project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Use of flamethrower  (Read 30843 times)

Sophisanmus

  • Guest
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #45 on: July 05, 2008, 03:20:24 am »
Would it be possible to code a system where the first shot from a flamethrower cost a fair amount of TUs and did moderate damage, and each subsequent shot cost a reduced amount  so long as the user does not move?  It could be something like this:  [Torch: 6TU] and [Sweep: 8TU] would be the defaults, and after using one or the other subsequent uses would cost 3 TU less for the same or slightly increased damage. 

If this is possible, there is also the potential to add this sort of functionality to auto-fire modes; i.e. an additional auto-fire action for a reduced cost.  Of course, that wouldn't mean individual shots could be bought, just another full set.  It would be an interesting feature, but I suspect it might be a low priority, if any, right now.  Still, might as well put it out there.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 03:24:34 am by Sophisanmus »

Offline Doctor J

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2008, 08:31:00 pm »
@ VoxDissident: I can't speak for others, but i am fascinated by paper-and-pencil type wargames.  I've accumulated quite a stash of rules/resources books, and some of them offer useful real world data on various equipment.

@ Aiki-Knight, DanielOR: I won't bring in any vehicle-mounted weapons.  The WWII Flammenwerfer had a practical range of 20 meters, while the 1960s Warsaw Pact model LPO-50 worked out to 65 meters.  I think this was done through higher pressures and a more accurately machined nozzle.  However, the range is still a problem - this is why flamethrowers haven't been used since the Vietnam War.  U.S forces now use a rocket [the M202 'Flash'] as a replacement for the FT.  It's just too bad that we can't get something this in UFO.

Aiki-Knight

  • Guest
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #47 on: October 02, 2008, 04:55:02 am »
Well, that may be the case. But it's not a widely deployed weapon. Hmm. If it's so good, I wonder why we never see it. I mean, what does wind do to such long flames? Surely the flames are extremely dangerous for collateral damage over such distance. A little wind and you could fry nearby civilians or your own agents. I'd certainly love to flood a room with flame to burn out an alien, but it seems like a super-flamethrower would definitely present a lot of problems, even if the thing worked.

Offline Darkpriest667

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2008, 11:52:11 am »
Well, that may be the case. But it's not a widely deployed weapon. Hmm. If it's so good, I wonder why we never see it. I mean, what does wind do to such long flames? Surely the flames are extremely dangerous for collateral damage over such distance. A little wind and you could fry nearby civilians or your own agents. I'd certainly love to flood a room with flame to burn out an alien, but it seems like a super-flamethrower would definitely present a lot of problems, even if the thing worked.

Its not used mainly for the public relations and ineffectiveness.... its a horrific way to die and when people saw that on tv during vietnam it didnt go over too well... in 1978 the DOD removed it from the arsenal of the military.... the only  modern military that uses any flame weapons is the russians... Theyve always been fond of flame weapons... They have a few APCs and tanks that have them as the mounted weapon...

Sophisanmus

  • Guest
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2008, 11:29:35 pm »
I would have to say that using the flamethrower on aliens does seem to me fitting with the game's theme, but in my opinion it does need to feel more impressive and impactful, if unwieldy. 

Juni Ori

  • Guest
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2008, 12:07:30 pm »
People, this is slightly off-topic, but don't forget rocket powered flame based weapons. M202 Flash and RPO-Z Schmel for example. Both in use. So much about humanity-aspect...

Sophisanmus

  • Guest
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2008, 01:30:56 am »
I'm sorry, I was short on time in my last post.  To sum up a thought from another post which I think is pertinent here, PHALANX would not be denied any viable military technology to combat the greatest threat ever known (excepting, perhaps, those causing widespread environmental or population damage), within the discretion of the commander/player.  That said, the Flamethrower is just a blip on the inhumanity scale, especially when is not intended for use on humans. 

I also feel that a more imposing flamethrower effect would not be outside the theme of the game.  Many fictional anti-alien forces have pursued sterilization, through fire or other means, of alien sites.  Once humans begin to be infected/affected, I could believe that teams would carry a flamethrower man to clean things up (whether or not there is any gameplay significance, it still thematically fits).

fuuuu

  • Guest
Re: Use of flamethrower
« Reply #52 on: November 03, 2008, 12:29:23 pm »
I have noticed that wet shots have not yet been mentioned. Wet shots are unignited, sticky shots of liquid that could be layed about in a zone or in a line and ignited with any lighter. This creates tactical implications due to it being able to mine a certain area.

"Flamethrowers pose many risks to the operator. The first disadvantage is its weight, which impairs the soldier's mobility. Flamethrowers are very visible in the battlefield, and so operators become prominent targets for snipers. Historically, flamethrower operators were rarely taken prisoner, especially when their targets survived the impacts of the weapon; in reprisal, captured flamethrower users often were summarily executed. Finally, the flamethrower's effective range is short in comparison with that of other battlefield firearms, i.e. for effective use, flamethrower soldiers must approach their targets closely, risking exposing themselves to close enemy fire.

The risk of a flamethrower soldier being caught in the explosion if enemy gunfire hits the flamethrower is exaggerated in Hollywood films.[1]

“ It should be noted that flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container.[2] "