Blah blah blah nerf what I don’t like blah blah blah
2 Likes
I agree to yesterdays proposal about the the turn rate reduction + increased damage to compensate for that just to get rid of the current flame tornado spin fest.
But ammo reduction would make them kinda pointless.
1 Like
I see your point about the ammo, sort of.
1 Like
Not if they are in an area free of sparks, explosions, and flame no.
HOWEVER, a perforation to the tank would likely cause the fuel to leak and that would likely be set ablaze rather quickly, resulting in bare minimum the immolation of that flametrooper, if not everyone else nearby as well.
A large reduction to their ammo could in fact be very good for balance. After all, their purpose is to clear out enclosed or tight spaces such as bunkers and trenches, not entire fields like what players are using them for now…
I’m all for the reduction to flamethrower ammo capacity.
They actually already shoot less than historically, no reduction is needed, just stop letting us get caught on fire instantly, especially through walls
1 Like
IIRC, you’re all for the reduction (to uselessness) of EVERYTHING.
2 Likes
Simply not true. I’m interested in game balance. That includes nerfing thing that are simply too strong such as flamethrowers, and buffing things that are currently too weak, such as sandbag walls.
I’m going to put my two cents in.
The thing with flamethowers is… Well… Burning to death is seen as one of the most violent deaths out there (which to be fair… it is)
There’s no moral system in enlisted where player’s character’s freak out when seeing their buddies get burned to death, there’s no AI just fleeing in terror due to that. (shit if there was snipers would be also insane if they took out the NCO/CO (aka player) leading the A.I)
Flamethowers are very limited in what they can do while it might not seem like that, Somewhere such as tunsisa is a good hint of that, alot of the open map areas means flamethowers can’t be that effective, Moscow has a handful of air open, and places like berlin’s bridge map means flamethowers can be a bit limited in what they can do.
Flamethower’s Tier 1 comes with more fuel but less damage.
Flamethower’s Tier 2 comes with less fuel but more damage.
A trade off in general.
Flamethowers are hard to balance if you have small closed in maps that allow people to do CQC as they will get burned to hell (Plus I mean IRL flamethowers aren’t short range at all, if enlisted had IRL flamethower ranges oh boy.)
Yes and no. Within the game they are still pretty effective just by shooting them in the general direction of enemies.
My point with the sandbags is that through their usage, flamethrowers SHOULD be less effective due to lack of useful angles, however with how weak sandbag walls currently are, they don’t usually survive long enough to be a nuisance for flame troops. Similarly, barbwire should give them more grief than it does, but because of how easy it is to break, isn’t really an obstacle.
Actually, the tier 1 comes with more fuel because it has an 18m range.
Meanwhile, the tier 2 has less ammo because it has a 32m range.
BOTH of which is a pretty long range for a weapon that hits such a large area and is so devastating to infantry.
I saw a REALLY good suggestion a short while back on this a short while back though, which is to HALF the ammunition that flamethrowers get, forcing them to actually use it tactically, rather than just hosing down massive swaths of land for long periods of time.
If you want to bring IRL into this, you also need to consider that IRL flamethrowers were NOT on the front line. The assaulters and riflemen moved in first to clear the way, then flamethrowers were used to clear out bunkers and other strongpoints.
They were most definitely not used out in the open like they are in the game, or they would have been rapidly eliminated by machinegun and sniper fire. Though because fortifications don’t hold up hardly at all in this game, nor can you properly fortify a MG nest, or even slow down enemies in a field with barbwire and other hazards, they get away with it without repercussion.
" The portable type, carried on the backs of ground troops, had a range of about 45 yards (41 metres) and enough fuel for about 10 seconds of continuous “firing.” "- Flame thrower | Military Weapon, History & Uses | Britannica
"The flamethrower model M2 allows to reach a target at a distance of 20 meters for 7 seconds. " - https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/material/weaponry/m2-flamethrower/
“The M1 weighed 72 lb, had a range of 15 meters, and had a fuel tank capacity of five gallons. The improved M1A1 weighed less, at 65 lb, had a much longer range of 45 meters” - M1 flamethrower - Wikipedia
“It could project fuel up to 25 meters from the user, which was ignited by a hydrogen torch providing about 10 seconds of continuous use.”- Flammenwerfer 35 - Wikipedia
And… yes why would flame thowers be on the frontline when they’re more support related? Plus they had long ranges for that reason, To hit targets while keeping close to their allies, they were fired in arches for a good reason.
Simply put: If we were being realistic with the different flamethowers too, some would just blow and be useless as soon by a few of my posts while others would make you WISH we would keep this system of flamethowers.