A Path Beyond The Grenadier

[Pushwall]

7 minutes ago, JigglyJie said:

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.

While I've been considering the idea of an Allied grenadier for real, since Allies are really hurting for more than 1 infantry that can actually hurt buildings from outside and I really feel like RA1's infantry balance would have made more sense if they were Allied and not Soviet, I feel Allied grens would get even more hate than the current Soviet ones since they could be combined with medics. Like with your ranger analogy and how Soviet rangers were axed from every TL3+ map (except Metro where Soviets need the help) because of the whole idea of shockrangers/kovrangers.

[JigglyJie]

That's a good point, I didn't think of that but I think we could work around that, one would be to possibly restore the volatile nature of the Grenadier (prone to exploding on death and potentially killing nearby medics if they get too close, Soviet one too, perhaps for balance). Another would be to weaken the strength of the Allied one, but even then that probably wouldn't be needed. It'd also take several people to pull off and would be very expensive and even then there's no guarantee of them being able to do much if the Soviet team decided to do a tank rush on their base. From what I've observed, the Soviets don't seem to have too much problems dealing with RangerRS combo as it is, so I think this could be bearable too, plus it would really fit with their theme of mobility and light hit-and-run tactics. As you say, it would really open up their ability to siege as well.

Possibilities are endless if we experiment and think on it, someone brought this up the other day on CanyonRiver about how Grenadiers were too annoying to deal with on the Allied side, to save the time and effort of yet another rework of the map, I proposed why not a Allied Grenadier? Allies would be able to do the same and a RangerGrenadier combo would probably be too expensive and easy to deal with since the map has a lot of trees so chances are, it wouldn't work too great without smashing into a tree or rock. I don't know, but I feel the idea of a Allied infantry siege unit would really expand upon their gameplay, but wouldn't hinder the Soviets too much as they can deal with it possibly fine since they have a wide range of options as it is. Just my two cents on the matter.

[SirJustin90]

Honestly, one of the main issues is detection. Is it not possible to give his grenade some sort of trail like Volkov's to make it visible?

 

Also, with the large advantage allies get with a medic as is, do they really need to take one of the soviets few units on as well?

Edited May 3, 2017 by SirJustin90

[Pushwall]

Maybe the Captain could have enough of a boost to his exterior damage that it can't be ignored, but obviously still noticeably worse than the LAW? If Rangers, APCs and Hinds can have noticeable exterior damage then I don't see why not, and they are a unit whose Allied incarnation is much better so it wouldn't be much of a boost to the Soviets... The LAW already has greater DPS output than the Grenadier's grenades and people were never using the Grenadier when they were asking "why don't I just use an RPG since it does more damage?", so if Allied grenadiers were weaker they'd probably see little use outside of medic teams, but if they were stronger... well you know. And unlike the Grenadier the Captain can do things besides shoot buildings so this specialization being mediocre is a non-issue. Plus he's traceable and becomes hopeless if he's forced to bunnyhop around sniper fire - Grenadiers sadly lack accuracy penalties currently because C4 logic precludes that.

[harvester]

Or we could make his frag grenades a weaker version of flamethrower (like before Delta) and give him some non-combat support (He is the counterpart of Medic in RA1.) like smoke and stun grenades or area of denial weapon, the molotov cocktail!

I know the smoke idea has been brought up but if we could make them very limited, I don't think it's gonna cause too much team-hampering. Renegade X has more trollers there but smoke is never a problem.  Just giving some suggestions.

 

[Raptor29aa]

On 5/2/2017 at 6:48 PM, SirJustin90 said:

Honestly, one of the main issues is detection. Is it not possible to give his grenade some sort of trail like Volkov's to make it visible?

 

Also, with the large advantage allies get with a medic as is, do they really need to take one of the soviets few units on as well?

Idea why not give him two weapons.

A Mortar with visible smoke puff from launch, and a simple hand grenade. Both can have different damage and splash settings (as to not overpower the unit in combat.) Both could also have different audio sounds as well.

Also I do agree with the a high explosive death. (I miss the flame thrower self destruct)

Also I think it would be fun to give the allies a second splash damage unit besides the RS.

Lastly I do know that having to make a mortar model is difficult and takes a lot of time... my condolences.

-But hay wouldn't this (below) be louder, bigger, and easier to spot-

.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Raptor29aa

[Ice]

On 5/2/2017 at 6:54 PM, Raap said:

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.

^ This. Some artistic license is fine within reason, but it's always bugged me when someone suggests something which is completely out of sync with the technology of the time, barring RA1-specific examples and appropriate context. For example, yes the Soviets in RA1 had Hind helicopters (early 1970's tech) and rapidly developed their jet technology (MiG-23) later in the war, but they were also still using Yak planes (1940's tech) at a time when they had already largely switched over to MiG-15 jets in our timeline. Plus a lot of the more advanced technologies were fielded only towards the end of the war (Longbows), and even then many examples were only prototypes (Phase Transport/Tank, Volkov) or very early production versions, and consequently were very rare (Tesla Tanks, Shock Troopers). Basically, RA1 is a case of a few specific areas of technology being more advanced (aircraft, some areas of electronics) while other areas are the same as they were in our 1950's (most common military technologies and the vast majority of civilian technologies) or even slightly behind (A-bombs, initially at least).

As for the Grenadier, I agree with JigglyJie and des1206 in that I think the Grenadier is largely fine as-is and there's no need for any revolutionary changes with this unit. The Grenadier is easy enough to counter if you know how to do it, just like with any other unit. Snipers and Artillery can be particularly effective against a distant Grenadier. Captains, Rangers and Light Tanks also work well.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Ice

[des1206]

Wait wait wait, what craziness is this? I'm gone for a week and now you guys are seriously planning to change a finally balanced and useful nader?

The grenadier is now a great siege unit, that's his battlefield niche. Do you know how satisfying it is to use him after you spent countless hours figuring out where you can hide behind to hit base defenses (note: there aren't that many) on different maps? If you are complaining you can't find him, just spend more time playing the maps as a nader. Then you will see for every base defense, there is usually only 1 or 2 hiding spots.

I'm not against nerfing his anti-infantry damage a bit to make him less of a close-range fighter. You can also make the grenade explosion visually more noticeable so people can tell easier which building is being hit. Lastly you can nerf his anti-building damage a bit - a siege unit like him shouldn't do RS level damage. But don't touch his range or the grenade AOE size! His uniqueness lie in the fact his attacks out range base defense and make them not easily repairable!

If you are complaining about grenadiers, again maybe you guys could just play him more to learn how to find him better. This is a very specialized unit with a decent learning curve and rewarding play once you master it. Holding down the L mouse button maybe simple and boring, but scouting different map locations and objects to hide behind is not!

Edited May 4, 2017 by des1206

[OrangeP47]

59 minutes ago, Ice said:

^ This. Some artistic license is fine within reason, but it's always bugged me when someone suggests something which is completely out of sync with the technology of the time, barring RA1-specific examples and appropriate context. For example, yes the Soviets in RA1 had Hind helicopters (early 1970's tech) and rapidly developed their jet technology (MiG-23) later in the war, but they were also still using Yak planes (1940's tech) at a time when they had already largely switched over to MiG-15 jets in our timeline. Plus a lot of the more advanced technologies were fielded only towards the end of the war (Longbows), and even then many examples were only prototypes (Phase Transport/Tank, Volkov) or very early production versions, and consequently were very rare (Tesla Tanks, Shock Troopers). Basically, RA1 is a case of a few specific areas of technology being more advanced (aircraft, some areas of electronics) while other areas are the same as they were in our 1950's (most common military technologies and the vast majority of civilian technologies) or even slightly behind (A-bombs, initially at least).

As for the Grenadier, I agree with JigglyJie and des1206 in that I think the Grenadier is largely fine as-is and there's no need for any revolutionary changes with this unit. The Grenadier is easy enough to counter if you know how to do it, just like with any other unit. Snipers and Artillery can be particularly effective against a distant Grenadier. Captains, Rangers and Light Tanks also work well.

The M79 was introduced in 1961.  Given a lot of RA timelines place the war starting in 1953, it's not too too much of a stretch for that or something like it to exist.

[Pushwall]

The M79 is also not a Russian weapon.  

The only Russian grenade launcher I can find from before the 1990s that isn't an RPG or an underbarrel rifle attachment is this:

http://modernfirearms.net/grenade/rus/ags-17-e.html

Which looks absolutely not like something one man should be lugging around and firing from the hip, even more so than the PKM. Jeez.

[OrangeP47]

I'm just saying, everyone's way overblowing the tech angle.  I mean, I'm also a vote for everything being fine as is, I'm just trying to find the least destructive solution rather than opening Pandora's box.

[Chaos_Knight]

16 hours ago, des1206 said:

Wait wait wait, what craziness is this? I'm gone for a week and now you guys are seriously planning to change a finally balanced and useful nader?

The grenadier is now a great siege unit, that's his battlefield niche. Do you know how satisfying it is to use him after you spent countless hours figuring out where you can hide behind to hit base defenses (note: there aren't that many) on different maps? If you are complaining you can't find him, just spend more time playing the maps as a nader. Then you will see for every base defense, there is usually only 1 or 2 hiding spots.

I'm not against nerfing his anti-infantry damage a bit to make him less of a close-range fighter. You can also make the grenade explosion visually more noticeable so people can tell easier which building is being hit. Lastly you can nerf his anti-building damage a bit - a siege unit like him shouldn't do RS level damage. But don't touch his range or the grenade AOE size! His uniqueness lie in the fact his attacks out range base defense and make them not easily repairable!

If you are complaining about grenadiers, again maybe you guys could just play him more to learn how to find him better. This is a very specialized unit with a decent learning curve and rewarding play once you master it. Holding down the L mouse button maybe simple and boring, but scouting different map locations and objects to hide behind is not!

Since I am generally too lazy to repeat myself, here's what Beta Volkov (max-tech commando) had it worse than current grenadier (400 common mook)

On 02.05.2017 at 7:27 PM, 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.

Yep, grenadier is totally balanced and has no issues at all. AT ALL. Riiiiighht.....

Oh, and I just checked. Absolute world record IRL for throwing F1 grenade was established in 1951 and it was 87m.

 

15 hours ago, Pushwall said:

The only Russian grenade launcher I can find from before the 1990s that isn't an RPG or an underbarrel rifle attachment is this:

Also this is why my main suggestion was the underslung variant

[SirJustin90]

Still think the main issue could simply be solved if smoke or a trail come from the grenade he threw. Then his location isn't so hidden.

 

I find this still to be the main... and honestly only issue.

Edited May 6, 2017 by SirJustin90

[harvester]

19 hours ago, Chaos_Knight said:

Yep, grenadier is totally balanced and has no issues at all. AT ALL. Riiiiighht.....

Right. Except he needs to yell "I'M OVER HERE!!!" loud enough the entire map could trace him everytime he throws a grenade.

[CMDBob]

Personally, I actually don't mind the grenadier, apart from like 2 things: You often can't quite tell where he's hidden sometimes, which could be solved by slightly bigger models for the grenades, with a somewhat shortish trail so you can roughly tell where he is; and that he's not too hot against infantry, which isn't that big a problem, as that's not quite his niche. (maybe a pretty short ranged impact grenade sec-fire/grenade type, with quite a bit less splash and damage vs inf, but it'd be reliable? Perhaps give those impact grenades limited ammo [10 grenades?] and replace the Makarov? Just spitballing, here.).

I'd hate for him to go completely or become part of another unit, as he does feel like he has a unique role; that of long ranged infantry artillery.

And on the Volkov topic, I don't mind that some units might be better individually than Kov, as they're not uncrushable nor full of HP (and the individual units cost a LOT less than Kov).  If you want to do that one job really well, get the specialist, but if you want to do a lot of things pretty well, and be able to switch roles when needed, with the longevity to do the multiple roles, then get a Kov.