Soviet tactic -- Flamethrower infantry

zinc · Post by **zinc** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:34 am

Murto the Ray wrote: ↑ I have to agree that flamethrowers should do a lot less damage to buildings

If they did a "lot less" then they would hardly be used in the game I imagine.

I don't think realism is that important here myself!

zinc · Post by **zinc** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:38 am

One issue I have with the APC is that they can now run over troops. If you put out a few intrantry and a couple of rocket troops to defend against early attacks it kind of sucks if they just get run over...

zinc · Post by **zinc** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:41 am

You can also concrete an MCV. Concrete does significantly slow them down.

The player would likely look for another target in the base. But again, if you have a couple of pill boxes already up, a few troops around, and a pill box ready to place...

BaronOfStuff · Post by **BaronOfStuff** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:37 am

zinc wrote: ↑
Murto the Ray wrote: ↑ I have to agree that flamethrowers should do a lot less damage to buildings
If they did a "lot less" then they would hardly be used in the game I imagine.

I don't think realism is that important here myself!

Flamethrowers employed in real wars have been obscenely destructive and effective when used on buildings and defensive positions (gutting the interior entirely and killing occupants); it's actually fairly accurate to see them do so much damage to lighter structures in OpenRA.

JOo · Post by **JOo** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:00 pm

zinc wrote: ↑You can also concrete an MCV. Concrete does significantly slow them down.

flamethrowers can shoot over walls ... so this is significantly useless

zinc wrote: ↑ But again, if you have a couple of pill boxes already up, a few troops around, and a pill box ready to place...

seem like you repeat yourself ... let me repeat "myself" ...

Pillboxes have the problem to get triggered by the APC , but does no damage whatsoever ... instead , the owner of the Pillbox has to wait until the enemy "unloads" the flamethrowers ... and then he has to manually target every enemy .... after every dead target , the pillbox-targeting will jump back to the enemy Apc (depends on the randomness of the "cargo drop" ... ) and you have to pick the next target again ...

the pillbox-cannon needs for every passenger 2 shots ... (the flamethrower might have less health then a e1 ... but its enough so the pillbox needs still 2 bursts to bring a flamethrower down)

a pillbox does 30 damage on infantry ...
e1 has 50hp
flamethrower has 40hp

BaronOfStuff wrote: ↑ Flamethrowers employed in real wars have been obscenely destructive and effective when used on buildings and defensive positions (gutting the interior entirely and killing occupants); it's actually fairly accurate to see them do so much damage to lighter structures in OpenRA.

yes i agree , but ... just look at the range of the flamethrower ... while in real wars it had maybe a range of 30 metres ... in red alert it has the same range as a riflemans bullet ...

we could use the flamethrowers for way more things then "destroying buildings" ... like as allready mentioned "taking out the infantry inside pillboxes" ... leaving a empty pillbox ... or creating fire-carpets on the ground ... to make certain areas impossible to work over (talking about hp-drain when you walk over the flames ... acting the same as tiberium) ...

in real wars (lets say ww2 ... not vietnam) there was a good chance they just burned themself because the tanks on their back got hit by a bullet ... thats why they got rarely used ( or only for specific tasks )

zinc · Post by **zinc** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:05 pm

JOo wrote: ↑
zinc wrote: ↑You can also concrete an MCV. Concrete does significantly slow them down.

flamethrowers can shoot over walls ... so this is significantly useless

I'm sure I have tested it a couple of times. And for me, it worked to protect the mcv. They do get through the concrete but it does indeed make a significant difference. (When I tested it anyway.)

seem like you repeat yourself ... let me repeat "myself" ...

Pillboxes have the problem to get triggered by the APC , but does no damage whatsoever ... instead , the owner of the Pillbox has to wait until the enemy "unloads" the flamethrowers ... and then he has to manually target every enemy ....

Yes, you need to target them. But it can be done. If you only have one pill box to protect an mcv you may not be able to do it fast enough.

If, however, you have a few troops around, and you also target a pill box, you can counter the attack very possibly I think.

zinc · Post by **zinc** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:21 pm

JOo wrote: ↑ flamethrowers can shoot over walls ... so this is significantly useless

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 35 seconds with a concrete wall around it.

If you can get them to shoot over the wall then I don't know how to do that.

zinc · Post by **zinc** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:51 pm

Seems to vary a bit. Just destroyed an MCV with a concrete wall in about 20 seconds.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:57 pm

We could move grenadiers to the allies faction so they also get a strong early game anti buildings infantry to compensate.

noobmapmaker · Post by **noobmapmaker** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:41 pm

How about: flamethrowers are +10% cost and -10% effectiveness vs buildings.

By doing this the amount of money that has to be put in this tactic is greater (and it takes longer to get ready for it) and once it is execute the chance of succes is smaller.

After the beginning a player should have enough defense and/or multiple construction yards so the tactic is less killing anyway.

zoidyberg · Post by **zoidyberg** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:41 pm

noobmapmaker wrote: ↑How about: flamethrowers are +10% cost and -10% effectiveness vs buildings.

How about we push flamethrowers down the tech tree so you can't do an early game rush?

noobmapmaker · Post by **noobmapmaker** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:09 am

Thats a possibility as well. But early game rushes are part of RTS so taking out the possibility is a less elegant way of dealing with this, in my opinion.
At this time it is too easy (although I dont see this tactic happening all the time) because it doesnt require alot of clicking, getting proper defense up is difficult and because buildings are vaporized in no-time.

So a solution could lie in:
- giving players more time to build defenses (by placing flamethrowers lower in techtree or enlarging the building time of flamethrowers)
- reduce effectiveness of flamethrowers (giving the defending player more time to attack them)

JOo · Post by **JOo** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:08 am

its still possible to rush with grenadiers ... or whatever you want ... so shifting up the flamethrowers wont hurt ... and could fix the problem and is probably the "most" elegant way

the original red-alert had the requirements on "tech centre"

http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Flamethrower_ ... Alert_1%29

noobmapmaker · Post by **noobmapmaker** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:34 am

Well in that case... keep it as closest to the original as possible.

But still I wonder if the flamethrower isnt slightly overpowered vs buildings. I dont know the exact numbers, but it seems like 1 flamethrower incinerates a building faster than 3/4 mammoths or 10-15 light tanks.

On the other hand: I see the tactic sometimes, but quite often it doesnt really succeed. They only burn down a powerplant or ore refinery, or in my case: the APC gets shot before I can unload.

zoidyberg · Post by **zoidyberg** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:13 am

noobmapmaker wrote: ↑my case: the APC gets shot before I can unload.

Your APC gets taken out during an early game rush?