I like this. The grenadiers kind of fit with the artillery as they both have chain explosion. And for the Soviet side to have both grenadiers and flame troops seems a bit of an unnecessary replication.Cmd. Matt wrote: ↑We could move grenadiers to the allies faction so they also get a strong early game anti buildings infantry to compensate.
Soviet tactic -- Flamethrower infantry
Does a grenade wipe out an entire group of flamethrowers? It shouldzinc wrote: ↑I like this. The grenadiers kind of fit with the artillery as they both have chain explosion. And for the Soviet side to have both grenadiers and flame troops seems a bit of an unnecessary replication.Cmd. Matt wrote: ↑We could move grenadiers to the allies faction so they also get a strong early game anti buildings infantry to compensate.
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
I don't agree with nerfing flame throwers. If we remove a viable early game strat when people whine you're setting a deadly precedent. What should happen is buffing the allied pillbox. Increase its damage and make it auto target infantry rather than apcs. Then countering flame throwers is as easy as dropping a pillbox and moving your mcv.
The tactic is too effective and far too easy to execute. That makes it problematic...PersianImmortal wrote: ↑I don't agree with nerfing flame throwers. If we remove a viable early game strat when people whine you're setting a deadly precedent. What should happen is buffing the allied pillbox. Increase its damage and make it auto target infantry rather than apcs. Then countering flame throwers is as easy as dropping a pillbox and moving your mcv.
-
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 am
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
You give up your economy and tech for a chance that you take out their mcv or other significant structures and if you have any foresight into what's going on early game it's easily counteracted. I like when people try to use it against me because it makes rolling through their base with artillery and basewalk that much easier.zoidyberg wrote: ↑The tactic is too effective and far too easy to execute. That makes it problematic...PersianImmortal wrote: ↑I don't agree with nerfing flame throwers. If we remove a viable early game strat when people whine you're setting a deadly precedent. What should happen is buffing the allied pillbox. Increase its damage and make it auto target infantry rather than apcs. Then countering flame throwers is as easy as dropping a pillbox and moving your mcv.
With allies there's a nice unit called the ranger that lets you scout and see what the enemy is up to. Use it and you'll see the people who rely on flamethrowers losing and more games against you.
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
Made a proposal at https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/7571zinc wrote: ↑I like this. The grenadiers kind of fit with the artillery as they both have chain explosion. And for the Soviet side to have both grenadiers and flame troops seems a bit of an unnecessary replication.Cmd. Matt wrote: ↑We could move grenadiers to the allies faction so they also get a strong early game anti buildings infantry to compensate.
Cmd. Matt wrote: ↑Made a proposal at https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/7571zinc wrote: ↑I like this. The grenadiers kind of fit with the artillery as they both have chain explosion. And for the Soviet side to have both grenadiers and flame troops seems a bit of an unnecessary replication.Cmd. Matt wrote: ↑We could move grenadiers to the allies faction so they also get a strong early game anti buildings infantry to compensate.
Good stuff.