Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 05 Feb 2019, 23:47

As you know recently flamethrower damage vs entrenched infantry was increased and now wipes the entire squad pretty much in one go.

I'd like to argue against this, for practical reasons, rather than realism reasons.

I play PE TD a lot and so no bunkers and so my version of a bunker is a trench with a squad in.

What I'm finding is that a bren carrier wasp can go from outside of vis, up to a trench, and wipe the squad, in a couple of seconds *and there's no way you can know it's happening unless you see it happening*.

So basically my only defence against this is to check every trench every few seconds, which isn't practical or fun.

So it's basically an instant-death-with-no-warning, which is not fun, it's never fun.

The idea behind I'm fine with - but the practical reality of being a single person moving many units over a busy map means in fact it's problematic.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3477
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Feb 2019, 02:39

how can you not notice a flame bren gets so close to your trench?

That vehicle is damn expensive and even an AT nade has more range. So idk how such a thing can "suddenly" appear and burn all your inf.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 199
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Walderschmidt » 06 Feb 2019, 08:15

If you have a shrek in the trench, you'll be fine. If you have an AT gun overlooking the trench you'll be fine. If you have mines in front of the trench you'll be fine.

There's plenty of ways to deal with this.

Wald

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 06 Feb 2019, 18:02

Warhawks97 wrote:how can you not notice a flame bren gets so close to your trench?


It takes a couple of seconds for a Bren to come from out of vis into firing range.

If you're not looking at that part of the map in for those couple of seconds, you don't see it happen.

So idk how such a thing can "suddenly" appear and burn all your inf.


It moves. It goes from A - just outside of vis - to B - firing range - in a couple of seconds.

You from what you write find this staggering. I don't get it.

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 06 Feb 2019, 18:13

Walderschmidt wrote:If you have a shrek in the trench, you'll be fine. If you have an AT gun overlooking the trench you'll be fine. If you have mines in front of the trench you'll be fine.


I may be wrong, but I think you're conflating operating the game wih playing the game.

The UI should ideally be wholly neutral. It should never force you to change what you do *in game*. If the UI has shortcomings, so that it forces different in-game behaviour on players, the UI is failing.

The UI of course is not ideal and it does have shortcomings and it does force in-game behaviour on players - but to the maximum extent possible it should be that this does not happen. It should certainly be resisted.

What you are proposting is *intentionally* using this mechanism - in-game behaviour changes - to deal with UI flaws. This is a fundamental mistake.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3477
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Feb 2019, 18:50

winterflaw wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:If you have a shrek in the trench, you'll be fine. If you have an AT gun overlooking the trench you'll be fine. If you have mines in front of the trench you'll be fine.


I may be wrong, but I think you're conflating operating the game wih playing the game.

The UI should ideally be wholly neutral. It should never force you to change what you do *in game*. If the UI has shortcomings, so that it forces different in-game behaviour on players, the UI is failing.

The UI of course is not ideal and it does have shortcomings and it does force in-game behaviour on players - but to the maximum extent possible it should be that this does not happen. It should certainly be resisted.

What you are proposting is *intentionally* using this mechanism - in-game behaviour changes - to deal with UI flaws. This is a fundamental mistake.



:?:

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby kwok » 06 Feb 2019, 20:25

Sorry I also don’t understand how this is a UI problem. Can you describe a solution? Maybe that will help

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 07 Feb 2019, 12:30

kwok wrote:Sorry I also don’t understand how this is a UI problem. Can you describe a solution? Maybe that will help


Well, I'll try again first to describe the problem, as I think understanding that is really what's needed, both in this specific case but also in the general case, for the mod.

Consider the COH/BKM UI.

It is a display of the map, so you can see what is happening and where.

The display however is only of *part* of the map and the reason for this is that if *all* of the map was shown, the units would be so small it would be impossible to see really what was going on, or to control them.

Showing only *part* of the display has however significant consqeuence : you can only see what's going on in the part of the map which you are looking at.

If some critical event occurs in some part of the map you are *not* looking at, you've got a problem - you cannot react to it during the period where it is clear it will happen but has not yet happened.

This is the problem with the Bren Wasp rolling up to a trench and using the flamethrower.

What you would do, if you happened to be watching that part of the map, is immediately move the men out of the trench.

This response is not available, by and large, because the nature of the UI. You only find out about the Bren Wasp *after* it has wiped the unit, with the "unit lost" audio.

There's nothing wrong with the Bren Wasp as such. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with moving men out of the trench in defence. Both are valid and reasonable in-game concepts - Bren with a flamethrower is a thing, units in a trench being hit with the flamethrower dying very quickly is a thing, units moving out of a trench to avoid this problem is a thing. This is all valid and reasonable, a priori.

The problem is that the UI in fact by showing only part of the map usually *does not allow* the defence of moving the squad out of the trench, and, further, by this, transforms the Bren into something it is not, and was not intended to be.

To be sure there are other forms of in-game defence but saying they are the solution to this problem *whle not fixing the problem that moving the squad out of the trench no longer works* is to ignore the problem that moving the squad out of the trench no longer works.

That's bad, because moving men out of the trench is a thing, a priori, a reasonable and realistic part of the game. (If we're going to make reasonable and realistic parts of the game invalid, I'd like my tank destroyers to be immune to gunfire, please :-)

So what we see, because the UI has its limitation, is that there are in fact certain by themselves reasonable and realistic in-game mechanics which are not practicable. If you put them into the game, they interact with the limitations of the UI, and then those in-game mechanics in practise become very different to what they would really be or, I think I can reasonably suggest, were intended to be.

This has happened with the Bren Wasp. It exists, and it's deadly to a squad in a trench, because of this a squad in a trench sees one coming, and there's no AT, they would leave - it's leave or die - but this cannot normally happen in the game because of the UI showing only part of the screen.

So now the Bren goes from being a threat which causes trenches to empty (what it really is) to a squad killer, almost always, because the defence of moving the squad out of the trench isn't viable because of the UI.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 199
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Walderschmidt » 07 Feb 2019, 23:07

^You have to pick and choose what parts of the map you focus on.

If your opponent catches you offguard, that's a you thing, not a fault of the UI. No game displays the whole map. It's up to you to maintain situational awarness, something you can easily do by pressing the NUM 0 key.

Instead of clicking a trench, clicking your guys, and clicking ungarrisson button, do things the faster way. Click the trench and hit delete twice and the trench will immediately despawn and the flames won't wipe your guys.

Wald

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby kwok » 07 Feb 2019, 23:49

I use the tac map (num 0) and use it religiously. That helps me keep awareness. I feel like this isn't a UI issue because like any strategy game, awareness and focus is a big part. Even in games where the entire game is visible at glance, take chess for example. Tunnel vision in chess is still a factor and you can't really have a better UI nor view of all information at one time.

What how does the UI stop you from putting AT to stop wasps? This sounds more like a matter of positioning units and formation. There are a full assortment of AT units that can hit a wasp well before it closes in on a trench that can be placed in or around the trench to solveyour issue of "not being able to react" because you won't need to react. How would the UI stop you from doing this?

Again, what would be IDEAL even if CoH wouldn't allow it? Give me a solution maybe I'll understand better. Even if it's impossible to implement the solution, maybe there's a work around.

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 08 Feb 2019, 08:12

kwok wrote:I use the tac map (num 0) and use it religiously. That helps me keep awareness.


I will try using it more and see how it goes.

I feel like this isn't a UI issue because like any strategy game, awareness and focus is a big part.


In most things, there are factors which encourage and there are factors which discourage, and in the end, you get what you get.

I concur awareness and focus are important - but it is surely and clearly the case that if you can see only *part* of the map you are discouraged in this more than if you can see *all* of the map.

Even in games where the entire game is visible at glance, take chess for example. Tunnel vision in chess is still a factor


Yes - it still happens of course; but *a* factor which encourages this has been removed - you *can* see all of the map.

and you can't really have a better UI nor view of all information at one time.


You mean in COH/BKM? if so, quite so - it can't be changed. But we can be *aware* of its consequences and so be more able to think about how they will interact with BKM design choices.

Think about the vCOH damage model. Where it's so much less aggressive, the problem of not seeing all the map is ameilorated - you have more time to scoot back over to where something is happening, because units die much less quickly.

What how does the UI stop you from putting AT to stop wasps?


It does not - but that doesn't matter.

So : there are a number of ways to defend against the Wasp problem.

AT is one of them. This is fine.

Moving the men out of the trench is another. This is in and of itself fine - it's reaosnable and it's a thing in a realistic sense - but it's not a viable tactic in COH/BKM because of the UI showing only part of the map and the Wasp attack being so fast and so deadly.

The problem is that a reasonable and realistic defence is not possible when it should be.

That there are *other* defences is irrelevant to this problem. There's a bit of the game which isn't working properly.

Again, what would be IDEAL even if CoH wouldn't allow it? Give me a solution maybe I'll understand better. Even if it's impossible to implement the solution, maybe there's a work around.


I think the Wasp can't be this deadly. Given that its attack is usually not seen before it happens, and so the attack is only known about once it happens and an audio alert occurs, there has to be a chance for the user to get the unit out of the trench before it is wiped.

Actually, here, we're dealing with a choice. Is the Wasp realistic (trench squads are wiped) or are the squads realistic (they get a chance to evacuate the trench before they wipe)?

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2777
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby MarKr » 08 Feb 2019, 09:36

You describe something as a problem but it seems to me it is just a matter of your personal preference or conviniency.

You say:
winterflaw wrote: the Wasp attack being so fast and so deadly

People tell you to use some AT unit to protect the squad and you say "yes, I can use AT but that doesn't matter". This is pretty much "I can use AT but I don't want to" if you don't want to protect your squad against vehicles with units dedicated to kill vehicles, then you lose your squad.

Also what you would like to do is make flamers not wipe infantry instantly, let's say we do it. What will then a typical "Wasp vs entrenched infantry" scenario look like?
1) Wasp coming, starts grilling infantry.
2) player notices "unit under attack"
3) Player moves infantry out of the trench, moves them to Wasp and throws AT grenade
4) Wasp dead
5) Infantry squad lost maybe 3 men
As a consequence Wasp will be once again never used because of being useless.

The flamthrowers kill infantry in buildings/trenches immediately. If you watch the map, you can retreat them when you see the Wasp because the range of the flamethrower is shorter than their sight. If you don't watch that part of the map, you will lose them. That is same as when there is some vehicle with HE shells loaded and you have some squad clustered somewhere and don't watch that part of the map - one well-placed HE shot and your squad is dead. Is this a reason to change the HE shots? You have time to react IF you watch that part of the map, if you don't, you lose units. Same goes for many abilities, especially offmap arty or planes - if you don't watch the part of the map, then the chance is that when you see the plane on the minimap and before you center your screen there, select units and tell them to move, the plane had already dropped the bombs, as Luft with Henschels it often doesn't even help to move the units.

I would just not build an argument on "if I don't watch that part of the map, I cannot react" - ofcourse you cannot if you're not watching.
Image

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 08 Feb 2019, 17:39

MarKr wrote:You say:
winterflaw wrote: the Wasp attack being so fast and so deadly

People tell you to use some AT unit to protect the squad and you say "yes, I can use AT but that doesn't matter". This is pretty much "I can use AT but I don't want to"


Rubbish. You can't make such assertions about me or how I play - certainly not from anything I written. I've argued a valid, reasonable action - such as leaving a trench - is a reasonable thing and should be a viable defence, and that ihis is true regardless of other defences that are available. To go from my argument and say of me *therefore* I don't WANT to use AT is wholly unfounded - you have no basis whatsoever for this leap.

Also what you would like to do is make flamers not wipe infantry instantly, let's say we do it. What will then a typical "Wasp vs entrenched infantry" scenario look like?
1) Wasp coming, starts grilling infantry.
2) player notices "unit under attack"
3) Player moves infantry out of the trench, moves them to Wasp and throws AT grenade
4) Wasp dead
5) Infantry squad lost maybe 3 men
As a consequence Wasp will be once again never used because of being useless.


What would happen if the Wasp was not so deadly must indeed be considered. It could be worse than if it were so deadly.

I don't know about this scenario though - inf dies pretty quickly to flamethrowers, inside or outside of a trench, and throwing an AT gren takes time. I think you'd be looking more at someone doing a retreat. But I could be wrong - this question requires consideration and multiple opinions, to try and get to a truth.

The flamthrowers kill infantry in buildings/trenches immediately. If you watch the map, you can retreat them when you see the Wasp because the range of the flamethrower is shorter than their sight.


"If I watch the map" -> the key point I've been writing about throughout this thread is that the nature of the UI is that you see only part of the map; that you *cannot* do the very thing you are saying should be done.

If you don't watch that part of the map, you will lose them.


Yes. And this is an unrealistic outcome which occurs because of the interaction of the Wasp being so rapidly deadly and not being able to see the thread before it happens and so not being able to use a reasonable and realistic defence, of moving the men out of the trench.

That is same as when there is some vehicle with HE shells loaded and you have some squad clustered somewhere and don't watch that part of the map - one well-placed HE shot and your squad is dead.


Yes. This is an issue significantly more in BKM than vCOH because BKM models damages more realistically.

Is this a reason to change the HE shots?


Potentially. By this I mean to say that it seems reasonable to consider how any in-game mechanic is going to interact with the UI, to think about what will actually happen in practise.

You have time to react IF you watch that part of the map, if you don't, you lose units. Same goes for many abilities, especially offmap arty or planes - if you don't watch the part of the map, then the chance is that when you see the plane on the minimap and before you center your screen there, select units and tell them to move, the plane had already dropped the bombs, as Luft with Henschels it often doesn't even help to move the units.


Yes.

I would just not build an argument on "if I don't watch that part of the map, I cannot react" - ofcourse you cannot if you're not watching.


Yes : and this is a fundamental limitation due to the UI which only shows part of the map at a time.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2777
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby MarKr » 08 Feb 2019, 19:16

I don't know if I finally understand what you mean.

Now it seems to me that you have a problem with the damage system (being too punishing) in combination with the limited view on the map - due to the inability to see and control everything on the map and also the fact that units take a lot more damage than in vCoH, it is easy to lose units very quickly. If so then sorry but this is not going to change - the limited view is something we cannot change and the damage system is one of the main things that BK mod wanted to change, thus these "one-shot-wipes" are intended feature.
Image

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 09 Feb 2019, 07:27

MarKr wrote:I don't know if I finally understand what you mean.


Well, that's an improvement at any rate over you thinking I want to avoid having to use AT! :-)

Now it seems to me that you have a problem with the damage system (being too punishing) in combination with the limited view on the map - due to the inability to see and control everything on the map and also the fact that units take a lot more damage than in vCoH, it is easy to lose units very quickly. If so then sorry but this is not going to change - the limited view is something we cannot change and the damage system is one of the main things that BK mod wanted to change, thus these "one-shot-wipes" are intended feature.


You're jumping too far in thinking about what I might be wanting or not wanting. I've not made a general proposal for change and really when I asked for Bren damage to be reduced, that wasn't a very considered change - I was pressed into it a bit by kwok. It's not clear to me, certainly not at the moment, how to solve this problem in general while also keeping the character of BKM.

I wrote about a particular issue with Brens because in the early stages on games, I can have a few trenches out but not yet had time to make AT for all of them and the Brens are out, and they were at times wiping trenches before I even knew they were attacking. So I particularly noticed this unit.

Thinking then about what happened, I wrote about why I thought this could happen - the stuff about the UI, seeing only part of the map, etc. It's an explanation.

Extrapolating that explanation, we then end up thinking about the general class of events where the UI limitation prevents players from acting after its clear an attack will happen but before it happens.

We're also thinking then about the interaction of UI limitations with in-game mechanics.

All natural larger lines of thought which originate from examining one particular case with the Bren.

Now, the thing is this - describing this stuff, thinking about it, and indeed using vCOH and its low damage model as a contrast, is completely and utterly different to saying the damage model SHOULD change and indeed that it should be like vCOH. Firstly, I've not proposed such a thing, secondly, there are far more factors involved in *that* change than this one factor described in this thread, and so it would be unreasonable to propose such a thing just from this particular issue.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby kwok » 09 Feb 2019, 19:28

Sorry, you keep saying things with big words but not giving a solution. What would you prefer? To be able to zoom all the way out? To get a notification every time a wasp comes out of the fog of war? To have infantry be able to automatically leave trenches when wasps come?

In the same vein, we have another post at this very moment saying wasps are useless and underpowered unable to kill anything. It’s hard to take any of the complaints objectively and come up with solutions

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 09 Feb 2019, 20:50

kwok wrote:Sorry, you keep saying things with big words but not giving a solution.


Not everything is like being taught in classroom!

Sometimes you find issues and you discuss them and you see what other people think and if you've missed things or have them wrong and it's an ongoing discussion and anything *could* be done, but a lot of it would be bad, and we need as much as we can to move carefully and correctly.

It can also be of course there are no solutions, or the current problem is the best solution.

What would you prefer? To be able to zoom all the way out? To get a notification every time a wasp comes out of the fog of war? To have infantry be able to automatically leave trenches when wasps come?


There needs to be much more thought first. A solution might do *a* thing which might help, but it most likely will also do a bunch of other things as well, many of which might well not be wanted.

In general, there needs to be a building up of understanding of the fundamentals, so that when we move, we move wisely.

In fact, just as a note, looking at that list of things, none of them are sound - but the fact there is no sound obvious solution is significant.

Easy and obvious solutions are easy and obvious and so the problems they solve are not around any more. We only get the more complex problems.

In the same vein, we have another post at this very moment saying wasps are useless and underpowered unable to kill anything. It’s hard to take any of the complaints objectively and come up with solutions


Don't forget I play vs AI. If someone else is talking PvP, their experience of the Wasp may be utterly different.

BTW, I said in my previous post (and I meant to edit it, but I've a friend here for a week and we've been doing a lot) that you "pushed me a bit" into suggesting reduced damage. You didn't do this in a bad way : it wasn't a problem, or something I objected to. It was just premature on my part to write about damage reduction. Apologies for any offence caused.

Beast Slayer
Posts: 109
Joined: 12 Sep 2018, 15:32

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Beast Slayer » 09 Feb 2019, 21:43

I think I have solution for this whole problem. Its very easy and convenient. If you play against AI then push pause button and this will switch the game into "active pause" which means the whole game is stopped but you can still give orders and look all over the map at the same time. When you will unpause the game all the orders you gave to your units will be executed in the same fashion as if you would give them in real time. This way you can prevent any sneaky FT unit to get to you because you will have all the time in the world to manage any situation on the whole map at the same time.

Enjoy.

Beast Slayer
Posts: 109
Joined: 12 Sep 2018, 15:32

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Beast Slayer » 09 Feb 2019, 21:54

Speaking about Wasp if anybody actually used Wasp in pvp they will know that this unit is absolute trash tier. Its only and sole purpose is to burn infantry out of trenches and buildings and it sucks even at that because its slowed down by uneven terrain and more often then not have pathfinding issues when there are some obstacles in way therefore your opponent have plenty of time to spot your Wasp and destroy it. Its a big risk/reward unit which can backfire badly. When you consider its insane cost of 400mp 15f its hardly spammable so if you will deal with one Wasp you will never see another one in the entire game. The worst thing is that its usefulness against units in open terrain is abysmal. I thought that its attack will be more powerful because of its high cost, short range and limited purpose but no I was wrong. PE infantry was able to sprint outside of a building right to my Wasp stay in front of it while being roasted for a few seconds and destroy it with one AT grenade. Not even one squad member died doing so. This is ridiculous. I would want to see some kind of buff to its FT to be on the par with the one used by Churchill Crocodile because right now its complete waste of resources. If I will want to clear garrisons next time I will rather equip my sappers with FT so I will have multipurpose unit which can also repair, build and fight infantry reasonably well.

Beast Slayer
Posts: 109
Joined: 12 Sep 2018, 15:32

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Beast Slayer » 09 Feb 2019, 21:55

Here is the link to the thread about Wasp I created in other section of this forum:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3121

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby winterflaw » 09 Feb 2019, 22:40

Beast Slayer wrote:I think I have solution for this whole problem. Its very easy and convenient. If you play against AI then push pause button and this will switch the game into "active pause" which means the whole game is stopped but you can still give orders and look all over the map at the same time. When you will unpause the game all the orders you gave to your units will be executed in the same fashion as if you would give them in real time. This way you can prevent any sneaky FT unit to get to you because you will have all the time in the world to manage any situation on the whole map at the same time.


It takes only a few seconds for a Wasp to close and wipe a trench.

You'd need to pause and check the map every few seconds.

That's tedious. It's not fun.

(As an aside, it happened to me just now - PE, standard resources, first AG squad in a trench - and that unit normally is wiped by a Wasp, and I only know about it when I hear "unit lost".)

Beast Slayer
Posts: 109
Joined: 12 Sep 2018, 15:32

Re: Flamethrower vs entrenched infantry

Postby Beast Slayer » 09 Feb 2019, 23:48

If you struggle against Wasp so much then why are you not going for the building which can produce armored cars first and the one producing infantry second? You will be able to get access to the armored car equipped with AT rifle which is able to one shot Wasp without problem. Your Panzer Grenadiers, Kettenkrad or Schwimmwagen can cap the points meanwhile. These armored cars are pretty cheap so you will be able to deploy them early even when you set the game to low resources. Wasp cannot do anything to them. Also instead of building trenches you can build sand bags. They offer heavy cover and Wasp cannot one shot your squad because they are not garrisoned so you will not only protect your squad from small arms fire but also from being one shotted by Wasp. Problem solved. At least it works for me.


Return to “General - CoH1 / BKMOD1”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests