Is it just me, or are flamethrowers currently too weak?

[Marcus Scholasticus]

Flamethrowers cost 30 supplies, which is 3 times the cost of 1 regular infantry regiment.
At the same time, flamethrowers require a lot of research and are therefore in competition with tanks or better aircraft.

When attacking enemy trenches, the special flame attack rarely works. Most of the time, they go straight into melee combat. As a result, they lose men very quickly.
It is far more effective to use regular soldiers to attack. these are cheaper and have more men in the unit, making them more useful in the long run.

Flamethrowers are also not cost-effective when defending your own trenches.
Although they use their flame attack relatively reliably, normal soldiers are still better suited to defend.
They simply have a longer range, can be used more flexibly and are cheaper.

In my opinion, flamethrowers would be more useful if the special flame attack was used during melee combat inside the trenches.
This expensive unit would then be useful for clearing trenches of enemy units.
The melee in the trenches is currently very monotonous, a special elite unit with flame attack could make this a little more exciting.

What do you think?

[Cronos341]

引用自 Yuithgf：

引用自 Cronos341：

the bigger stationary flamethrowers, as well as the very very rare tank that had them equipped (there were like 5 or something) had a range of about 100 yeards (90 meters) with enough fuel for about 1 min of fire

Oh crap i was too hung up on the earlier stuff i managed to miss that part.

Well it's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
And i don't have a specific source regarding the lifespan of flamethrower operators in ww1 but i suspect the 4 minutes thing is BS as well.

the 4 min number was is slightly biased as that life span specifically was data about US marine flamethrower operaters. didnt see the need to look up the average lifespan for each nation that used them. but what makes you think its BS? do you think its too high or low? cause the guy standing there shooting a big jet of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ fire is gonna attract alot of attention and gunfire. like thats not a debate of any kind. in fact in every war since ww1 flamethrowers have had a shorter life expectancy on the battlefield. cause you know, they real easy to see and most people dont want to be set on fire. so if you have any particular reason for thinking the number is just pulled out my can, im all ears. should be as easy for you to pull up average life span on google as it was for me

[Cronos341]

their maximum range is onlyachieved with the first ''volley'' (or whatever you call that for a flamethrower) [/quote]
yea ive not a clue what you call it without being punny

[Cronos341]

引用自 Yuithgf：

Such a shame the way this game handles morale. If it were to do it in a quasi total war way, a flamethrower could scare an enemy unit, they'd run away in panic for a bit then regroup. As is, they'll vanish into the aether

it would be interesting if when a unit ran away it added it back to the total number you could call in but with debuffs. sort of a "they got back to their trench only to be forced back into combat" type of thing

[Yuithgf]

引用自 Cronos341：

the 4 min number was is slightly biased as that life span specifically was data about US marine flamethrower operaters.

In what war? Because i don't recall americans using flamethrowers in battles in ww1... If they did it had to be in an incredibly limited capacity, which may mean the number isn't reflective of the overall war

引用自 Cronos341：

but what makes you think its BS? do you think its too high or low?

Too low. Assuming it's the average lifespan during an assault, if it's the average lifespan during a specific firefight... maybe? idk.

引用自 Cronos341：

so if you have any particular reason for thinking the number is just pulled out my can, im all ears. should be as easy for you to pull up average life span on google as it was for me

Oooooh gotcha, you got your numbers from the battle of iwo jima.
Explains what you were saying about ranges and tanks having flamethrowers earlier, you'Re going off ww2 data.

Well you said it yourself, every war after ww1 had flamethrowers have shorter lifespan than in ww1, by your own logic, it isnt reflective of ww1.

OH also, apparently that number is based on a single marine unit during the battle.
So no, i will not take the casualties a single marine unit took at iwo jima as indicative of the performance of ww1 flamethrowers on the western front.

[Marcus Scholasticus]

引用自 Yuithgf：

Such a shame the way this game handles morale. If it were to do it in a quasi total war way, a flamethrower could scare an enemy unit, they'd run away in panic for a bit then regroup. As is, they'll vanish into the aether

Chain rout through your own fleeing soldiers like in Rome Total War.
It would definitely improve the combat system and make psychological weapons more effective...

[Yuithgf]

引用自 Marcus Scholasticus：

Chain rout through your own fleeing soldiers like in Rome Total War.

coughs attack of the dead men coughs

But yeah, agreed... Could also improve on the system to make it more reflective of the war, for exmaple if your national will is in the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ units that are very low on morale could refuse to charge a trench if it has a decent amount of enemies in it. Also need a proper withdrawal system, which was also something rome total war had...

[Cronos341]

Oooooh gotcha, you got your numbers from the battle of iwo jima.
Explains what you were saying about ranges and tanks having flamethrowers earlier, you'Re going off ww2 data.

Well you said it yourself, every war after ww1 had flamethrowers have shorter lifespan than in ww1, by your own logic, it isnt reflective of ww1.

OH also, apparently that number is based on a single marine unit during the battle.
So no, i will not take the casualties a single marine unit took at iwo jima as indicative of the performance of ww1 flamethrowers on the western front. [/quote]
i was waiting for you to post this to save the time or trouble of getting ahead of it or editing.
so the numbers on range and such were indeed ww2. after a little further digging, according to Britannica, Quote:"Modern flame throwers first appeared in the early 1900s when the German army tested two models, one large and one small, submitted by Richard Fiedler. The smaller Flammenwerfer, light enough to be carried by one man, used gas pressure to send forth a stream of flaming oil for a distance of about 20 yards (18 metres). The larger model, based on the same principle, was cumbersome to transport but had a range of more than 40 yards (36 metres) and enough fuel for 40 seconds of continuous firing. The German army adopted these weapons and used them with surprise effect against Allied troops in 1915. The British and French soon countered with flame throwers of their own, but all the World War I types had limited range and duration of fire. Their chief effect seems to have been to terrorize the troops that they were used against." End Quote so it seems range and time wise is actually kinda between what we both were saying. as for average lifespan, yea, took the marines at a glance. honestly upon further digging its ALL i can find. like, its strange, i cant find ANY data on casualty rate/lifespan of a ww1 flamethrower outside of they were a very popular target for snipers (yea no duh). so honestly id just like to see some data. dont care if it proves me right or wrong now im just irked its not readly available

[Yuithgf]

Yeah sadly statistics this detailed are rarely available for ww1.
Differents parts of the army didn't even calculate casualties the same way at times.

[Cronos341]

引用自 Yuithgf：

Yeah sadly statistics this detailed are rarely available for ww1.
Differents parts of the army didn't even calculate casualties the same way at times.

i mean im not gonna sit here and pretend i have a clue about how they get the stats lol. always kinda boggled me a little

[Marcus Scholasticus]

引用自 Cronos341：

引用自 Yuithgf：

i mean im not gonna sit here and pretend i have a clue about how they get the stats lol. always kinda boggled me a little

You seem to have researched the subject of flamethrowers really well.
If the developers put some of that enthusiasm into improving the unit, that would be great!

[Cronos341]

引用自 Marcus Scholasticus：

引用自 Cronos341：

You seem to have researched the subject of flamethrowers really well.
If the developers put some of that enthusiasm into improving the unit, that would be great!

my research was acually a little slap dash and this thread is riddled with my mistakes. my ADHD tends to lean towards a "act now then put REAL thought into it" kinda way sometimes. that said, honestly there is shockingly little offical data on WW1 flamethrowers. what you can find though is a plethora of diary and journal entries of the time that really show how terrified people were of them as well as traumatized (though the whole war was the single greatest example of generational trauma happening en masse arguablly) but none of those personal stories really help us come up with offical data other than people were terrified of the guy that might set them and all their mates on fire, which tbh i didnt need a journal entriy to figure that out lol. burning to death is like, top o the list on ways i dont want to die

[Yuithgf]

Because they were considered an important top secret weapon by many countries, and they didnt want the enemy to learn about them in detail.

I think their top secret nature may have played the role in the fact french flamethrower troops participated in american assaults (instead of just training americans to use the weapon) but i don't have a source for it so take it with a grain of salt.

Once upon a time i doubted the russians/italians/austro hungarians even made use of flamethrowers before the war ended, info on a lot of these things is just not easily findable on the internet, especially if you only speak english.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

引用自 Marcus Scholasticus：

引用自 Yuithgf：

Such a shame the way this game handles morale. If it were to do it in a quasi total war way, a flamethrower could scare an enemy unit, they'd run away in panic for a bit then regroup. As is, they'll vanish into the aether

Chain rout through your own fleeing soldiers like in Rome Total War.
It would definitely improve the combat system and make psychological weapons more effective...

All of this. From both quotes.

I really wish morale was a bigger factor... it's usually easier to just kill a unit outright than break its morale. If units could route and regroup, it'd allow morale to be more flexible. But since that isn't a thing, here, it feels like morale just doesn't go down for much of anything. Tanks, and gas arty, can do it, but not a lot else really drops morale, and there are cheaper ways just to kill the units most of the time.

The advanced tech in the game is all over the place... siege arty is epic, tanks are useful in human hands (CPU kinda just throws them randomly at the player), but a lot else feels weak. For how much teching it takes, flamethrowers, stormtroops, etc., just don't seem better than light arty + trench rushing.

I think with some balancing, a lot will be improved, but right now the specialty infantry are way too expensive for what they do.

[Andreasrex1987]

i dont like how flamethrowers are implemented in the game.

There is also how once used, the burst of flame isnt consitrated at all. The animation for that dont look good.

From the historical video with french troops using flamethrowers (that was shared in this treath) you can see the jet of flame is far more focused than it is in game.

i would like that to be changed.
And also like them you to have more of a impact on moral.

In the book "The price of Glory" by Alistair Horne, which is about the battle of Verdun (brilliant book by the way - its almost written like novel in some parts which makes the whole thing more lively) he desribes how the german used flamethrowers at the start of the battle against the french - and it made them terrifered!
Can you imagine seen this weapon in action that you have had no traning for? That would make most hardy men run.

[Marcus Scholasticus]

引用自 Yuithgf：

Once upon a time i doubted the russians/italians/austro hungarians even made use of flamethrowers before the war ended, info on a lot of these things is just not easily findable on the internet, especially if you only speak english.

I know from German sources, that the Austro-Hungarian Empire had flamethrower units within their "Sturmtruppen". The tactics were adopted directly from the Germans.

Italy used a few flamethrowers against Austria in late 1918. At least that's what the German Wikipedia claims.

The internet is such a great place. People from all over the world come together and share their knowledge about the things that really matter.
Flamethrowers during WWI :D