Are flame tanks better anti tank units than stealth tanks?

[Marinealver]

It may be me but it seems like Flame tanks are better tank busters than stealth tanks. Now I know none of them are a direct counterpart to GDI Mammoth tank, but when I think of flame units I think of a unit that annihilates infantry and eliminated buildings. So the weakness is against other tanks. The Stealth tank seems more of a fit for taking on the largest GDI Medium and Mammoth tanks. Still I seem to take more damage from a flame tank than a stealth tank.

I don't know it just seem counter intuitive to me. Maybe there is a gameplay balance reason for this. I would say just increase building and infantry damage to compensate for lower heavy damage. I don't know if that was already tried before.

[NodSaibot]

Depends per map. Some maps are bigger and have more paths for stanks to traverse, hide on and ambush from. Other maps have small, tight corridors that have lots of chokepoints that allow flame tanks to hold. IMO, flame tanks are good for holding positions and locking down an area. Stanks are good for surprise and hit-and-run tactics.

[djlaptop]

Even putting heavily-armored tanks like the Mammoth Tank aside, let's say you're on Field and GDI is sending a MRLs to the Nod base. A flame tank could EASILY wipe out that MRLs in just a couple of seconds, in fact once it's in range it's difficult for the MRLs to even target the flame tank back. But any competent MRLs driver will see the flame tank coming from miles away and destroy it before it gets in range.

Rather thank thinking of the flame tank's strengths as annihilating buildings & infantry but being weak against tanks, think of its strength as its firepower but its weakness is range. 

The stealth tank CAN take down a mammoth but if the mammoth reacts immediately and hits all its shots, a single stank won't stand a chance. A stealth tank's strength is its invisibility and speed, weaknesses include difficult aim on small targets (like infantry) and pitiful HP.