Re: Good Try Mr. Rutherford! and Infantry and Vehicle Flamers

"Barclay, Tom" wrote:
> Item the second:
>
> You'd be appauled at some of the ranges possible even as of WW2 for
some of
> these systems, but I think Jaime might have proposed too much in his
zeal
> for "template weapons".

Oh probably. I wasn't really putting together a well thought out design.
I was really trying to start a discussion on it to get a more balanced
view on it, which has happened so at least it's working :) Though more
concrete numbers and ideas would help :) I'll wait for the group to read
the latest hack of the flamer before heading back into it.

> Keep in mind guys "shoulder to shoulder" in SG2 can still be 30 feet
apart
> (1" = 10m). In order to be packed close enough for a SWAT entry team,
you'd
> need to use just one figure to represent all of them....

Yeah but if you sweep the stream of fire you get a pretty big area of
effect.
 
> Flamers are nasty. My FSE assault squads have 2 each. But they are not
a
> substitue for rifles or SAWs. The vehicle weapons are horrific. I
can't
> imagine something I'd like to face less (that isn't an nuke or
bioweapon)
> than a flamethrower.... horrible way to go.

Definately. Nothing beats old fashion firepower when in combat but if
you have to clear out places there's nothing like a good old fireball to
make'em run and give up.