flmaethrower like a hot water!!

[yser]

hello every one I notice the flamethrower is amazing in vanilla coh1 and in coh2 and in most ww2 game and its also amazing in bk in tanks but for unknown reason its just not good with inf like royal Eng. etc. so I hope u fix this and make the flamethrower like real flamethrower not just like hot water to be honest the flamethrower was one of the stronger weapons in ww2 so its really sad when it be like hot water do a small area dmg its need to buff with inf not be very OP like one in the tanks no but be like a real one like one in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYgnOc6Cd34



hope u enjoy your life





sry for broken english

[CGarr]

Having played a good amount of Wikinger recently and seeing the risk vs reward of relatively fragile and expensive units like being used against tanks in the same way AT inf are as a means of actually scaring tanks away from an area as opposed to doing neglible damage or just straight up instakilling tanks, I think this would be a really good answer to a lot of the problems that arise with trying to balance the tanks in this so that they're not useless but also not unkillable. Right now, the only consistently effective and direct option for combatting tanks is AT launchers, as mines and AT guns are inherently defensive tools and the AT grenades require inf to get absurdly close.

An AT option's effectiveness in any scenario is largely determined by 3 things; DAMAGE, RANGE, and MOBILITY. Each tool should in turn be balanced in these three categories in a way that matches their combined effectiveness to the COST of use. Taking these 4 elements (each element is capitalized) into account, the BK devs have currently created a pretty balanced arsenal for Axis factions that covers all 4 of the 4 ranges at which inf can attack tanks in the game; 1. AT guns for long, 2. AT launchers (bazooka, pzschreck, rifle AT nades) for medium, 3. panzerfausts and weaker AT throwables for close, and 4.mines or big AT grenades for touching the tank.

The Allies match 3 of these (long, medium, and touching) but are lacking an equivalently available mirror to the panzerfaust. By buffing flamethrowers effectiveness, this problem would be solved by giving the Allies a short range at weapon. (NOTE: I am using the qualifiers long, medium, short, and touching in direct reference to the 4 range list i made earlier, not just as general qualifiers). This would mean both Axis and Allies would have tools available for each of the 4 ranges, removing the imbalance.

Additionally, against INFANTRY the handheld flamethrowers in this game are pretty subpar compared to the cost and risk of loss when compared to other guns, as they cost a large amount of munitions for something that makes them much more vulnerable to use (meaning using them is risking a large amount of manpower alongside the initial muni cost) for what is currently a negligible increase in killing ability. SMG’s would be a better option against inf in terms of efficiency. They fit into what would be the anti-inf equivalent of short range, being equal to short range AT weapons in terms of cost effectiveness at a proportionately similar range given the target. Flamethrowers should fit into the touching category, but because they are lacking in terms of killing consistently and doing so the fastest of the 4 ranges, their cost effectiveness is much lower than SMG’s and other weapons.

Therefore by improving their killing ability they would be balanced for the cost. Changes based on these two points would be good if possible.

[MarKr]

You should have seen flamethrowers several patches ago. They did very little damage to infantry and so it was common that when a squad with a flamethrower rushed enemy infantry squad, the enemy usually killed the flamethrower squad before the flames managed to kill them (especially if enemy had some SMGs). Now if infantry stands in flames, they get severe accuracy nerfs so their damage output is reduced a lot and so they need to leave the flame area or die. So it does at least something.

However I don't know if the should buff the flamethrowers against vehicles and tanks. It would mean that the weakest infantry in the game could seriously mess up the heavy tanks in the game. I can already hear all the people crying about how much BS it is and that heavy tanks are "useless".

Perhaps we could lower the cost for the upgrade to make their performance more matching to their cost but I don't think they should be turned into some super-effective-vs-everything weapon.

[kwok]

In pvp currently, I dont think the flamethrowers are used that often purely because of how squishy engineers are but that's not me suggesting to make them more durable. I'm just saying practically they don't even make it to their target. Sometimes they end up killing themselces with their own flames rather than the enemy just from the aoe damage (for this one i think a minimum range should be added to lessen the chances of it happening. But again, it's not like people use them that often).

[The New BK Champion]

I have never bought flamethrower neither for basic engies nor flame upgrades for SE assault pioneers or RE royal engineers. Combat efficiency of a flamethrower is close to literal 0. Not even that recent upgrade making it more useful changes anything. If you want to match it's performance and cost I'd suggest 10 ammo... even a basic grenade does more than this.

[kwok]

Sad but true.... Maybe at least bump its modifier against buildings? I feel like people's first instinct is to use it for clearing emplacement/buildings/bunkers. It would give it a definitive purpose as a high skill requirement but reliable utility while a grenade is more like a cheaper but safer gamble.

[MenciusMoldbug]

The problem with Wasp, Crocodile Sherman, flamethrowers in general is range issues.

Did you know that in BK the infantry flamethrowers are still using their max 20 range from vanilla company of heroes? So that means they have to get point blank to shoot any of their flame weapons, and we all know what happens to engineers with their low HP pool trying to close distance with anything.

This is also the reason I don't build Wasps, not enough range, doesn't matter if it would be cheap as dirt, it's main weapon has the same range as an PE at grenade.

Crocodile sherman turns into a fuel bomb any time some infantry AT looks at it, because it's weapon can't reach them before they fire either.

Change flamethrower weapon ranges in general and a lot of issues with flamethrowers could be fixed. Doesn't have to be massive ranges, just give handheld flamethrowers +10 range (going from 20 to 30) and you will see them used more.

Strangely, only the crocodile churchill has good range on its flamethrower and its more due to its hull and where the weapon is placed, as it's only 35 range on that thing(compare to sherman crocodile which has a range of 30). Flammen Hetzer(has 35 range too) can at least camouflage to instantly kill stuff with ambush bonuses.

Range increase could also help the flamethrower halftrack for wehr being more useful than a fuel bomb as well, considering I never see it.

[Tiger1996]

Perhaps we could lower the cost for the upgrade to make their performance more matching to their cost but I don't think they should be turned into some super-effective-vs-everything weapon.

Actually, flamethrowers are very useful when used from ambush... I mean the Demolition StormTroop squad, because it's probably the only unit that is able to reach the target without being detected in order to use the flamethrowers in their combat range.

So, I think the problem is not how flamethrowers themselves are weak.. but more of, how to get close enough without being wiped out.
And I think being sneaky like the demolition squad.. is probably the best way!
Thus, I suggest the following:

- Removing flamethrowers from Sappers, Royal Sappers, Engineers and also Pioneers.. the flamethrowers usually explode on their face anyway.

- Probably giving it to some more specialized units that are able to crawl. For the CW, I think Marine Commandos would fit.. for PE, I think it's the SE sabotage squad, for US.. maybe infiltration Rangers, or even better.. create a new small squad similar to Demolition StormTroops.

That's my thoughts.

EDIT:
in short, Demo Storm squad should be able to crawl with flamethrowers like it was in the past.. no idea why flamethrowers disable crawling now.

[Warhawks97]

Currently only low HP units have flamethrowers. Even the assault pioneers from PE have HP arround that what Volks have, and i rarely use volks for close combat. The engineers have the small advantage of glider drop but thats it.
Terror used to have flamethrowers for their grens instead of STG but got removed bc the flamethrowers didnt kill shit. Now we buff perhaps the flamethrower but we dont have a durable unit anymore such as grens. Perhaps the idea wasnt wrong having them in terror doc for grens, just the flamethrowers sucked in terms of damage. Now it sucks bc we have no capable unit that can survive long enough.

tanks and vehicle based flamethrowers could perhaps all get 35 range?
The wasp perhaps 30. That thing is funny bc AT nades have 25 range. So you have no chance using it against PE.

[yser]

You should have seen flamethrowers several patches ago. They did very little damage to infantry and so it was common that when a squad with a flamethrower rushed enemy infantry squad, the enemy usually killed the flamethrower squad before the flames managed to kill them (especially if enemy had some SMGs). Now if infantry stands in flames, they get severe accuracy nerfs so their damage output is reduced a lot and so they need to leave the flame area or die. So it does at least something.

However I don't know if the should buff the flamethrowers against vehicles and tanks. It would mean that the weakest infantry in the game could seriously mess up the heavy tanks in the game. I can already hear all the people crying about how much BS it is and that heavy tanks are "useless".

Perhaps we could lower the cost for the upgrade to make their performance more matching to their cost but I don't think they should be turned into some super-effective-vs-everything weapon.

well true so flamethrowers inf use to force enemy to change there potion that sound good but it well not work good with usa eng and brit for royal eng its good cause flamethrowers as u said nerf accuracy and when the y have to move I can push with the smg by royal eng well its fair Enough

[yser]

I have never bought flamethrower neither for basic engies nor flame upgrades for SE assault pioneers or RE royal engineers. Combat efficiency of a flamethrower is close to literal 0. Not even that recent upgrade making it more useful changes anything. If you want to match it's performance and cost I'd suggest 10 ammo... even a basic grenade does more than this.

its simple u just mkae flame wiht 50 ammo cost like most ww2 games anad its ok we done

[Mr. FeministDonut]

You should have seen flamethrowers several patches ago. They did very little damage to infantry and so it was common that when a squad with a flamethrower rushed enemy infantry squad, the enemy usually killed the flamethrower squad before the flames managed to kill them (especially if enemy had some SMGs). Now if infantry stands in flames, they get severe accuracy nerfs so their damage output is reduced a lot and so they need to leave the flame area or die. So it does at least something.

However I don't know if the should buff the flamethrowers against vehicles and tanks. It would mean that the weakest infantry in the game could seriously mess up the heavy tanks in the game. I can already hear all the people crying about how much BS it is and that heavy tanks are "useless".

Perhaps we could lower the cost for the upgrade to make their performance more matching to their cost but I don't think they should be turned into some super-effective-vs-everything weapon.

The most effective use of flamethrower, suprisingly in BK, I found against tanks to disable their engine

[MarKr]

If the problem for infantry-carried flamethrowers is really the vulnerability of the soldiers (which is very likely since they are usually the weakest infantry available) then it could be solved by giving to the infantry some modifiers that will help them survive (I mean only when they buy the flamethrower upgrade). It could be any combination of extra HP, reduced incoming damage or harder to hit by enemy fire - it could even be applied based on the infatry that receives the upgrade - US Engineers and WM Pios (being the weakest infantry in the game) could get all three but e.g. the Stormtrooper squad could only get the "harder to hit", because they already have good HP and reduced damage they get from the "Stormtrooper training" CP unlock - giving them bonus HP, more damage reduction and on top of that also harder to hit would turn them into terminators.

Engineers and Pios are meant to be builder units and not combat infantry, this upgrade would change them to combat infantry so in return for more combat efficiency they could lose some building options (e.g. with the flamethrower upgrade they would only be able to build observation posts around resource points but nothing else). Similar could apply to CW Sappers, RE could keep build options as they are special infantry...something along that way...

[The New BK Champion]

If the problem for infantry-carried flamethrowers is really the vulnerability of the soldiers (which is very likely since they are usually the weakest infantry available) then it could be solved by giving to the infantry some modifiers that will help them survive (I mean only when they buy the flamethrower upgrade). It could be any combination of extra HP, reduced incoming damage or harder to hit by enemy fire - it could even be applied based on the infatry that receives the upgrade - US Engineers and WM Pios (being the weakest infantry in the game) could get all three but e.g. the Stormtrooper squad could only get the "harder to hit", because they already have good HP and reduced damage they get from the "Stormtrooper training" CP unlock - giving them bonus HP, more damage reduction and on top of that also harder to hit would turn them into terminators.

Engineers and Pios are meant to be builder units and not combat infantry, this upgrade would change them to combat infantry so in return for more combat efficiency they could lose some building options (e.g. with the flamethrower upgrade they would only be able to build observation posts around resource points but nothing else). Similar could apply to CW Sappers, RE could keep build options as they are special infantry...something along that way...

I think it's a nice idea

[Warhawks97]

Thats weird. Its like weapon upgrade + combat package (like armored clothers, better training etc). Right now we have usually weapon upgrades (including ammo) and upgrades that give passive boosts like skirts. This would be the first upgrade that does all of that.

If the flamethrower is now able to kill something (i havent used them yet) then we do need units that can bring them into combat. Making standard pios suddenly becoming a full worthy combat unit just bc they got a weapon is a bit weird. I mean in certain docs they get boosts via cp (def doc, RE doc with vet for combat engis). That will be like "oh, i boost my pios with CP unlock and oh, look again, i boost them again just bc i give them a weapon).

I could imagine that in SE doc the standard grens could perhaps get flamehtrower as upgrade when picking SE and unlocking that flame thing in the tec tree.
The Terror doc grens would also be a nice choice now but they are currently full with stg, schreck and lmg.
So i think we dont have to make weak units to become full combat units just bc they get a weapon, instead we need more of the actual combat units being able to carry a flamethrower.

[Kr0noZ]

I disagree with the disagreement.

Flamethrowers were used primarily by pioneer / combat engineer units as they were supposed to open blocked routes and clear enemy fortifications.
Upgrading these on combat troops would therefore be weird.

Btw, even if this is russian, I have a nice picture of the equipment set given out with a flamer; Germans and western allies didn't employ the armor plates:

PS: Yes, that dent in the armor plate is from a bullet impact, probably by a 8x57mm IS round like the K98 was using.
Picture taken by me at the Museum of military history of the Bundeswehr in Dresden, Germany.

[mofetagalactica]

Please don't forget about USA para ingeneers too please! add flametrower to them too!

[Warhawks97]

I disagree with the disagreement.

Flamethrowers were used primarily by pioneer / combat engineer units as they were supposed to open blocked routes and clear enemy fortifications.
Upgrading these on combat troops would therefore be weird.

Btw, even if this is russian, I have a nice picture of the equipment set given out with a flamer; Germans and western allies didn't employ the armor plates

well, ok then. But i would still be against making a pio squad somehow "battlehardened" and "experienced combat squad". Perhaps we will simply stick with the idea of being extremely good in clearing bunkers and houses etc. bc thats what they got designed for. I dont want everybody running arround with flamers just bc the unit becomes thus more usefull in combat just bc they have more HP or get harder to hit. It can turn out in like "damn i need a tank unit, lets give flamers to my pios and they can hold the line longer" if you get the problem. People would perhaps get flamers not bc its a tool but it makes their repair and build units more durable and capable of acting as tank unit. Esspecially when speaking of def doc pios with CP boosts and advanced repairs repairing stuff nonstop and surviving even longer.

They should be a usefull tool for certain moments, not more not less. Thus if its capable of almost insta clear bunkers and emplacments, well then its fine. Nobody gave flamers in open battles and made open head-on attacks.

[mofetagalactica]

They should be a usefull tool for certain moments, not more not less. Thus if its capable of almost insta clear bunkers and emplacments, well then its fine. Nobody gave flamers in open battles and made open head-on attacks.

I tought they where used a lot in japan, even in "open battles" and "urban terrains".
the thing warhawks is that they're not even usefull for those "certain moments" 'cause they're squishy as fu, so i will be ok with them getting more hardened after the upgrade, if you use them to just hold the line while holding a position in cover it will mean that they will be more close to each other and if the guy with the flamethrower get killed there is a chance of explosion killing almost all the squad, so they will be mostly usefull for assaulting.

[Warhawks97]

Yes, they were used there to clear the defenses right behind the beaches and jungle areas etc. But they were squishy as well. i just dont like the concept of "here, take this weapon, now you are battlehardened."

I could imagine such things in certain docs (like RE CP unlock provides a better defensive boost, SE doc could boost its assault pios in some ways and def doc already does exactly this.

[mofetagalactica]

Yes, they were used there to clear the defenses right behind the beaches and jungle areas etc. But they were squishy as well. i just dont like the concept of "here, take this weapon, now you are battlehardened."

I could imagine such things in certain docs (like RE CP unlock provides a better defensive boost, SE doc could boost its assault pios in some ways and def doc already does exactly this.

But if you have read before, they only said that this deffensive boost goes for units such as pionners/enginners (those who have a shitty health pool), Its obvious that such units like assault pio and royal ing dosnt need these def boosts. Even if they get boost, the flamethrower dosn't make anought damage, In vanilla its mostly popular and usefull cause you can use the flamethrower while running.

[Warhawks97]

So the damage is the issue now? well, that can be fixed easily.

[MarKr]

It was just an example of what could be done so that the upgrade is actually useable without the need to move the upgrade to other squads. So the pioneer/engineer squads are usually weak units that are meant to build things but not to fight, on the other hand the flamethrower upgrade needs a combat squad that can actually carry the flamethrower into a combat range. So if pios/engies are meant to be builders/utility units and the upgrade turns them into combat unit, then they could lose some of the utility as a tradeoff. They could even lose the repair ability in exchange for the buffs that would come with the weapon.

Also I spoke just about Storm squad but I thought it was clear that this:

it could even be applied based on the infantry that receives the upgrade - US Engineers and WM Pios (being the weakest infantry in the game) could get all three but e.g. the Stormtrooper squad could only get the "harder to hit", because they already have good HP and reduced damage they get from the "Stormtrooper training" CP unlock - giving them bonus HP, more damage reduction and on top of that also harder to hit would turn them into terminators.

meant that the amount and strenght of the buffs would depend on the squad itself to prevent combining too many modifiers, so Def doc pios would get different buffs with the unlock there than in other docs.

[kwok]

I'm with warhawks in I don't think durability buffs is the way to go, not because it wouldn't be balanced but i feel like it'd wouldn't be intuitive and would break the feeling of the game. When people ask "why do engineers get defensive buffs when getting a flamethrower?".

The response "for balance" feels uninspiring. People already constantly ask questions on why certain weapons perform a particular way when in reality they performed much differently. Players already feel slightly off put when some infantry walk through hailstorm of bullets from non-realistically-applied buffs. This kind of falls in the category of those weird things about games for the sake of balance I think. I'm sure there's a more creative way of making this work.

The response "because some nations equipped their flamers with armored plates" feels obscure. Even more so if certain nations didn't have them, as Kronoz mentioned. Imagine directing people to this forum as proof only for them to find that the nation that DIDhave armored plates isn't even in the mod and the nations that ARE existing in the mod were specifically pointed out by a mod team member that they didn't equip their engineers with plates.

[mofetagalactica]

I'm with warhawks in I don't think durability buffs is the way to go, not because it wouldn't be balanced but i feel like it'd wouldn't be intuitive and would break the feeling of the game. When people ask "why do engineers get defensive buffs when getting a flamethrower?".

"Breaking the feel of the game" ? What do you think engineers and pioners are thought? Civilians? Almost everyone in the army goes throught combat training, they should be as durable and good as riflemen if we go for something more immersive lol.