Soviet tactic -- Flamethrower infantry
thats not good stuff , and is "not cool" ...
with just 2 changed yaml lines he most likely make "a lot" of soviet-fans mad ... and this doesnt even fix the problem
a unit-swap here doesnt help the balance at all
PersianImmortal is right , we should fix the Pillbox ... or we should fix walls (pchotes idea) so we can block the flames , and wall up important structures
with just 2 changed yaml lines he most likely make "a lot" of soviet-fans mad ... and this doesnt even fix the problem
a unit-swap here doesnt help the balance at all
PersianImmortal is right , we should fix the Pillbox ... or we should fix walls (pchotes idea) so we can block the flames , and wall up important structures
What is wrong with the walls now? As I mentioned:JOo wrote: ↑or we should fix walls (pchotes idea) so we can block the flames , and wall up important structures
"I just tested it again, using 5 of them and an MCV, and the difference is 6-7 seconds to destroy the MCV with no wall, compared to 20--35 seconds with a concrete wall around it."
I'm thinking that if a player sees a concrete wall, they aren't even going to try. They will pick a softer target.
yeah , i just checked the walls ... seems to work against flames ..
pchote told me the other day , that "flamethrowers" are sometime affected on this here :
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/5294
sometimes , but not always ... so the obvious solution for him , is to fix this long-time bug , then we dont have to change anything at all
pchote told me the other day , that "flamethrowers" are sometime affected on this here :
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/5294
sometimes , but not always ... so the obvious solution for him , is to fix this long-time bug , then we dont have to change anything at all
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
Exactly. The pillbox has long been overdue for a buff anyways.JOo wrote: ↑thats not good stuff , and is "not cool" ...
with just 2 changed yaml lines he most likely make "a lot" of soviet-fans mad ... and this doesnt even fix the problem
a unit-swap here doesnt help the balance at all
PersianImmortal is right , we should fix the Pillbox ... or we should fix walls (pchotes idea) so we can block the flames , and wall up important structures
Flame rush isn't new to the meta
It's been around for years and its only become an issue because people dont know how to properly counter it.
If you're letting the soviet player get 10 flame throwers and 2 apcs together you're doing something wrong.
While I'm fond of moving Flamethrowers down the tech tree, I'll support Persian's suggestion of upping the allied pillbox. It's a good idea and everybody seems ok with it. Brilliant! What's next?
I see the Github links, but I'm not clear on what the process is from there. Is there anything I can do to move this along? Can I send somebody a bottle of wine or something?
I see the Github links, but I'm not clear on what the process is from there. Is there anything I can do to move this along? Can I send somebody a bottle of wine or something?
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
SecondedJOo wrote: ↑"one-shots" for pillbox are totally fine ... considering that a flame-tower 2-shots "5 infantry"
5 flame troops and an APC is a $2350 attack, and you have to get the flame turret first of course.
I don't see a problem if one $400 pill box isn't enough by itself to counter it.
As has been suggested in another recent thread, allies already have a noticeable advantage over soviets, and I think that is correct at least on smaller maps. Making things harder for the soviets when they are already at a disadvantage...
I don't see a problem if one $400 pill box isn't enough by itself to counter it.
As has been suggested in another recent thread, allies already have a noticeable advantage over soviets, and I think that is correct at least on smaller maps. Making things harder for the soviets when they are already at a disadvantage...