OpenRA

As already discussed on GitHub OpenRA/OpenRA#12233,
we are asking you: Should Flame Throwers explode?
If yes, should the explosion also damage nearby units?

im in favor of giving them a chance to explode, and leave a burning patch (burning carpet)
that can cause damage-over-time on (any) nearby infantry for a small amount of time

i would also like to see "pillbox-occupants" having a small chance to "ignite" when flametroopers
shoot on the pillbox triggering the "flame-death-animation" and auto-eject the pillbox, leaving an empty pillbox behind

because : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmvvEbe ... u.be&t=19s

It's a little funny that Grenadiers explode and do damage while Flamethrower units does not.

I think both should explode, but only visually. If both are purchasable by Soviet, that is.

What I REALLY would like is:

+ Flamethrower is buildable on Soviet.
+ They no longer require a Flame Tower to become available.
+ They always explode on death but it takes 3 such explosions to do enough damage to kill another Flamethrower unit.

+ Grenadier is buildable on Allies.
+ They always explode on death but it takes 3 such explosions to do enough damage to kill another Grenadier unit.

(Naturally if Flame Tower remains as requirement for the Flamethrower a Pillbox would be required for Grenadier over on Allies.) I'd also like both the Flamethrower and Grenadiers do extra damage vs Pillboxes and nerf the Pillboxes that way instead of just increasing its price like is currently happening in the playtests. As a bonus to this nerf we could see more Grenadiers and Flamethrowers even in late pro games.

I think either it will be damaged or only visually is good, but it does effect the strategy.

Fortnight wrote: ↑ What I REALLY would like is:

+ Flamethrower is buildable on Soviet.
+ They no longer require a Flame Tower to become available.
+ They always explode on death but it takes 3 such explosions to do enough damage to kill another Flamethrower unit.

+ Grenadier is buildable on Allies.
+ They always explode on death but it takes 3 such explosions to do enough damage to kill another Grenadier unit.

(Naturally if Flame Tower remains as requirement for the Flamethrower a Pillbox would be required for Grenadier over on Allies.) I'd also like both the Flamethrower and Grenadiers do extra damage vs Pillboxes and nerf the Pillboxes that way instead of just increasing its price like is currently happening in the playtests. As a bonus to this nerf we could see more Grenadiers and Flamethrowers even in late pro games.

This is not a bad idea. I dislike the fact that only Soviets have a unit that can really damage buildings at the start of the game. Giving both allies and soviets such a unit will increase early game action. Removing the Flame Tower requirement gets my vote, too. It always annoyed me I have to waste money on a practically useless building just to unlock a single unit.

In the original game you needed a tech centre to get them, so I don't think the flame tower requirement is that bad.

As for whether allies should have grenades... Yeah it would help balance them in a way, but then you could always argue that the sides shouldn't be equal in all ways (or even close to it). Maybe we should expect different styles of play from them. So Soviets should be played in a more aggressive and harassing style to be successful and they need the units for that style of game? Also, if allies get grenades to balance them out against Soviets, then do Soviets get anything to balance out spies, medics and mechanics? They have the hijacker but still...

Also I think Soviets having dogs (early game intel) and grenades helps to protect against an allies player moving their mcv up right at the start of the game. Soviets aren't going to win a turret war... Not before teslas become available anyway.

klaas wrote: ↑This is not a bad idea. I dislike the fact that only Soviets have a unit that can really damage buildings at the start of the game. Giving both allies and soviets such a unit will increase early game action.

i remember 2-3 years ago mailaender made a PR on the fly just giving allies grenadiers ... we (scott and me) immediately rejected this idea because of balance-purposes ... that was before we even had the new country-factions (uk , germany, ukraine ... and so on)

scott always prefered the direction of both factions to be as different as possible ... later on introducing ukraine as "experts of flames and explosions" just strengthened the idea of keeping the grenadiers on the red army only ...

besides ... tanya and the spy on steroids (with all the buffs , especially the power-shutdown) excuses a lot of the unit distribution ... especially because the grenadier isnt really considered a serious unit (apart from the surprise effect in the first minute ... which often leads only to an awful game-ending)

^ I completely agree with Microbit.

Allies already have so many advantages, not to give them yet another good unit ...

And grenadiers match a lot with the damage-dealing playstyle of soviets, and not at all with allies.

JOo wrote: ↑ snip

Both factions being as different as possible is hardly an argument against moving grenadiers to Allies. I do think grenadiers are a serious unit, and early harassment is an essential part of a good RTS game, just to deter people from playing Sim City in the first 5 minutes. When pillboxes are a bit more expensive again, I'm sure we'll see more early grenadiers, too. And even now there were several games in the RAGL masters where grenadiers were used effectively.

wasnt just about the factions as different as possible ... also because Scott did represent the view of soviets having a tick more advantage in early rushes hence the APC only for soviets (which comes out earlier then a chinook) ... and grenadiers and flamethrowers only on soviets side

a jeep might be faster then a APC ... but is hardly used for a rush (except for engineers ... but those are for both factions)

and on the engineer you have a perfect example as "so-to-say" counter advantage ...
while the soviets could send the fast grenadiers per foot to my allies base ... (which i cant do) .... i could send engineers via jeep to my soviet enemy ... which they cant do ...

and often it doesnt really matter if youre playing in the ragls or started as a newbie ... you can reinterpret or reimagine our balance over and over again ... while there might be sometimes some "real" issues on the balance ... i dont really see grenadiers being on soviets side exclusively as a problem ... after over half a decade in the soviet-tab only

and thats coming from a player who prefers to play allies

klaas : IMO pillboxes (even being raised to the price of a flametower) are more effective fending off gren rushes than flametowers, especially if the grens are split correctly.

Giving grens to Allies will cause a balance problem, as Soviets will have a harder time defending against it.

ShadowAssassin wrote: ↑ Giving grens to Allies will cause a balance problem, as Soviets will have a harder time defending against it.

Soviets already need to be able to fend off grenadiers, so this would be a separate issue. An issue that does not exist IMO, because soviets are able to fend off grenadiers perfectly fine.

ShadowAssassin wrote: ↑klaas : IMO pillboxes (even being raised to the price of a flametower) are more effective fending off gren rushes than flametowers, especially if the grens are split correctly.

Giving grens to Allies will cause a balance problem, as Soviets will have a harder time defending against it.

Soviet vs Soviet is a possible match up you realise?
Plus I think both factions can defend quite well and quite easily since the counter is infantry and defence structures

Soviet vs Soviet is a possible match up you realise?

Yes, I know. Don't talk to people like they are stupid, you should show more respect.


What I meant is that pillboxes can more easily defend against a split formation. Flametowers will only kill 2 grens in this case, before the reload delay.

Of course, if grenadiers are send in a packed formation, then it's the same, due to the chain reaction. But that's not how they should be used IMO.

Whatever, that was just a side note anyway. The main arguments were given before by Microbit. And it's not even the subject of the original post.