Why Flamming Attacks are not Good
Permanent Flaming Attacks are often a downgrade, and I think people underestimate how bad they can be
Flaming Attacks can absolutely be useful. The problem is when they're permanently attached to a unit with no way to turn them off.
First, it's important to understand how resistances actually work, because resistance and weakness aren't symmetrical.
Let's take a unit with 1000 HP taking 100 fire damage per hit:
Normal : 100 damage --> 10 hits to kill
50% Fire Weakness: 150 damage --> ~7 hits
50% Fire Resistance: 50 damage --> 20 hits
So 50% resistance is effectively +100% effective HP, while 50% weakness is only around -33% effective HP.
This matters even with smaller values.
A unit with 20% Fire Weakness takes 120 damage instead of 100. That's nice, obviously, but it's not some enormous advantage. And 20% weakness is basically the standard situation : regeneration gives 20% Fire Weakness, and Kindleflame from the Lore of Fire also applies 20% Fire Weakness.
This is where Flaming Attacks can be genuinely good.
If you're playing the Empire with a Fire Wizard, for example, or using Archaon with Lore of Fire, Kindleflame can effectively give your army +20% damage against the affected enemies if your units have Flaming Attacks. Against regenerating units, you can get the same kind of benefit naturally.
So I'm not arguing that Flaming Attacks are bad by themselves.
I'm arguing that permanent Flaming Attacks are bad design mechanically, because the risk/reward is heavily skewed.
You sometimes/often get around 20% more damage in favorable situations, but when you run into meaningful Fire Resistance, you can suddenly deal much less damage, and that can completely change a matchup.
And there's already a solution to this : the Flaming Attacks banner.
You can equip it when Flaming Attacks are useful and simply not use it when they're detrimental. That's how the mechanic makes sense : Flaming Attacks become a situational tool instead of an unavoidable weakness.
Having permanent Flaming Attacks basically means accepting a small/moderate advantage in some matchups in exchange for a potentially massive, game-changing disadvantage in others.
That's the part I don't think is balanced well.
The healing reduction from Flaming Attacks is also pretty much a joke and doesn't really compensate for the downside.
It's even worse for missile units. Most units with regeneration are already good targets for missiles anyway, often because they're large and easy to focus down. So having your missiles permanent Flaming Attacks often gives you very little additional value against the targets they're supposed to counter, while potentially destroying their damage output against anything with significant Fire Resistance.
That's why permanent Flaming Attacks on missile units are especially bad most of the time.
EDIT :
The Title should be : "Why PERMANENT Flamming Attacks are not Good" since this is what I meant.
Since a lot of the replies seem to be arguing from general impressions rather than actually addressing the mechanic, I want to clarify my point and add some concrete examples.
I'm not saying Flaming Attacks are never useful. I'm saying permanent, non-toggleable Flaming Attacks are not inherently a strength. There are situations where you absolutely want them, which is exactly why the game has the Flaming Attacks banne r: you can choose when to use them.
The problem is when you cannot turn them off.
LegendofTotalWar has made basically the same point. In this video he says:
>"I have said this so many times before: Flaming Attacks are not a strength. At all."
https://youtu.be/ohfVYIt19jA?si=tN4fddy1l_yqBZfx&t=283
And he immediately demonstrates why. Azazel is struggling against Valkia, so Legend replaces a Talisman of Preservation with a grey/common Dragonbane item giving 35% Fire Resistance. That supposedly mediocre item suddenly becomes extremely valuable because Valkia has permanent Flaming Attacks. With the extra Fire Resistance, Azazel is then able to destroy her in a 1v1.
That is exactly my point : Fire Resistance does not need to be widespread across an entire roster to matter. One important resistant unit can completely change a battle if your best damage source is forced to deal fire damage.
Here is another example where bringing Flaming Attacks into a target with Fire Resistance creates a disaster for the player:
https://youtu.be/P_72ClxkgVg?si=Gs3WSCM2PrsWLqkQ
I also think the resistance/weakness math is being overlooked. Resistance and weakness are not symmetrical. For example, 50% Fire Resistance means +100% effective HP against fire, while 50% Fire Weakness only means about -33% effective HP. So the downside of hitting meaningful Fire Resistance can be much larger than the upside of hitting a typical fire weakness.
And Fire Resistance is not limited to a couple of innate roster traits either. It can come from items, skills, traits, technologies, characters and faction effects. You don't need 20 resistant units in an army for it to matter. Sometimes the one unit that matters most is the resistant one.
So again, my argument is not:
"Flaming Attacks are always bad."
It's:
"Permanent Flaming Attacks that cannot be toggled are often more of a liability than a bonus."
If I can choose when to use fire damage, great. That's what the banner is for. If I'm permanently forced to use it, then a situational tool has become a built-in weakness.
Also, the point of this post isn't to ask for a rework of the mechanic or anything like that. It's simply to explain how it actually works, because a lot of people in the comments genuinely seem to treat permanent Flaming Attacks as an inherent upgrade, when they really aren't.
And if you're going to disagree with that, the bare minimum is to bring actual arguments and evidence, not just a feeling or an impression —especially if you've only been playing the game for two weeks.