Why the flamer HT is not addressed in WBP?
Posts: 392
Posts: 4928
If it's wiping your squads then you are way out of position and not well prepared.
Posts: 392
If it's wiping your squads then you are way out of position and not well prepared.
So all the light vehicles should not be nerffed by applying this shit theory.
Posts: 4928
So all the light vehicles should not be nerffed by applying this shit theory.
It doesn't have the DPS to wipe unless you're not paying attention, or way overextended.
Posts: 851 | Subs: 1
Just keep your distance man
Posts: 392
OP, you are kidding right?
Just keep your distance man
We are talking about balace, right?
Why do they nerf M20,M15 AA,M5 Quad, Luch and T70 in WBP while you can just keep your distance or build an ATG to prevent them from wiping your squad or counter them?
I would like to quote the reasons in WBP to nerf these unit.
M17 Quad:
"We wanted to tone down the performance of the Quad to be in-line with Light Tanks and other suppression platforms. In order to make infantry counters to this unit viable, the M17 can no longer suppress enemy squads on the move."from WBP
Just keep your distance man?
T70:
"We feel that the T-70’s high damage and AOE allowed it to wipe infantry too effectively, particularly if they are clumped in cover."from WBP
Just keep your distance man again?
The flamer HT's high damage and DOT also allowed it to wipe infantry too effectively particular if they are clumped in buildings and covers. lollll
The patch is too stupid, nothing to say more.
Posts: 392
It doesn't have the DPS to wipe unless you're not paying attention, or way overextended.
Every light vehicle get nerf in WBP also don't have the DPS to wipe unless you're not paying attention, or way overextended.
Posts: 4928
M17 Quad:
"We wanted to tone down the performance of the Quad to be in-line with Light Tanks and other suppression platforms. In order to make infantry counters to this unit viable, the M17 can no longer suppress enemy squads on the move."from WBP
Just keep your distance man?
T70:
"We feel that the T-70’s high damage and AOE allowed it to wipe infantry too effectively, particularly if they are clumped in cover."from WBP
Just keep your distance man again?
The M17 AAHT had instant suppression and full mobility, which while you could retreat from, was unfair because it was a almost a force-retreat on any infantry it could see. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the T-70 because it was a glass cannon, but it did have very good DPS and could wipe a retreating squad if it got a few good hits in. The Flame Half-Track is neither of these things and has half the range as well. It is a non-issue.
Posts: 593
Posts: 1108
Posts: 5279
how often do you lose models/squads to a Molotov
there is your answer why
burst damage relying on RNG (goes both ways)
flame damage relies on your enemy sticking around and getting burned
the counterplay for a FHT is to move, for other lights it was retreating
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Posts: 392
how often do you lose models/ squads to a grenade/ mortar?
how often do you lose models/squads to a Molotov
there is your answer why
burst damage relying on RNG (goes both ways)
flame damage relies on your enemy sticking around and getting burned
the counterplay for a FHT is to move, for other lights it was retreating
Air supremacy before totally relies on enemy sticking around on a big red circle on map, hence it get nerfed, why?
P47 totally relies on enemy's tank AFKing, but it get nerfed, why?
WASP before totally relies on enemy sticking around also, yet it get nrefed, why?
The counterplay of the above examples is to move only and they all get nerfed due to axis players whining.
Well, I finally notice complaining Axis unit is not acceptable on the forum. I am guilty ,sorry.
Posts: 392
The M17 AAHT had instant suppression and full mobility, which while you could retreat from, was unfair because it was a almost a force-retreat on any infantry it could see. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the T-70 because it was a glass cannon, but it did have very good DPS and could wipe a retreating squad if it got a few good hits in. The Flame Half-Track is neither of these things and has half the range as well. It is a non-issue.
The flame HT is more lethal and potent than you think of. Actually its damage output is even more consistent than T-70. It can wipe a retreating squad and have very good DPS that totally not rely on RNG and can 100% wipe out garrisoned team weapon that can't leave the building before the first hit.
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
Elsewhere, it's a fragile, high-cost, high-risk investment.
Technically the flamerHT has been nerfed in three ways, though, indirectly:
- Improvements to squad spacing (obviously doesn't affect garrisoned squads)
- Availability of 222. If you go flamerHT, you probably can't afford the necessary 222's needed to protect your flanks.
- Soviets and Brits now get better access to anti-vehicle capability regardless of tier pick (Penal PTRS, UKF PIATs, UKF AEC)
I don't think that anti-garrison damage is such a major concern though. We will try to address this more thoroughly though in the future, if/when we are given the chance to normalize flamer-vehicle damage across the board (Flamehetzer )
Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4
Permanently BannedPosts: 1585 | Subs: 1
Posts: 51
OP you have gotten some good feedback here, especially in Mr. Smith's comment. If you are having problems with the FHT still please post in the Replay Review section of the forum. My feeling on this unit is that it is completely fine and its power is well moderated by its low health and high vulnerability.
+1
Posts: 392
OP you have gotten some good feedback here, especially in Mr. Smith's comment. If you are having problems with the FHT still please post in the Replay Review section of the forum. My feeling on this unit is that it is completely fine and its power is well moderated by its low health and high vulnerability.
This is a balance issue. I can deal with it doesn't mean anything. It will be simply op when compare to other nerfed light vehicle in WBP.
Posts: 401
- The UC can be easily dealt with LVs, but then you'll have to rush LVs, which relatively starts the whole LV meta (Not saying it's the direct reason, just a small contribution to it)
- The flamer HT basically has the same problem like the UC, while also has more lethality that the UC (300 degree turning guns while faster than the UC). To be honest, I would rather want to see the 251 being a small-arm-immunity reinforcement halftrack with no flamer upgrade. Maybe give it a 38mm AT upgrade (Basically the Raketen on top of its now open top when upgraded) rather than the flamer.
- Hetzer got its limited turret-cone like the UC, but seeing it can take down one of its counterpart easily (AT guns), it's one of many reason why you rather rush for tanks than get AT guns.
- The Churchill Crocodile has the same problem like the Hetzer, except being way more bucky, which make it less risky when yolo charging than the Hetzer.
In all honesty, Flamer should only be issues to Engineer units and incendiary barrage for mortar units.
Livestreams
88 | |||||
20 | |||||
14 | |||||
7 | |||||
3 | |||||
124 | |||||
69 | |||||
15 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.883398.689+5
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, strzlagx81
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM