actually throws one. Though the percentage chance of it working should vary a bit by type of weapon, and not necessarily be automatic the way a gun can be disabled. The thrown version would use the same code as for a regular grenade, except for a shorter range, and again the motivation code would need to be altered for those troops so equipped.

Agree that any army could use a molotov cocktail, but only some had them commonly. For example, I'm not aware of the US army in France ever using or issuing such a weapon (except perhaps expediently), while the Russians officially produced and issued them by the thousands in '41-'42. A variant of this might be the phosphorous grenades used by some armies - such as the British No.76 grenade.

Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:17 pm
by JeanBoule
Discussion seems to have gone way off topic but valuable opinions still.

One I have been annoyed by recently - some how I got in the situation of 3 sections with no casualties yet, in a U around one only enemy gun (75mm if IRC). What happened?

They all cowered while the gun slowly traversed, whacking them off one by one! They hardly fired a shot!

Sorry this will not do. If this really happened, The gun might get one shot off before the crew was shot down by the 30 rifles and 3 LMGs available, or the gunners would quickly surrender. In my opinion of course.

Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:10 pm
by Knut
Similarly, I just had a case where I had 50+ Marines surrounding a Japanese tank that was "sitting" on its flag, refusing to move. They were even in woods, so you can't tell me there's no way that that many soldiers couldn't find a way to handicap/set ablase/disable a light tank at that range!

Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:05 am
by Perturabo
I'd love to see more AT weapons for infantry and variable rate of fire for guns. Also, it would be nice if infantry would attack open-topped vehicles with grenades.

Also, I find the low accuracy of AT/tank guns rather annoying.

Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:39 am
by Andy Brown
JeanBoule wrote:I got in the situation of 3 sections with no casualties yet, in a U around one only enemy gun (75mm if IRC). What happened?

They all cowered while the gun slowly traversed, whacking them off one by one! They hardly fired a shot!

Sorry this will not do. If this really happened, The gun might get one shot off before the crew was shot down by the 30 rifles and 3 LMGs available, or the gunners would quickly surrender. In my opinion of course.
Did you try ordering them to fire at the gun?

Andy

Edit: Sorry - just noticed the date on your original post.

Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:05 am
by JeanBoule
Andy Brown wrote: Did you try ordering them to fire at the gun?

Andy

Edit: Sorry - just noticed the date on your original post.
Yes I ordered them to fire, as part of my usual working myself into a state of rage because tps won't do what I want them to do!

No worries about date. This forum is worth waiting ages for contributions.