OpenRA

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

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.

zinc wrote:

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

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.

Does a grenade wipe out an entire group of flamethrowers? It should

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.

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.

The tactic is too effective and far too easy to execute. That makes it problematic...

zoidyberg wrote:

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

Your APC gets taken out during an early game rush?

I wrote that sentence with mid/late game rushes in mind. Could/should have added that.

zoidyberg wrote:

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.

The tactic is too effective and far too easy to execute. That makes it problematic...

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.
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.

zinc wrote:

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

I like this. The grenadiers kind of fit with the artillery as they both have chain explosion.

i stopped using grenadiers completely. Arties blowing up is fine, they're supposed to be at the rear of a fight, but grenadiers are supposed to be viable frontline units.

PersianImmortal wrote: I like when people try to use it against me because it makes rolling through their base with artillery and basewalk that much easier.

It sounds like you're debating from the "I want to win more games" angle????

zoidyberg wrote:

PersianImmortal wrote: I like when people try to use it against me because it makes rolling through their base with artillery and basewalk that much easier.

It sounds like you're debating from the "I want to win more games" angle????

It's a rebuttal to your statement which shows the futility of the flamethrower tactic

PersianImmortal wrote: It's a rebuttal to your statement which shows the futility of the flamethrower tactic

I will send $20 to the first person who cripples PersianImmortal with an early game flamerush and posts the replay.

zoidyberg wrote:

PersianImmortal wrote: It's a rebuttal to your statement which shows the futility of the flamethrower tactic

I will send $20 to the first person who cripples PersianImmortal with an early game flamerush and posts the replay.

But what is actually important, is not whether it works sometimes, but whether it's a risky strategy that can often enough be countered.

zoidyberg wrote:

PersianImmortal wrote: It's a rebuttal to your statement which shows the futility of the flamethrower tactic

I will send $20 to the first person who cripples PersianImmortal with an early game flamerush and posts the replay.

Lets not forget the game where I beat you in under 5 minutes :^)

Yes - I often lose matches. That's what keeps me coming back for more! I guess you can post the replay if you want?

zinc wrote:

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

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.

Made a proposal at https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/7571

Cmd. Matt wrote:

zinc wrote:

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

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.

Made a proposal at https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/7571

Good stuff.