Fireball Structures For Rommel

[richard14110]

Flamethrowers tend to lack range and require at least one reload after each strike. Machine guns have a decent range and a rapid rate of fire.

Fireball bunkers are similar to machine gun bunkers except that the ammunitions are enflamed bullets. A tower that launches fireballs has a greater range than a fireball bunker.

Fireball hardpoints have an adequate amount of immunity to fire. A fireball fortress has higher hit points and better protection than a fireball hardpoint.

Emplacements and pits should actually propel real fireballs. Each genuine fireball is a combination of mortar and flame with the firing rate of a machine gun.

All of these types of buildings cause a high burning duration as long as the shooters continue to release the projectiles against the opponent(s). Perhaps there should be a fireball turret...

VTOLs can finally melt.

[anonim17465]

There are two exmplanations, that may suit your idea from IRL.
1. thermobaric weapon. Projectile spray liquid\gas around, and when air is full of it, after making a whole cloud of it, it's get ignited and exploded
2. projectile that instead of explosion contain an incendiary liquid inside, that get spilled outside when hit the target.

Both of them are quite heavy, especially first one. By their size they are close to mortat or bombard.
And there are similar weapon in a game, incendiary mortar. (So, you may like bombard pit with incendiary mortar)

There are no other practical way to send a flame ower the battlefield.
Direct throwing of liquid is very inefficient and a lot of it does burn before hitting the target. (that's why low range)

P.S. VTOLs can't be enflamed at all, simply because of their speed. All liquids will get blown away, and flame can't support itself in such wind. And even thermobaric weapon does not make an explosion higher, than 10m, and planes do not lower so low at all, because of probability of being damaged with a debris in the air, birds, MG, dust, reflection of shockwave, and many other things.

[richard14110]

There are two exmplanations, that may suit your idea from IRL.
1. thermobaric weapon. Projectile spray liquid\gas around, and when air is full of it, after making a whole cloud of it, it's get ignited and exploded
2. projectile that instead of explosion contain an incendiary liquid inside, that get spilled outside when hit the target.

Both of them are quite heavy, especially first one. By their size they are close to mortat or bombard.
And there are similar weapon in a game, incendiary mortar. (So, you may like bombard pit with incendiary mortar)

There are no other practical way to send a flame ower the battlefield.
Direct throwing of liquid is very inefficient and a lot of it does burn before hitting the target. (that's why low range)

P.S. VTOLs can't be enflamed at all, simply because of their speed. All liquids will get blown away, and flame can't support itself in such wind. And even thermobaric weapon does not make an explosion higher, than 10m, and planes do not lower so low at all, because of probability of being damaged with a debris in the air, birds, MG, dust, reflection of shockwave, and many other things.

If a fiery object penetrates the VTOL, then the flame can burn the inside of it. My subject was updated to integrate some of your suggestions.

[anonim17465]

Planes engines are modelled in a way to suck a bird and keep running, or to consume all water from a fire hose (engine from boieng 747, for example). Engine is the only thing, where something may get, but everything soft will go through it. And you can't really ignite it, because it's burning all the time anyway. But you may force it to switch off because of lack of oxigen. But that's hard to do.

[richard14110]

Planes engines are modelled in a way to suck a bird and keep running, or to consume all water from a fire hose (engine from boieng 747, for example). Engine is the only thing, where something may get, but everything soft will go through it. And you can't really ignite it, because it's burning all the time anyway. But you may force it to switch off because of lack of oxigen. But that's hard to do.

An enflamed bullet and/or an explosive is more firm than a bird and the engine does not usually melt.

[anonim17465]

It's actually constantly burn inside. Petrol is injected into a chamber that is already on fire.
enflamed bullet will 1) spill something on a hull, and it will be blown away by wind 2) spill something into an engine, and that will be sucked in with no damage 3) will physically damage engine by getting into, just as a piece of metal. 4) penetrate the hull and physically destroy something important 5) penetrate hull all way through with little or no damage.

[Jorzi]

Play more populous: the beginning

There is a reason why flamers have limited range. It's called game balance.

[anonim17465]

you still can launch something incendiary far away. but that's a mortar, and not a flamethrover any more
IMHO, if you will follow physics law, balance will be established by itself.

[richard14110]

Play more populous: the beginning

There is a reason why flamers have limited range. It's called game balance.

The idea of mine was brainstormed because Rommel desired flamethrower hardpoints and flame towers. Click viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10849 to check his suggestion...

There are players who believe that flamethrowers are almost useless. Should there be a better alternative to weapons that launch fire?

[anonim17465]

For me even hardpoint with usuall flamers will be quite good. Just to keep enemy units awat from my line of defence. Nothing else really can do it. And main thing not the damage itself, but actual enemy's idea of "hmm! I can destroy his line of defence without coming into his range!". So, I need something short-range.

IRL it's not in use, but IRL we do not have such thing as rush. (blitzkrieg? yes. but it can be stopped with direct fire from big guns, that do work much better in close. Sort of direct firing from artilery cannons.)

My idea , as I see it, is not to destroy enemy, but just slow him down.