[PE] Chemical fire

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[FailHammer]

Worth it?
Right now inc nades suck ass balls and taints vs units in bldgs and only get squads to dodge in the open, the mtht inc bar is good but spread is unpredictable. Is it worth it to buff one mtht and a few inc nades?

[CrazyWR]

if you don't plan on using a ton of fire, no.  However, I loved using it before the last reset.  I believe it buffs the IST shell as well as the mortar shell and incendiary nades.  Give every infantry squad you have incendiaries and you'll definitely notice an improvement over before.  Toss them early and often especially since you get an extra one. 

[CafeMilani]

incendary nades do not suck at all

[FailHammer]

hows that aloha, im looking to utilize this better, so specifics would be appreciated

[EliteGren]

CF Incendiaries are retarded. Throw 2 of them on a repairing tank and they will kill the tank faster than it can repair, already 1 offsets the repairspeed.

It will probably be looked into because this doctrine ability just feels way out of line. it should affect more units with lowered bonuses.

[CrazyWR]

yea thats true too, a chem fire inc. nade will always kill a 5% vehicle.

[FailHammer]

Why are inc nades so poor vs shit in bldgs? I want to get better w my nade usage

[Unkn0wn]

Is this a balance discussion or a strategy discussion? I can't tell  .

Also, please TAGS in front of your title.

[lionel23]

Grenades are hit or miss on units in buildings depending how they bunch up.  Example a large building with say a lot of windows on a corner and the MG team or squad is firing from the corner.  Throwing a nade into a building then will most likely hit everyone window, as opposed to a building with one window on each side and your nade might scratch or only kill one guy.

Nades I find are best used against units in the open and in cover (ie outside of buildings and stationary, like an LMG team or HMG/Mortar/ATG team OR blob where a miss will still hit someone).  Also with CF nades, their advantage over regular nades is that say I have a ranger squad in cover and you run up and throw a grenade at me.  I will react and dodge the nade but the fire will deter me from running back into cover while you use it against me, that's the best use for fire nades.

[Mysthalin]

CF Incendiaries are retarded. Throw 2 of them on a repairing tank and they will kill the tank faster than it can repair, already 1 offsets the repairspeed.

It will probably be looked into because this doctrine ability just feels way out of line. it should affect more units with lowered bonuses.

That's more to do with CF incendiaries being bugged in that they deal full damage to tanks ;p.

[gamesguy2]

CF Incendiaries are retarded. Throw 2 of them on a repairing tank and they will kill the tank faster than it can repair, already 1 offsets the repairspeed.

It will probably be looked into because this doctrine ability just feels way out of line. it should affect more units with lowered bonuses.

That's more to do with CF incendiaries being bugged in that they deal full damage to tanks ;p.

That's not a bug. 

[FailHammer]

This was a question, thats all. You may classify it any way you wish.

I see the use in getting units out of cover, but the CF doesnt really help there at all. they dodge and cant return to the cover for the duration of the firefight. Longer lasting fire doesnt really help there, nor does damage inc.

I am of the opinion that flame nades should be a little better vs units in bldgs. They dont have much exploding dam so they have little use vs squads, and they fail pretty hard vs units in bldgs. I have tried the throw in face tactic and i rarely kill even one guy(mg team usually). Reg nades do a better job. Just think the utility could be slightly improved w/o WTFop borking them.

[Mysthalin]

That's not a bug. 

Lol wtf, it's intended chemical fire made incendiary nades into AT nades?

[gamesguy2]

That's not a bug. 

Lol wtf, it's intended chemical fire made incendiary nades into AT nades?

Yes, when the ability was created it was deemed too weak, so threw that in but ran out of room to on the doctrine description sheet since it was already ridiculously long.

It's not an AT nade however, as the vehicle would have to sit in the fire for quite a while for the incendiary nade to do significant damage.

[Mysthalin]

It has decent enough initial damage so you can use CF incendiary spam to ward off injured or low-health-by-default tanks..

I haz an evil idea for my next great spam coy ^^.

[gamesguy2]

It has decent enough initial damage so you can use CF incendiary spam to ward off injured or low-health-by-default tanks..

I haz an evil idea for my next great spam coy ^^.

The impact damage does nothing to tanks.

[Ununoctium]

It has decent enough initial damage so you can use CF incendiary spam to ward off injured or low-health-by-default tanks..

I haz an evil idea for my next great spam coy ^^.

The impact damage does nothing to tanks.

yeah but the halftrack sees a repairing tank, dumps out its boys with fire nades and bam. Unlike before when you had to buy at nades or shrecks.

[Demon767]

already in the process of making the spam coy myst :p

[FailHammer]

What about the mechanics of inc damage anyway, does it work on crits like pios/engies or dam over time. If over time how fast, and what is the actual increase in dps as the flame lasts longer.

[FailHammer]

lol, this thread is a fuckin drifter.

But back to the topic, chemical fire sucks then