Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

Author Topic: anti-Tank Flamethrower  (Read 6681 times)

Offline Akalonor

  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 776
    • View Profile
anti-Tank Flamethrower
« on: May 19, 2010, 06:08:06 AM »
This has been discussed before in a different topic and the conclusion was an ability granted to a unit, my question what unit.
The selected unit will have the general abiities to -
-neutralize:Spews flame into vehicles engine causing destroyed engine and/or weapon
-Ignite:Sprays the ground over a short distance causing the ground to give fire damage for 10 seconds.
 Or anything of the sorts just be sure to post your ideas.
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.

Offline Versedhorison

  • Commissar
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2010, 11:00:31 AM »
No this is a retarded Idea of having a unit that can deal with EVERYTHING in the game. It's stupid an OP. stop thinking nonsense.

(sorry if this seems rude or very critical but I'm find the whole idea ridiculous)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 11:04:39 AM by Versedhorison »

[insert signature here]

Offline S1lv3rWolf

  • Ingenery
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
    • Blitzkrieg Mod
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2010, 12:07:38 PM »
No this is a retarded Idea of having a unit that can deal with EVERYTHING in the game. It's stupid an OP. stop thinking nonsense.

(sorry if this seems rude or very critical but I'm find the whole idea ridiculous)

saying that a flamethrower squad that can kill a tank's engine is OP is like saying that the AT-HT with a treadbreaker is OP, which it isn't, my initial idea for a "special" kind of squad would be the following:

Flammtruppen (I used the Pio page from CoH-Stats as base)
3 soldiers, 1 flamethrower and 2 MP40 with the same health (per man) as Wehr Pioneers, essentially this would mean they are as strong as the pioneers (210hp distributed to 3 men = 140hp to 2 men, each member of the squad would have 70hp, an officer alone has 140 i.e.).
"Aimed Burst" ability, a medium-cost munitions ability that could be used on vehicles, this would have a chance to damage the engine (yellow), a small chance of not doing damage to the engine at all, and a minimal chance of severely damaging the engine (red), the ability can be compared to the AT-HT's treadbreaker, only it doesn't immobilize the enemy tank completely, it just slows it down.
Popcap for these should probably be at min. 3, with a higher cost than the Wehr Pios (Pios = 120mp, these could be around twice the price, costing more than a usual wehr pio, but less than a wehr volk squad), like the german pioneers, they would be affected by the Negative Zeal, meaning the more of these are close, the more damage they would receive.
Of Course, unlike the pios they would not be able to do any kind of construction, as they are special :P


@Akalonor: I do not agree with the Ignite ability, as that would probably have to change the effects of the flamethrower to a level that other flamethrower units would want to have, it would affect infantry too easily.

Offline Seeme

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1880
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2010, 12:39:32 PM »
Stop yelling at Akalonor, he only did this because it was in a differnt post.

Anyway, to me, I really dont care. Its sounds cool though, but I dont know how that will work.
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...

Coh Name: Seeme

Offline Paciat

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1206
  • Without balance COH world will end!
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 12:43:52 PM »
saying that a flamethrower squad that can kill a tank's engine is OP is like saying that the AT-HT with a treadbreaker is OP,
How is a AT-HT treadbreaker OP?
British have BREN gun button, US sticky bomb and phosforus round.
AT-HT is 1 of the worst units in the game while a flamethrower that kills all infantry and stops tanks is OP.

Also a Pio squad that needs to retreat after loosing 2 men and cannot be stopped by a BREN carrier+MMG or a quick Struart will be OP.

Offline Akalonor

  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 776
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 03:42:04 PM »
The abilities I listed were just examples.
@Versedhorison Haven't you ever been told
 'If you have nothing nice to say don't bother saying anything at all!' :)
but really that was kind of rude.
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.

Offline Versedhorison

  • Commissar
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2010, 05:09:06 PM »
No this is a retarded Idea of having a unit that can deal with EVERYTHING in the game. It's stupid an OP. stop thinking nonsense.

(sorry if this seems rude or very critical but I'm find the whole idea ridiculous)

saying that a flamethrower squad that can kill a tank's engine is OP is like saying that the AT-HT with a treadbreaker is OP, which it isn't, my initial idea for a "special" kind of squad would be the following:

Flammtruppen (I used the Pio page from CoH-Stats as base)
3 soldiers, 1 flamethrower and 2 MP40 with the same health (per man) as Wehr Pioneers, essentially this would mean they are as strong as the pioneers (210hp distributed to 3 men = 140hp to 2 men, each member of the squad would have 70hp, an officer alone has 140 i.e.).
"Aimed Burst" ability, a medium-cost munitions ability that could be used on vehicles, this would have a chance to damage the engine (yellow), a small chance of not doing damage to the engine at all, and a minimal chance of severely damaging the engine (red), the ability can be compared to the AT-HT's treadbreaker, only it doesn't immobilize the enemy tank completely, it just slows it down.
Popcap for these should probably be at min. 3, with a higher cost than the Wehr Pios (Pios = 120mp, these could be around twice the price, costing more than a usual wehr pio, but less than a wehr volk squad), like the german pioneers, they would be affected by the Negative Zeal, meaning the more of these are close, the more damage they would receive.
Of Course, unlike the pios they would not be able to do any kind of construction, as they are special :P


@Akalonor: I do not agree with the Ignite ability, as that would probably have to change the effects of the flamethrower to a level that other flamethrower units would want to have, it would affect infantry too easily.

It appers people are forgetting some facts. Flame Throwers to start with are very effective against all infantry, buildings and anyone in buildings. With these proposed ideas of making a flame thrower unit effective against vehicles and tanks as well you are basically creating a unit that can deal with pretty much EVERYTHING. I shouldn't need to say it but it seems I do; once you make a 'super-unit' that is effective against almost all kinds of units in the game (and especially at a relatively modest cost) you've broken the game. All that would become of the game is people spamming this one unit a soon as its available and their opponent could do almost nothing.

The abilities I listed were just examples.
@Versedhorison Haven't you ever been told
 'If you have nothing nice to say don't bother saying anything at all!' :)
but really that was kind of rude.

Also I'm sorry if this seems rude but I'm not trying to shoot down peoples Idea's I just feel this one goes too far. Also not all critism can be what people want to hear.

[insert signature here]

Offline TheReaper

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2010, 05:27:46 PM »
It would be cool to heat up the enemy tanks, and when the crew abandoned the wehicle you can capture it. It would be cool to take the Pershing from the Jenkis. But I don't know if this possible to code it, I guess it's not.

Offline Enrique 'Blackbishop' E.

  • Administrator
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 12056
  • Community Manager, Programmer and Kicker
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2010, 05:50:05 PM »

It appers people are forgetting some facts. Flame Throwers to start with are very effective against all infantry, buildings and anyone in buildings. With these proposed ideas of making a flame thrower unit effective against vehicles and tanks as well you are basically creating a unit that can deal with pretty much EVERYTHING. I shouldn't need to say it but it seems I do; once you make a 'super-unit' that is effective against almost all kinds of units in the game (and especially at a relatively modest cost) you've broken the game. All that would become of the game is people spamming this one unit a soon as its available and their opponent could do almost nothing.

Well in fact as S1lv3rWolf stated they could have that kind of stats, also they must be covered(joint opps not lone wolf or spam-negative zeal) while engaging a tank. They wouldn't be "doom bringers" they can be shot down while flaming a tank, after all they must stand a few seconds shooting it like mechanics/engies/pios while repairing. Well the ignition ability seems to make the unit a little OP(on second thought it looks like flame grenade), but that could be solved limiting them to two units. All in all, I see this unit like a flame engineer but with the ability to damage tanks' engine, lesser health and in axis side.
Mors Indecepta

Might controls everything, and without strength you cannot protect anything. Let alone yourself...

Offline SauerKRAUT

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Id explain WWII to you but your head would explode
    • View Profile
    • 1st Spearhead Division
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2010, 11:11:01 PM »
Faces and Men of war use the flamethrower almost as described but the run out of ammo real quick like RL. IRL an flamethrower would for one catch fuel on fire if it got in the engine and secondly ANY small hole into the crew compartment and fire would leak in and not only burn but also destroy all the oxygen in the tank collapsing the crews lungs.

Relic, the all powerful god of history and physics which can be bent to their every whim!!
Relic name: SauerKRAUTSHD

Offline Akalonor

  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 776
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2010, 01:29:47 AM »
@Versidhorison
You are forgetting that the US Rangers are Uberbadasslolpwners of tanks and infantry.
The squad will be of limited range, in street warfare they would be very elite but in an open map they would be worthless.
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.

Offline Cranialwizard

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • Unknown Soldier
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2010, 04:50:33 AM »
Also, to prevent spams, maybe a higher pop cap or limit on production? (1 or 2 at a time?)
"Balancers are 10 a penny"

Offline BDNeon

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2010, 05:14:02 AM »
I wouldn't call Rangers exactly effective against both tanks and infantry. They do have the capacity to deal with both, but are generally inferior to dedicated infantry or tank killers in either area.

If flamethrowers are to be effective against armor, they'd have to have their potency against infantry and structures reduced.

Offline Versedhorison

  • Commissar
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2010, 05:33:46 AM »
@Versidhorison
You are forgetting that the US Rangers are Uberbadasslolpwners of tanks and infantry.
The squad will be of limited range, in street warfare they would be very elite but in an open map they would be worthless.

Not really I find Puma's, PE armoured Cars, Ostwinds, KCH and tanks being supported take care of those units fine. Also once you force them to fire up and if you can avoid them until it runs out they are dead or they will have to retreat. Besides since I'm a 1v1 player I hardly ever let my opponent get more that one ranger/airbourne squad unless I'm losing. The only annoying spams for me are Pio Spams (which get flamethrowers by mid game) if I'm playing as british but I usually go for bren's to count

I wouldn't call Rangers exactly effective against both tanks and infantry. They do have the capacity to deal with both, but are generally inferior to dedicated infantry or tank killers in either area.

If flamethrowers are to be effective against armor, they'd have to have their potency against infantry and structures reduced.

If you are changing flamethrowers to do the opposite job of what they are supposed to be doing (making them effective against tanks rather than infantry and buildings) then you are modifying the core aspects of the game mechanics and breaking the game. er it.

[insert signature here]

Offline Akalonor

  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 776
    • View Profile
Re: anti-Tank Flamethrower
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2010, 05:56:33 AM »
Rangers + Dual zooks  can almost always lolpwn my tanks &infantry, I once lost a Pz IV, a Grenadier squad and a Volks squad to the same group ofRangers.I think it was on Hedgerow map where the #1 call-in spot is only 1 sector away from 3&4 . They just took out all of my rear defenses one at a time :p
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.