A Path Beyond The Grenadier

[Raap]

Hey guys,

So I've been making an effort lately to play APB more often (mainly to get back in touch with the game so that I can deliver better content). Now normally I won't openly discuss game balance as I leave that to other people, but this topic isn't really about simple numbers tweaks, it is about the entire unit design of the Soviet Grenadier, and why I think it needs to be completely overhauled and break away from RAlism in order to make more sense within APB.

The in-game feedback about the Grenadier seems pretty consistent; A lot of people find it a cheesy, low-skill unit that is capable of dealing anti-structure damage at long range while remaining difficult to spot. The huge splash damage range makes this unit capable of an exponential power stacking increase that other units cannot achieve; Two Flamethrowers do not multiply in power by as much as two Grenadiers do due to a combined effect of DoT stacking limitations as well as limited splash radius. Similarly, two Rifle Soldiers are only better than one Rifle Soldier if their combined aim has double the accuracy. In general, the Soviet Grenadier is considered not a fun unit to fight against, but also it is not a very fun unit to play as, either. Due to the low skill requirement, the only thing you're left to do is move like a spastic person and hope your opponents remain within the swimmingpool-sized blast radius, and if there is no opponent in sight, just hold down the left mouse button to deal anti-structure damage from outside base defense range (like, is the throwing arm mechanical?). To top it off, the Grenadier is the best unit to camp with, which is often considered a poor form of play - but I confess this last point has most relevance towards the upcoming HW revamp.

Finally, due to the anti-structure and anti-infantry focus, there is significant unit role overlap with Flamethrowers and Sergeants. In an effort to make it less obsolete the current balance came into being, solving what is essentially a symptom rather than tackling the root problem; the Soviet Grenadier isn't filling a unique role. All-in-all, the Grenadier is not a fun unit to fight or use, and it seems to me that the only reason we still have it, is to satisfy Red Alert purists (RAlism). So, Pushwall will likely end up spending more time tuning this unit, but the fundamental role problem will not be solved this way, as the unit will always represent a duplicated role in either an underpowered or overpowered form, and in the event of true balance, Flamethrowers still win due to their overal better appeal from a unit concept perspective.

Therefore from my personal perspective, the only logical conclusion is to cut the Soviet Grenadier entirely, and in its place introduce a new Soviet infantry unit not previously represented within the Red Alert universe. What this unit would be, is a topic to be discussed. There are a number of infantry roles that the Soviets do not have in their roster, even a few which APB in general does not currently support. But lets assume the only limitation is creativity and that a fun to play and counter unit is introduced to replace the Grenadier, what significant and honest objections would exist for going down this path? And note that I personally do not consider RAlism a valid argument since APB is not an RTS game.

Let me know your thoughts.

 

EDIT: As to answer the likely question, where could grenades go? In reduced capacity and limited quantity, Officers or Rifle Infantry could carry a small amount, intended purely for anti-infantry purposes in small spaces such as building interiors. Reasoning here being that grenades as a mechanic don't have to be removed completely, plus it might help add more depth to the early game which is presently dominated only by bullet-based weaponry.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Raap

[OrangeP47]

Honestly, I sometimes feel like I'm the only person who *can't* use the grenadier effectively

That said, I have noticed the trend, and specifically in the past few weeks. Maybe it's a fad, or maybe people have been emboldened by earlier successes, but I hadn't seen them much outside of very early rushes vs base defenses until the past two weeks or so. They've definitely been felt, though, namely that one large game of Seamist where one took down the pillbox and I couldn't find where he was throwing from for the life of me

While something needs to be done, I don't think that thing is the removal of the grenadier entirely. That's rather drastic.  At the same time, I do understand that endless tweaks aren't exactly the most productive course of action.  However, there's nothing to stop us from both removing that role entirely and making a new role, and that new role *still* being the grenadier. Regardless of other concerns, making a major change can have ripple effects and balance elsewhere could be affected unintentionally. That's why things like this can't be done lightly, and why when changes are made, the simplest, least impactful change that still works should always be desired.  I'll admit, I'm kind of pulling from my legal interpretation training here, but common law tests have withstood the test of time for a reason.

Now, I'd be willing to go for a major revamp of the unit, because while that's a big change, "grenadier" is still a known quantity. If you want my advice, make the attack a lot less powerful, but give it a grenade launcher similar to vanilla renegade to make the aiming/range more defined, but with less splash radius.  The damage could also be tweaked so the unit is much more anti-building than anti-infantry, contrasting it with the flamethrower.  As much as I've been loving the flamethrower lately, could even tone it down vs buildings as well.  I think range is a key concern though that could be used to make things different enough.  This is probably a good compromise overall.

The counter-argument I'd be most willing to accept is that from some perspectives the grenadier is currently breaking the game balance as is, and thus it doesn't really matter how drastic we act because things are screwed up anyway.  I frankly just disagree with that idea. Even if I was willing to say the problem was large enough immediate action, the way the current unit works clearly factors into how players strategize now, both in usage and countering. Even if said use and counters are "lame", it's going to jerk around the entire structure, so we must do our due diligence.

[Raap]

I would have expected more opinions in this thread, perhaps people find it difficulty to turn their impulse based thoughts into a feedback post? 

A lot of key-offending maps that do not pass without someone mentioning the Grenadier; Under, Complex, CanyonRiver, GuardDuty, and a few more. The pattern is obvious; Anywhere you can easily throw grenades from, and always in the early game since it is the most effective early game tactic.

[Pushwall]

What if we were to merge the Grenadier and RPG Trooper into the same unit - so the RPG Trooper would be a "grenadier" by technicality of launching rocket-propelled grenades and also having frag grenades as a sidearm instead of the Makarov? To make these actually reliable against infantry they would be contact explosives again, but they wouldn't have a DPS or range advantage over the RPG against buildings. And they'd still be limited like the old Makarov.

To compensate for the loss of the "mini Kovtillery" role, maybe the Flamethrower could have a little more range (still not outranging riflemen though) and exterior damage but less MCT damage (which are the Starshina/Shock's domain anyway)?

19 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

If you want my advice, make the attack a lot less powerful, but give it a grenade launcher

Who's going to model this?

[Raap]

16 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

What if we were to merge the Grenadier and RPG Trooper into the same unit - so the RPG Trooper would be a "grenadier" by technicality of launching rocket-propelled grenades and also having frag grenades as a sidearm instead of the Makarov? To make these actually reliable against infantry they would be contact explosives again, but they wouldn't have a DPS or range advantage over the RPG against buildings. And they'd still be limited like the old Makarov.

To compensate for the loss of the "mini Kovtillery" role, maybe the Flamethrower could have a little more range (still not outranging riflemen though) and exterior damage but less MCT damage (which are the Starshina/Shock's domain anyway)?

Who's going to model this?

The RPG Trooper already has a very clear role; AV and AA. It's also the mirror of the Allied Rocket Soldier, meaning that the RPG Trooper would become a more versatile unit (therefore, better).

Going back to the unit overhaul idea, how about I add a proper example.

Replace the Grenadier with a Sapper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapper), with a unit gameplay focus on sabotage, explosives, and maybe even a melee weapon (?!). The key mechanic could be remote detonated charges (scenario: remotely detonating a bridge while vehicles cross it), something we've not using in APB before, as well as (temporarily) proximity mines that temporarily disable vehicles when triggered (including Mobile Gap Generators and Phase Tanks, effectively adding a new counter to these units). To throw some homage to the Grenadier, equip it with non-lethal smoke grenades. Topping it off with a pistol or melee weapon, while all explosives and utilities are limited-ammo.

Unit artwork could just be a modified Engineer model and texture for now.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Raap

[Pushwall]

Just now, Raap said:

The RPG Trooper already has a very clear role; AV and AA. It's also the mirror of the Allied Rocket Soldier, meaning that the RPG Trooper would become a more versatile unit (therefore, better).

Nothing says the grenades couldn't just be weaker than before. And since the grenades would replace the Makarov, they would be more suitable for some situations but less suitable for others.

[Raap]

Just now, Pushwall said:

Nothing says the grenades couldn't just be weaker than before. And since the grenades would replace the Makarov, they would be more suitable for some situations but less suitable for others.

It's probably better than keeping the Grenadier as-is, representing a duplicate role. But there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. The Soviets historically lacked unit diversity, I'd rather experiment with replacing the unit with a new concept, than merging it into an already small unit roster.

As for the Flamethrower range, it's already very long and powerful.

[Pushwall]

 

21 hours ago, Raap said:

tthe Soviet Grenadier isn't filling a unique role.

Neither are the Starshina or Flamethrower because Volkov master-of-nones all these units (plus RPG Trooper's anti-ground role) into one but apparently that's not a problem? Part of the reason the Grenadier is the way he is now was to make Volkov an actual master of none, instead of combining jack-of-all-trades combat and greatest survivability among infantry with also being the best on-foot artillery by virtue of being the only one in existence.

[Raap]

31 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

 

Neither are the Starshina or Flamethrower because Volkov master-of-nones all these units (plus RPG Trooper's anti-ground role) into one but apparently that's not a problem? Part of the reason the Grenadier is the way he is now was to make Volkov an actual master of none, instead of combining jack-of-all-trades combat and greatest survivability among infantry with also being the best on-foot artillery by virtue of being the only one in existence.

One can argue that a master-on-none unit also serves a unique role, namely the versatile master-of-none role.

As for the Sergeant, yes there is an overlap there, but it has purpose; One is a stock early game unit, the other is a Barracks-required early game unit. The Sergeant was added specifically for that purpose, to diversify the infantry game in the event a team loses their Barracks.

So, no. The only really redundant role overlap that exists is with the Grenadier.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Raap

[Pushwall]

18 minutes ago, Raap said:

One can argue that a master-on-none unit also serves a unique role, namely the versatile master-of-none role.

And thanks to the Grenadier, he actually is that now instead of "master of artillery and jack of everything else" which doesn't roll off the tongue as well  

18 minutes ago, Raap said:

As for the Sergeant, yes there is an overlap there, but it has purpose; One is a stock early game unit, the other is a Barracks-required early game unit. The Sergeant was added specifically for that purpose, to diversify the infantry game in the event a team loses their Barracks.

You completely missed the point - it's not that the Sergeant and Flamethrower have similar roles, but that both of these units are sharing their similar roles with different aspects of Volkov's cannon and it wasn't considered sacrilege when they did it, nor was this a concern when Gamma introduced the $300 AT Cannon, yet when the Grenadier becomes a Kovtillery (and not even current Kovtillery, but Beta Kovtillery since it has untraceable projectiles and decent damage to buildings and infantry) he's "not unique enough"...

[Raap]

1 hour ago, Pushwall said:

And thanks to the Grenadier, he actually is that now instead of "master of artillery and jack of everything else" which doesn't roll off the tongue as well  

You completely missed the point - it's not that the Sergeant and Flamethrower have similar roles, but that both of these units are sharing their similar roles with different aspects of Volkov's cannon and it wasn't considered sacrilege when they did it, nor was this a concern when Gamma introduced the $300 AT Cannon, yet when the Grenadier becomes a Kovtillery (and not even current Kovtillery, but Beta Kovtillery since it has untraceable projectiles and decent damage to buildings and infantry) he's "not unique enough"...

I've not drawn any comparison to past versions given their irrelevance, but the Grenadier subject is an issue in the here and now due to the current gameplay (not just balance). The comparison to existing units is only noticeable from the Flamethrower's perspective and that can be credited due to the historical role purpose, and also in a large part due to Volkov's aesthetic differences and multi-purpose approach.

Perception plays a notable role just as well, since currently the Grenadier cannot be seen doing anything other than the role historically given to other units. So again, this isn't really a balance thread, but a thread on the subject of unit identity within gameplay. Right now, the Grenadier is the odd one out, where as everything else has fallen into place a while ago.

[Chaos_Knight]

Grenadier indeed seems to be a problem of sorts, considering that he somehow has longer range than RPG and has no visible trails to track him down with.
That alone makes him extremely frustrating to deal with.

Now let's look back at the history and see that pure grenade thrower people became obsolete in world's armies before XX century even began so indeed the only reason grenadier is like that is RA-lism.
So personally I see 4 solutions to solve this issue and make him less frustrating in general:

1. Easy one would be to revert him to the old ways. Yet it would likely render him... well... useless. Generally bad idea.

2. Replace him with more "modern" view of a grenadier specialist. A guy with underslug grenade launcher on his AR/Carbine. You could even keep the range but add a visible trail to his projectile. Also add damage fall-off to the explosions to balance him out against infantry.

3. Replace him with a mortar trooper. Another modernized solution which also even fits into WW2 era as well. Would give Soviets a true infantry artillery with obvious drawbacks (can't imagine him being fast or any good at close range).

4. Replace him with a grenade launcher guy. Kinda Renegade style. Same mechanics as for the underslung one (visible trail + damage fall off). Would fire obviously faster but would need to reload every now and then to even out DPS. Could also be an artillery of sorts.

Sadly all the "non-bad" ideas to fix him require at least a minor modelling. At least you could borrow the underslung reload animation from TSR XD.

[Pushwall]

2 hours ago, Raap said:

Going back to the unit overhaul idea, how about I add a proper example.

Replace the Grenadier with a Sapper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapper), with a unit gameplay focus on sabotage, explosives, and maybe even a melee weapon (?!). The key mechanic could be remote detonated charges (scenario: remotely detonating a bridge while vehicles cross it), something we've not using in APB before, as well as (temporarily) proximity mines that temporarily disable vehicles when triggered (including Mobile Gap Generators and Phase Tanks, effectively adding a new counter to these units). To throw some homage to the Grenadier, equip it with non-lethal smoke grenades. Topping it off with a pistol or melee weapon, while all explosives and utilities are limited-ammo.

Unit artwork could just be a modified Engineer model and texture for now.

Melee weapons simply do not play well in this engine (see also: Chameleon Spy) hence why I only restricted them to a joke map and something else that is pretty close to a joke map.

Smoke grenades... when I joined the APB dev team I was playing with the idea of a smoke shell secondary for the Artillery. Chaos might remember this. It wasn't well received among the testers, possibly because performance really takes a dive when there are a bunch of particles pressed up against the screen, and possibly also from the teamhampering applications since particles don't discriminate between teams. It eventually got recycled for Lunar Paradox in the form of the Flour Tank since it toes the lines of trollish, OP and unsuitable for the maingame 

And, well, Soviets are already dominating most maps in anything resembling a player count, and they already have AP mines, why give them rebranded AT mines too?

13 minutes ago, Chaos_Knight said:

and has no visible trails to track him down with.

I'm still missing why this was not a problem with Betakov...

[Chaos_Knight]

42 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

I'm still missing why this was not a problem with Betakov...

Simple.

1. He was always radar-visible.
2. He could be removed with 1 click of a hitscan sniper.
3. Maps were way more open with far less props.
4. You are comparing 1500/1800 commando unit which purchase is announced server-wide to a 400 common mook.
5. Kov camp spots were well-known and easy to check.
6. Kov shots were still easier to track due to them being tri-shots which allowed a degree of tracing.
7. 3D radar.
8. Kov shots had next to 0 splash so one could easily repair whatever they attacked.

That's just from the top of my head.

And 2 more after a bit of thinking:
9. Kov shots weren't silent
10. Kov shots produced extremely highly visible explosions with lots of particles and other stuff.

[Voe]

59 minutes ago, Chaos_Knight said:

Simple.

1. He was always radar-visible.
2. He could be removed with 1 click of a hitscan sniper.
3. Maps were way more open with far less props.
4. You are comparing 1500/1800 commando unit which purchase is announced server-wide to a 400 common mook.
5. Kov camp spots were well-known and easy to check.
6. Kov shots were still easier to track due to them being tri-shots which allowed a degree of tracing.
7. 3D radar.
8. Kov shots had next to 0 splash so one could easily repair whatever they attacked.

That's just from the top of my head.

And 2 more after a bit of thinking:
9. Kov shots weren't silent
10. Kov shots produced extremely highly visible explosions with lots of particles and other stuff.

Nuff said.

[Pushwall]

So here's a trial run of "RPG Trooper With Limited Beta Grenades"

They might appear to have some overlap with the RPG itself since they're a splash weapon that's difficult to directly hit infantry with and actually have damage dropoff now just like all the other non-Tesla splash - but they still retain decently high splash damage and a better rate of fire than the RPG. If I go this route, I might differentiate them further from the RPG by giving projectile extents to make them easier to get direct hits with, but drastically reducing the direct hit damage. Which would help out in a firefight. If you're sneaking up on someone unsuspecting and trying to one-shot them you might as well just use your infinite-ammo, higher-velocity weapon for that

[Voe]

I like this pushwall, but the amount of damage and rate of fire presented on the video is just absurd

[OrangeP47]

4 hours ago, Pushwall said:

Who's going to model this?

Well personally, I'm fine with the grenadier as is, overall. So you'd be better off asking people who want more changes. I'd imagine a grenade launcher is the least that'd need modeled compared to some other ideas suggested.

Personally, all I'm asking for, is nobody do anything 'too crazy'

[Raap]

New weapons aren't likely needed, since we got re-usable assets, although if it came to it then explosives and such things are relatively simple. A grenade launcher does not really fit well with the game, in my opinion.

Anyhow, go ahead and experiment with the NAG Trooper (Not A Grenadier). I wouldn't close the door to a new unit entirely just yet if it turns out to not be fun.

[Pushwall]

An alternative version of "Not A Grenadier" could be to keep the pistol, give the RPG its arc back, and swap the RPG-7 model with the grenade model - so he'd still behave exactly like the RPG Trooper, he'd just look like a grenadier (and retain the advantage of stealthy projectiles, which would probably be less OP with the RPG's stats). That'd be odd though because the frag grenades would suddenly be anti-tank and very poor at anti-personnel (and making them good at AP too would break the balance again and render the shock trooper and flamethrower kinda pointless). And then the RPG model would go to waste unless it becomes the new AA launcher, displacing the unmodeled Strela, which would also be odd. This and AT grenades would likely confuse a lot more people too.

[ChAoS]

I came into this thread planning on suggesting the rocket solider and grenadier be combined, but it seems that pushwall has already considered this and is experimenting with it.

I’m not going to pretend I have a good grasp on the overlap and strengths/weakness of the current soviet infantry. However, I’ve always imagined the flame trooper as a anti infantry unit and the grenadier as the counter part of the allied rocket solider. When the actual soviet rocket trooper was added, I felt like he could have just as well been a rebranded grenadier with a grenade launcher.

 

[Chaos_Knight]

2 hours ago, Raap said:

New weapons aren't likely needed, since we got re-usable assets, although if it came to it then explosives and such things are relatively simple. A grenade launcher does not really fit well with the game, in my opinion.

Anyhow, go ahead and experiment with the NAG Trooper (Not A Grenadier). I wouldn't close the door to a new unit entirely just yet if it turns out to not be fun.

Yeah, grenade launcher doesn't really fit in there. This is why my 2 main suggestions are grenadier specialist inf with a weaker AK but underslung grenade launcher or mortar trooper. Yet both require models, so there's that of course. Unless there's one lying around online for free (which I kinda doubt but who knows) this is a major drawback.

[OrangeP47]

Well, I'm still neutral on any solution. I'd just say that distinction between a grenade launcher not fitting but not caring about "RAlism" just seems kind of arbitrary and in opposition. I don't want us to get into a 'can't have your cake and eat it too' situation.

That said, the solution that's in the works is indeed pretty interesting.  I think a revamp overall of the soviet rocket trooper, overall, would work out just fine, no matter what path we select with it.

[Raap]

31 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Well, I'm still neutral on any solution. I'd just say that distinction between a grenade launcher not fitting but not caring about "RAlism" just seems kind of arbitrary and in opposition. I don't want us to get into a 'can't have your cake and eat it too' situation.

That said, the solution that's in the works is indeed pretty interesting.  I think a revamp overall of the soviet rocket trooper, overall, would work out just fine, no matter what path we select with it.

You can add things that make sense within the Red Alert universe. RAlism is this ideology that stepping away from anything within the RTS games is a sin.

Red Alert has a lot of themes APB always tried to expand upon with a lot of creative freedom. Chronosphere technology is a backstory in at least two maps, stories that did not occur in the Red Alert RTS games but still make sense within the Red Alert universe.

I believe you cross that boundary of sensible additions when you add weapons that are five decades more advanced in real world technological development. Maybe it sounds strange, but doing so seems off somehow, more so than time travel, due to the way these things are presented in the Red Alert universe.

Just because some crazy inventions happened 50 years ago in a fictional universe, doesn't mean all other real-world technological advances have also been met within that fictional universe.

Does that make sense?

Edited May 2, 2017 by Raap

[OrangeP47]

Oh, I know what you meant, but I'm just saying I don't see the grenade launcher as that big a deal. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with that, of course, and it's not a hill I'd die on. I just think the grenade launcher could be justified, if done right. There were grenade launchers contemporary will some of the other things RA has, even if we'd not seen one in game, which seems to be some thinking used with the tank models at time.

That said, my whole point of the grenade launcher was this:  More accuracy, less damage and radius.  That can be applied in any number of ways, the grenade launcher was just the first thing I thought of.  I'm pretty happy with the above demonstration, so I wouldn't harp to hard on it.

 

[Raap]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Oh, I know what you meant, but I'm just saying I don't see the grenade launcher as that big a deal. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with that, of course, and it's not a hill I'd die on. I just think the grenade launcher could be justified, if done right. There were grenade launchers contemporary will some of the other things RA has, even if we'd not seen one in game, which seems to be some thinking used with the tank models at time.

That said, my whole point of the grenade launcher was this:  More accuracy, less damage and radius.  That can be applied in any number of ways, the grenade launcher was just the first thing I thought of.  I'm pretty happy with the above demonstration, so I wouldn't harp to hard on it.

 

You got a very fair point with "if done right". If there is a will, there is a way. And if someone was completely serious about adding a grenade launcher, then with some effort on the design, a suitable concept could be created, sort of like a rough and bulky "prototype" kind of design.

But yeah, going slightly off-topic with that one. 

I'm all for iterative unit design with live server testing. Pushwaffles can come up with a few variations and give each a spin for a patch cycle, then stick with the most favorable.

[Pushwall]

Just a question, if I go with merging the two units - should the "RPGrenadier" keep the RPG Trooper's faded brown livery, or the Grenadier's classic yellow one? I feel the RPG trooper's colours fit better with the tone of the game, plus they're closer to what you see in the RA sidebar cameo, but I don't know how much Yellowdier nostalgia rates among you guys  

[ChAoS]

Alternate camo? Like with Tanya? I'd go with the brown over the yellow if I had to choose.

[JigglyJie]

Personally I think any change/removal isn't needed, I like the current role the Grenadier has as a infantry siege unit but that being said... why not allow the Allies to have him too? I mean, it's a pretty generic unit as it is (plus he's available on RockTrap so model/texture isn't an issue, would be a shame to keep it locked away to that one map) and I don't think it'd break the gameplay much at all, in fact, what the Soviets can do, the Allies can do too, with it. A bit like how the Soviets were given rangers on certain maps and the Allies, chinooks.

[Raap]

Darker brown fits the Soviet color palette better.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Raap