M5 can suppress and is immune to small arms fire.
Flame HT can "leave fire dots" but loses to literally every single allied light vehicle or AT infantry unit in the game.
Same fuel cost too. Don't see why you have such a huge beef with flame HT. Did I mention they're nerfing its dmg to garrisons?
Okay, I will counter your argument with the same one:
Flame HT has two flamethrower and almost immume to small arm fire.
WASP has one flamethrower, but loses to every axis vehicle, AT infantry or snare infantry in the game.
WASP has higher mp cost over Flame HT. Don't see why you keep defending flame HT. Did I mention they're nerfing its cost further?
One more thing, I don't say that Flame HT upgrade cost reduction is not fine. What I want to say is FAIR and square. If flame HT get reduction in cost, its counterpart should get the same treatment, otherwise, leave it be.
In other word, I would suggest either one of these two:
- Restore back 120 ammo for HT flamethrowers.
- Reduce WASP flamethrower to 60 ammo(and vicker), as well as reduce M5 HT Quad cost to 90 ammo.
And I know the effectiveness of flame thrower HT. This buff may be necessary for some people, but there is limit of terrible balance judgement.
Relic Entertainment
