Yes, and they were particularily good at it because they could instantly incinerate a person. They instilled fear in the enemy. The ones in-game are like the toys Elon sold. The flamethrower kills so slowly that the burning enemies can just gun you down. They are almost useless at incinerating people directly. Soldiers IRL did not bring flamethrowers just to light fires in doorways; they brought them to kill; to clear out enemies in CQ.
I agree - they were mainly used to put the fear of burning death into people and/or asphyxiate them - driving them out of fortifications to surrender or be killed in the open, or suffocating/burning them to death if they stay inside.
Given that in game we’re supposedly not going to be dealing with long-term effects of burns, nor either (at least for now) smoke suffocation, let’s stick to the immediate damage dealt by the fire stream.
I think the PERCEIVED ineffectiveness of flamethrowers is mainly due to players expecting that, if within range, hosing a group of enemies in a restricted area should either kill them all outright or at least incapacitate them by setting them on fire.
In game, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Unless the targets are a group of clueless AI, storming a room with a flamethrower usually results in the death of the flametrooper due to some enemy surviving and immediately shooting back.
First, I have to agree with the OP that the actual damage cone feels narrower than you’d think by looking at the visual effect of flames, to the point that it feels more like a straight line rather than a cone.
Also, I’m not sure of the actual “rate of fire”. I’m assuming that the game calculates the fire stream not as a continuous flux, but rather as a serie of slow projectiles, therefore if I swipe too fast from side to side, I could end up “missing” a target, like it happens with an SMG.
Then comes the actual killing/incapacitating factor. Gameplay wise, I think it’s reasonable that fire takes a few seconds to kill, and that the victim has a chance to extinguish flames and survive if given the chance. Yet, the deal breaker here is that being engulfed in flames still allows to shoot back, without even aiming penalties, which doesn’t make sense.
Imho, flamethrowers don’t need “one-tap” killing power, but they definitely need one-tap INCAPACITATING power. In the aforementioned example, If I storm a room and successfully hose everybody before being shot, I shouldn’t worry about immediate retaliation by those I hit. Hitting a soldier with the fire stream should guarantee setting him on fire, which in turn should work just like being downed: severe movement limitation, no action allowed unless putting out the fire first. Or, at the very least, while on fire there should be a severe distortion to visual and aiming, kinda like the effect of a nearby explosion.
At the same time, “environmental” fire (flames on floor, walls, objects) should still deal severe damage but NOT setting soldiers on fire unless standing into flames for at least one-two seconds. This would also reduce the chances of the flametrooper accidentally setting himself alight.
1 Like
There are two things that really make flamethrowers useless for offense. One, they don’t do AOE damage to enclosed spaces, and two, being on fire incurs no penalties besides an orange screen.
Flamethrowers are borderline useless in their historic role, which was hardpoint capture. Instead, they are only really usable as a defensive tool to deny areas (which isn’t all that realistic to begin with since WW2 fuel was nowhere near as adhesive as napalm) or to jump a corner and spray down a bunch of AI.
First and foremost, they should provide some form of malus when you are on fire. At the very least you shouldn’t be able to aim down sights, possibly even apply some form of hipfire penalty.
Second, flamethrowers should inflict some form of area damage to enclosed spaces. Shooting a flamethrower into a bunker currently does nothing besides blocking the way in for your team. No damage is inflicted if the enemy isn’t directly in your line of sight, probably shooting you in the chest with a rifle.
If Gaijin is able to model the offensive capabilities of the flamethrower correctly, they should also nerf the catch fire chance that it has on surfaces. It’s a detriment to offensive play and is pretty annoying and cheesy to pull one out to deny a bunker. I’ve captured multiple points on D-Day just burning the entrances with no support and I think that’s pretty silly.
They’d be way too strong if they did AOE in enclosed spaces, but they honestly should just instant kill you if they direct hit you in the same way it does in RO2.
Except Napalm was used in flamethrowers in WW2… “Napalm was used in flamethrowers, bombs and tanks in World War II.” to quote Wiki, but its common knowledge that it was commonly used by allied forces in WW2.
seriously. weak my ass. i got one shot by flame thrower all the time. yes it’s short range. but if it hit you. you death.
I totally agree, we get 2 flamethrower units per loadout (Okay, now 4 on normandy potentially), compared to being able to equip an SMG soldier in every single squad (even tankers). We can allow them to be more powerful.
I’d definitely like to be rewarded for shooting and hitting the enemy first, as he can do the same to me.
As of right now it feels quite odd to just get mowed down by your burning-alive enemy and then him having ample time to put the fire out.
I remember just walking through a molotov-cocked door, and then going around the corner while burning alive, shooting the thrower twice with a lever-action, and then putting the fire out. It’s ridiculous.
They’d be way too strong if they did AOE in enclosed spaces, but they honestly should just instant kill you if they direct hit you in the same way it does in RO2.
I disagree, that is just a matter of how much damage they do. If they did slow dps from suffocation and proximity burning then they would be fairly balanced imo.
Except Napalm was used in flamethrowers in WW2… “Napalm was used in flamethrowers, bombs and tanks in World War II.” to quote Wiki, but its common knowledge that it was commonly used by allied forces in WW2.
Except it was only sometimes used. Traditionally US flamethrowers used gasoline and nitrogen. The advent of napalm in WW2 was in air to ground munitions. While it’s true napalm was employed by handheld weapons in the Pacific, that’s not quite D-Day in France.
At least people shouldnt be able to use their guns while being on fire.
1 Like
Ah, I see that you, too, are a person of style and taste.
1 Like