A Path Beyond Grenadier

[des1206]

Do Grenadiers have any good uses in non-infantry only maps? I feel other existing low-tier infantries already fill the unit's niche.

[forg0ten1]

Do Grenadiers have any good uses in non-infantry only maps? I feel other existing low-tier infantries already fill the unit's niche.

i like buying them so i can jump out of helicopters and become a human bomb, since they explode on death

[FRAYDO]

Five Grenadiers jumping out of a Chinook = Parabombs

[moonsense715]

Five Grenadiers jumping out of a Chinook = Parabombs

I've yet to see that once. Chinook dropping them on top of an on-foot infantry squad

[Ice]

When the grenades are well-aimed, I find they're good for defending buildings from infiltrators since they have longer range than Starshinas and are faster/cheaper than Kapitans, and the grenade's AoE allows it to easily harm multiple enemies at once. Instead of rushing straight into the MCT room to fight the attacker(s), chuck a few grenades in there first and the enemy will quickly find themselves in bad shape.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Ice

[OWA]

Grenadiers are pretty situational. The problem is that they don't fit a clearly defined role like the rest of the infantry in the game, so they are somewhat floaty.

[Raap]

Five Grenadiers jumping out of a Chinook = Parabombs

 

If only their death explosions dealt damage to buildings...

[Isaac The Madd]

Increase the damage of the death explosion please.

[delta]

Do Grenadiers have any good uses in non-infantry only maps? I feel other existing low-tier infantries already fill the unit's niche.

A little while ago I used a grenadier to guard the narrow path to Soviet refinery on KOTG...it worked pretty well, as I ended up killing the truck and both guys who were in it, due to the confined space.

 

On an unrelated note, I think the grenadier is the one unit in the game whose cost is not a multiple of 50?

[ganein14]

True, but almost all units are multiples of 20, and all of them are multiples of 10

[Raap]

It's a legacy thing. Back in the old days, APB has unit pricing which mirrored Red Alert unit prices. The Grenadiers seems to have slipped through the cracks of time and fallen into the "Wait, we got this unit?" category. Seriously, it's probably the second least used unit, following the Radar Jammer. But at least the Grenadier has it's use.

 

I got an idea! It's ground breaking! here it comes!

 

Let's lower the Grenadier cost, from 160, to... 150! This will totally make them a more regular appearance. (But it'll at least make unit costs more consistent across the game.)

[gammae102]

I think one of the problems is that the things Grenadier sorta has the same niche as the Flamethrower. Make the Grenadier too good, and it becomes basically a half-priced Flamethrower. One idea that I liked, which was floated around during great Rocket Soldier debate, was to make Grenadiers still purchasable after Barracks destruction. The problem then becomes that the Allies don't have any equivalent to this. I wonder if the Grenadier could actually replace the Starshina after Barracks destruction, being that they both seem to excel at close-quarters infantry combat?

[Einstein]

Interesting thoughts. The Grenadier is definitely one that has always been hard to "nail down" in my mind, concerning a role.

 

Speaking of the "great rocket soldier debate", I like how after such a fuss was made, to the point that the game was actually changed because of it, the person that wanted the change hasn't been back! Just an observation.

[ganein14]

If the grenadier wasn't a unit in the RA game, I'd say remove it, but the only times I've ever actually bought and used it were on infantry only maps like Fissure when the silos were dead. Just as a poor man's flamethrower

Edited March 3, 2016 by ganein14

[Pushwall]

If the engine actually handled "elasticity" on weapons in a remotely sensible manner, then Grenadiers would probably see more use in tight quarters. But as it stands, giving grenades elasticity just seems to cause them to slide along walls instead of bounce off them, and slide along floors until they touch a slight bump and get catapulted 20m into the air (remember ye olde Volknades?), instead of skipping off floors. Which is why grenades are now set to explode on impact, making them not so different from flamers.

The Red Alert implementation doesn't leave much to the imagination either - they were basically the same thing as Flamethrowers but cheaper and faster and less powerful, and that's how they are here. Inventing a new niche for either unit is pretty hard when everything they could possibly do is already covered by all of the other Soviet infantry. Well, except for things that just don't make sense like making the grenade act like a medic kit, mechanic wrench or Tanya pistol.

 

I wonder if the Grenadier could actually replace the Starshina after Barracks destruction, being that they both seem to excel at close-quarters infantry combat?

But the Grenadier is also horrible at damaging MCTs (worse than everything else except Volkov's AT gun) while the Starshina is tied with the Sergeant as one of the best. You greatly hamper their chances of a comeback by doing that. And if they were actually any good at MCT dismantling then they would, as you said, displace the Flamethrower.

Increase the damage of the death explosion please.

It was reduced from Gamma's "lol i nuke all intruders in my buildings with zero effort needed" damage for a reason.

 

 

 

So I'm thinking:

• Remove Grenadier
• Have the RPG Trooper cannibalize his model, since the Grenadier has a unique one while the RPG Trooper just has a texture swap of the rifleman
• Replace RPG Trooper/Sniper's limited-ammo Makarov with limited-ammo Grenades (about 8-10?)
• Remove anti-tank damage from Grenades since they're now a pistol replacement

RPG Troopers might be a bit more fearsome to infantry in close quarters as a result but Snipers will have to be careful due to the whole "splash damage is twice as effective with no armour" thing. And both have to be careful in buildings due to lag. Either way, grenades still exist and one of the two units they're attached to is still a "grenadier" in several respects.

[Ice]

I completely disagree with the idea of removing the Grenadier. He's a Red Alert unit and needs to stay, and his removal would disrupt the infantry balance and require yet another grueling session of balance testing.

 

Aside from that, what exactly is people's problem with the Grenadier? He's a jack of all trades, which is exactly what I like about using him; He can fill multiple roles while not being too powerful in any single role, and doesn't need to be shoehorned into a specific niche. Plus I just generally find him fun to play as.

 

Personally I'd say leave him as-is. He's not causing any real issues, he fills multiple roles and doesn't seem OP in any particular way, and he offers a unique play-style. IMO it feels like people are just fishing for problems that don't actually exist.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Ice

[Einstein]

I share the feeling that "he was in RA1 so don't take him out". Would it hurt anything to simply make changes to the other roles as suggested (a limited number of non-AT 'nades) but leave the grenadier in as well?

[ganein14]

I share the feeling that "he was in RA1 so don't take him out". Would it hurt anything to simply make changes to the other roles as suggested (a limited number of non-AT 'nades) but leave the grenadier in as well?

So why not make him a little bit like Volkov with dedicated AT and AP 'nades and see how that works for a test?

[Ice]

 

I share the feeling that "he was in RA1 so don't take him out". Would it hurt anything to simply make changes to the other roles as suggested (a limited number of non-AT 'nades) but leave the grenadier in as well?

So why not make him a little bit like Volkov with dedicated AT and AP 'nades and see how that works for a test?

 

So have the current F1 grenade for anti-personnel, and an RPG-6 (an AT hand grenade, not to be confused with the other 'RPG') or RKG-3 for anti-tank (probably with shorter range than the F1)?

Edited March 4, 2016 by Ice

[Mojoman]

I like to the grenadier >.> I'd take him over a Starshina unless it's an MCT building rush.

[FRAYDO]

What if the Grenadier was given clearing charges? One could say his grenades are enough for anti-tank mines, but what of the option of a specialized explosive designed to better tackle anti-tank mines as well as destroying hedgehogs?

 

Given the explosive death he already has, it wouldn't be any different with the added munition and still remain characteristic.

 

Of course, if grenades already clear hedgehogs well enough then that would make my suggestion null.

[Mojoman]

I haven't seen anyone really use the engineer to clear mines, so that could be a good idea.

[Raap]

Crazy idea; Give the "Grenadier" an MP-5 equivalent (a weapon that sits between the standard rifle and officer machine gun), and turn the Grenades into ammo-limited, but more powerful explosives. This way, Flamethrowers maintain longer staying-power and building damage superiority, but it gives Grenadiers powerful burst damage potential, with a secondary backup weapon. In this case, it'd need a price bump to 200 or so.

[Pushwall]

I completely disagree with the idea of removing the Grenadier. He's a Red Alert unit and needs to stay

 

Then we rename the RPG Trooper to the Grenadier since he would then be using two types of "grenades" plus the Strela. After all, the RPG Trooper wasn't a Red Alert unit. (Soviet Rocket Soldiers were, but only in multiplayer due to some misguided belief that the Soviets would be too weak if they were missing some unit that was insignificant due to not being called a Heavy Tank.)

 

his removal would disrupt the infantry balance

Citation needed. He gets used far too rarely for his existence to have any noteworthy impact on the balance. Just like the MRJ, but at least the MRJ does something that no other Allied unit does.

 

I share the feeling that "he was in RA1 so don't take him out". Would it hurt anything to simply make changes to the other roles as suggested (a limited number of non-AT 'nades) but leave the grenadier in as well?

Thing is, giving the RPG Trooper/Sniper limited grenades would just detract from what little uniqueness the Grenadier has if the Grenadier wasn't removed.

 

What if the Grenadier was given clearing charges?

What if the Engineer was given clearing charges? How do they fit the Grenadier at all? Might as well give him a medic kit and an MP5-

 

Crazy idea; Give the "Grenadier" an MP-5 equivalent (a weapon that sits between the standard rifle and officer machine gun).

and an RPG-6 (an AT hand grenade, not to be confused with the other 'RPG') or RKG-3 for anti-tank (probably with shorter range than the F1)?

Sure let's go on a wild goose chase for new models (the MP5 and F1 were at least already sitting around) while ignoring the facts that the Soviets have enough anti-tank infantry already and the Grenadier already has an anti-personnel weapon.

 

So why not make him a little bit like Volkov with dedicated AT and AP 'nades and see how that works for a test?

Because then you basically have a less tanky Volkov for 10% of the price? Also because do the Soviets really need more anti-tank infantry?

[ganein14]

So, why not make him just as if not a little less squishy like the flamethrower unit? After all, doesn't the flamethrower guy suffer more damage from bullet based weapons than a normal infantry unit?

[Pushwall]

So, why not make him just as if not a little less squishy like the flamethrower unit?

He's already "a little less squishy" than the flamethrower at 60 health vs 50.

 

After all, doesn't the flamethrower guy suffer more damage from bullet based weapons than a normal infantry unit?

You're thinking of splash damage, which doesn't matter much once he performs his intended task of getting into a building.

 

Something I could do is jack up his range and velocity a bit more (considering people already seem to be able to suspend their disbelief over him having more range than the RPG Trooper and being able to fling grenades at speeds of 50 metres per second, I don't really see this as much of a concern) and essentially turn the Grenadier into an on-foot Artillery (intended for hitting buildings from outside, not inside) - a role no other Soviet infantryman can usurp, except Volkov, who could probably stand to have Volktillery removed anyway - it makes him too good against buildings which he's not meant to be, and when did he ever have long-range artillery in RA anyway?

 

Speaking of RA, you know what the RA Grenadier was known for that set him apart from the Flamethrower?

 

 

(Of course he wouldn't have infinite range like them)

[FRAYDO]

I retract back to my Parabomb statement. Grenadiers make the best human bombs.

[devilslayersbane]

See, I was thinking of making the grenadier a bit of a an Anti-infantry, anti-building unit. So, essentially a soviet arty. That's on foot. That costs less. And while doing substantial damage to buildings with direct hits (slightly less than the RPG trooper), he wouldn't do as much to infantry (without a direct hit). However, his splash radius would be rather large (like, 20 meters or so). So while you may not die from a single grenade, you will take damage. I mean, most grenades have a kill radius of about 15 meters. This would also deter grenadiers from entering buildings due to the threat of self-harm.

[Pushwall]

To compensate for him actually having a defined role that he doesn't blow chunks at I'll probably raise his cost to something in the 300-500 range though.

 

A damage radius of 20 or even 15 is kind of absurd when you consider that the 155mm has a radius of 18, and some buildings have pretty spacious interiors (particularly the WF and CY) so he can easily defend himself in those without risking self-harm. Then again, his current radius of 8 doesn't do him many favours in the field. So if he had a larger radius he would definitely have to keep his current 0% wall penetration and perhaps his weapon could have a charge-up time (pulling the pin, though the engine doesn't allow for charging animations for weapons as far as I'm aware so he wouldn't actually appear to be doing that in first person) to discourage corner peeking. Normally I am not a fan of this engine's treatment of charging weapons but if you're using grenades for the intended purpose of shelling buildings and splashing infantry in the field rather than trying to hit them directly or corner peek (attempting to directly hit infantry with charge-up shock rifles was a huge problem due to it being impossible to predict when the charge-up would actually end since the delay was affected by lag, and this was probably the biggest issue with them that led to charge-up being removed) it shouldn't be a big problem.

[Pushwall]

In Gamma, grenades had no damage falloff, so everything within the splash radius took maximum damage. (This is the same behaviour tesla weapons currently have but it's only really notable on the tesla tank.) I could bring that back to make them even more risky to use in tight quarters and make them easier to use in the field. I'd have to make the grenadier more fragile though (maybe giving him the same splash damage weakness that flamethrowers have) so careless use is more likely to get him killed than his target.

I could also make it so the grenades always have a "safety time", like how the secondary fire currently works, so attempting to throw them short distances will result in them sticking around for a while before exploding (giving targets a chance to duck behind cover), but at long ranges they will explode on contact.