Login

russian armor

Shock grenade

27 Jul 2020, 18:25 PM
#1
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3697 | Subs: 1

The shock trooper RG-42 grenade is extremely strong as it currently stands. It is cheaper than the USF cooked mk2, bundled grenades, and light gammon bomb by 5 munitions (30 vs 35). It has a fuse timer of 0.75 I believe after ingame testing, the same as the cooked mk2 frag, which is 0.5 seconds shorter than the LGB and bundles at 1.25 sec. It has twice the far distance than the cooked mk2 at 40 as opposed to 20. Simply put, this grenade is roughly equally lethal and has 40% less fuse than that of the bundle and LGB, and the cooked mk2 which should be actually better because of pricepoint, is substantially worse.
27 Jul 2020, 19:10 PM
#2
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 4233 | Subs: 1

I think part of the price point is cooked into the inflexibility and price of shocks.

Keep in mind units that use cooked pineapples as well as light gammon not only also can benifit from weapon racks to change up their engagement ranges and even role, but they get elite versions of rack weapons. Commandos can double arm lmgs that fire on the move. Paras get a special zook part way to a shrek and can also get lmgs that fire on the move. Shocks get armour and smoke and a cost effective grenade.

I don't particularly see the issue when you take context into consideration.
27 Jul 2020, 19:15 PM
#3
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 2865

Hard no to standardizing everything.
27 Jul 2020, 21:12 PM
#4
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4547

It's fine, Shock Troops are premium anti-infantry specialists. Rapid destruction of enemy infantry is their only job. As far as the Mk 2 goes, you're paying full price for something you have to pay to unlock, so as far as I'm concerned their cost should go down.
27 Jul 2020, 22:26 PM
#5
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 7286 | Subs: 1

It's an Elite grenade been done differently. As opposed to nuke nades, it's fuse is shorter but it's lethality is lower.

At 1.88 radius vs 1.0, we are talking about around 3.5 times bigger lethal AoE.

I'll say the weird behaviour with the Shock nade is the high far AoE dmg which is a key component against garrison.


Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but we have not figured out yet how to fix the bug introduced with Shocks nade, therefore they can't use both smoke and HE at the same time.
If this get's fixed i don't mind returning the AoE far dmg tune back down to the same as nuke nades at 30.
28 Jul 2020, 01:12 AM
#6
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1181

Seems like another hidden Soviet gem. They won the war after all. The price should go up imo to balance it out.
28 Jul 2020, 02:24 AM
#7
avatar of didimegadudu

Posts: 12

t70 and shocks need much needed nerf
28 Jul 2020, 04:56 AM
#8
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4547

t70 and shocks need much needed nerf


n
28 Jul 2020, 05:05 AM
#9
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 147

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but we have not figured out yet how to fix the bug introduced with Shocks nade, therefore they can't use both smoke and HE at the same time.
If this get's fixed i don't mind returning the AoE far dmg tune back down to the same as nuke nades at 30.


Bug?!

Feels like a really balance/adjustment so they can't spam grenades. Would be nice to be able to use both though.
28 Jul 2020, 07:53 AM
#10
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 644

Seems like another hidden Soviet gem. They won the war after all. The price should go up imo to balance it out.


Same with the mg42, how is that monster of off an mg priced the same as the much much weaker maxim is beyond me, thats exluding the tech cost.

The shock nade as long as its eao is far less its price should be less as well. Bundles tend to be a lot more deadly, i havent seen shocks wipe or nearly wipe anything in ages.
28 Jul 2020, 08:29 AM
#11
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1181



Same with the mg42, how is that monster of off an mg priced the same as the much much weaker maxim is beyond me, thats exluding the tech cost.

The shock nade as long as its eao is far less its price should be less as well. Bundles tend to be a lot more deadly, i havent seen shocks wipe or nearly wipe anything in ages.


I don't think mg42 is as great as it is painted, definitely not in 1v1. Setup times and arc traverse make it really easy to deal with not mentioning smoke or simple flanking or any indirect fire. Tier 0 and pio plus mg42 compo are more difficult to use in 1v1 than typical early infantry spam to cap fast.

Soviets are stronger than axis in 1v1 and that is why I really think their munitions economy should be looked at. I'd make ZiS barrage, shock grenade, maybe shock armour, triflarewire, guards ptrs, simply more expensive or just paid upgrades to make them spam fewer offmaps such as incendiary barrage. Not a big change but pretty logical balance path.
28 Jul 2020, 10:07 AM
#12
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 644



I don't think mg42 is as great as it is painted, definitely not in 1v1. Setup times and arc traverse make it really easy to deal with not mentioning smoke or simple flanking or any indirect fire. Tier 0 and pio plus mg42 compo are more difficult to use in 1v1 than typical early infantry spam to cap fast.

Soviets are stronger than axis in 1v1 and that is why I really think their munitions economy should be looked at. I'd make ZiS barrage, shock grenade, maybe shock armour, triflarewire, guards ptrs, simply more expensive or just paid upgrades to make them spam fewer offmaps such as incendiary barrage. Not a big change but pretty logical balance path.


I dont agree.

Are we going to increase all other factions mp cost to reinforce? As soviets tend to be mp starved more then any other faction?

Still soviets have the same muni usage as most other factions now. And besides il2 bombing run soviets dont have much one shot wiping off maps.
Inc barrage is erea denail, ptrs at rifles excell vs lights and every game usualy has 2 lights build max, so again limited use compared to shreck or zooks imo.

Soviet muni income/usage is fine as is.
28 Jul 2020, 13:58 PM
#13
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1181



I dont agree.

Are we going to increase all other factions mp cost to reinforce? As soviets tend to be mp starved more then any other faction?

Only when u retreat too late or are really unlucky.

Still soviets have the same muni usage as most other factions now. And besides il2 bombing run soviets dont have much one shot wiping off maps.
Inc barrage is erea denail, ptrs at rifles excell vs lights and every game usualy has 2 lights build max, so again limited use compared to shreck or zooks imo.

Soviet muni income/usage is fine as is.

They can easily spam mines against axis who lose models due to tripwireflare on 4 men squads and mines. They can't really have a sweeper on both sides of the map all the time. Also they have many counters to static positions - flame stuff mainly. Basically they are a bit OP in this region in 1v1 setup. We probably won't agree but it is ok.
28 Jul 2020, 14:38 PM
#14
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 7286 | Subs: 1



I don't think mg42 is as great as it is painted, definitely not in 1v1. Setup times and arc traverse make it really easy to deal with not mentioning smoke or simple flanking or any indirect fire. Tier 0 and pio plus mg42 compo are more difficult to use in 1v1 than typical early infantry spam to cap fast.

Soviets are stronger than axis in 1v1 and that is why I really think their munitions economy should be looked at. I'd make ZiS barrage, shock grenade, maybe shock armour, triflarewire, guards ptrs, simply more expensive or just paid upgrades to make them spam fewer offmaps such as incendiary barrage. Not a big change but pretty logical balance path.


Soviet are on par with Axis on 1v1 and inferior meta wise.
28 Jul 2020, 14:52 PM
#15
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2161 | Subs: 1



Soviet are on par with Axis on 1v1 and inferior meta wise.


More like Soviets are slightly better than OKW and slightly better than regular Ostheer. Only time they are inferior is when Ostheer skips T1 with doctrinal infantry into fast Pgrens/Flame HT. To some degree also 5 man Grens but that is something every faction struggles against at the moment. OKW has no "meta" that is superior to Soviets.

28 Jul 2020, 15:18 PM
#16
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1181



Soviet are on par with Axis on 1v1 and inferior meta wise.


This will probably always be the opinion rather than fact. Still my level game experience and my tourney and cast observations make me believe that Soviets are much more forgiving and generally easier to play with (more models in a squad/team weapon, cheap spammable mines, lots of call in stuff and plethora of commanders). This usually will (but doesn't have to) transfer into better faction performance than axis. Current balance level is quite good and the difference isn't that great but is significant imo.
28 Jul 2020, 15:28 PM
#17
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 644


Only when u retreat too late or are really unlucky.

They can easily spam mines against axis who lose models due to tripwireflare on 4 men squads and mines. They can't really have a sweeper on both sides of the map all the time. Also they have many counters to static positions - flame stuff mainly. Basically they are a bit OP in this region in 1v1 setup. We probably won't agree but it is ok.


The dps esp of ost is generaly a lot higher then sov cuz of 6 men squads. Soviet dps is mostly a lot lower cuz of the 4 men squads of ost. Ost generaly wipes 6 men faster then soviets wipes 4 men squads due to soviets lacking powerfull nades and ai upgrades and actual good ai on main guns of tanks.

This is the reason soviets suffer more model and squad and vehicle losses they are designed this way. Not just that they retreat to late. They face stronger firepower throughout the game, retreating with 3 models out of 6 still has a bigger chance getting retreat wiped vs ost then with 2 men vs soviets.

Soviets can spamm mines but they wont wipe anything you always need to follow up. Ost doesnt need to follow up every time but when they do its with less effort. But the mines are more costly.

I see no issues here that is imbalanced. You keep trying to paint soviets op while they clearly are not.
28 Jul 2020, 15:48 PM
#18
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 1237 | Subs: 1



This will probably always be the opinion rather than fact. Still my level game experience and my tourney and cast observations make me believe that Soviets are much more forgiving and generally easier to play with (more models in a squad/team weapon, cheap spammable mines, lots of call in stuff and plethora of commanders). This usually will (but doesn't have to) transfer into better faction performance than axis. Current balance level is quite good and the difference isn't that great but is significant imo.




More like Soviets are slightly better than OKW and slightly better than regular Ostheer. Only time they are inferior is when Ostheer skips T1 with doctrinal infantry into fast Pgrens/Flame HT. To some degree also 5 man Grens but that is something every faction struggles against at the moment. OKW has no "meta" that is superior to Soviets.


https://www.coh2.org/topic/105597/1v1-automatch-stats

These are 1v1 stats. Looking at the top/bottom 10% only, SOV are worse than other factions.
28 Jul 2020, 16:01 PM
#19
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 7286 | Subs: 1



This will probably always be the opinion rather than fact. Still my level game experience and my tourney and cast observations make me believe that Soviets are much more forgiving and generally easier to play with (more models in a squad/team weapon, cheap spammable mines, lots of call in stuff and plethora of commanders). This usually will (but doesn't have to) transfer into better faction performance than axis. Current balance level is quite good and the difference isn't that great but is significant imo.


https://www.coh2.org/topic/105597/1v1-automatch-stats

https://www.coh2.org/news/106148/coh-master-league-man-lebt-nur-zweimal-recap


More like Soviets are slightly better than OKW and slightly better than regular Ostheer. Only time they are inferior is when Ostheer skips T1 with doctrinal infantry into fast Pgrens/Flame HT. To some degree also 5 man Grens but that is something every faction struggles against at the moment. OKW has no "meta" that is superior to Soviets.


Yep should had specify that OKW is practically equal and OH is the one which is superior with meta builds.
I think OKW vs SU match up just revolves around how much dmg is done with light vehicles before T70 arrives and how OKW manages it.

It's hard to differentiate "OH" regular play, when you have 3 to 4 different ways to play them with Osstruppen, Assault G, 5 man Gren and the more risky Pio/MG42 T1 skip.


Let's try to get back to Shock nade.
28 Jul 2020, 17:30 PM
#20
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1181




https://www.coh2.org/topic/105597/1v1-automatch-stats

These are 1v1 stats. Looking at the top/bottom 10% only, SOV are worse than other factions.


This is what U quote:

"This article also contains a lot of winrates. I would be careful to draw premature conclusions about the state of balance based on these numbers, for a couple of reasons:

Technically, the matchmaking is supposed to balance factions to some extent. Basically, if a faction is weaker, a player should be matched with a less skillful player playing a stronger faction (some examples on these concepts and the issues involved are found here). Obviously this scheme will fail at both ends of the skill range, but for the players in the middle of the ladder you could expect a 50%ish win-rate. Note, though, that there are a couple of things that the matchmaker probably does not take into account, e.g. faction performance on a certain map. And when match random teams vs. arranged team everything goes, I guess.

Now, matchmaking should work reasonably well when there are tons of players queuing for matches. That, unfortunately, is not the case. The result is that win rates are not very reliable. Consider an example where the only players queuing are

Faction A: Has a pro and three newbs queuing.
Faction B: Has four mediocre players queuing.

Now, the pro is likely to win while the new players likely will lose. The result is that faction A has a winrate of 25% and faction B sits at 75%, regardless of the actual faction balance. And then there is the chance of 80% what one of the three less skilled players create a thread about how OP faction B is and he even can back this up with numbers!"

AND this is what You quote


?
Inquirer:Can the winrates on the coh2chart.com used as an accurate gauge of current state of the balance?

!
No.
COH2.ORG



To the above I would add:

I'm into statistics mate tbh. Usually the case it that the more often sth is picked the worse winrate it will have. Soviets are almost as often picked as two other allied factions together. That is one of the reasons why their performance will be lower. Another is the fact that some really "fresh" players will have just this faction because they didn't purchase the USF or UKF. Since there is a bigger playerbase searching for game the matchmaking system will also be more accurate with Soviets than USF or UKF.

Remeber also that there are only two axis factions vs three allied factions which further complicates the comparison.

So it will probably be still a matter of opinion I'm afraid and quite difficult analysis of the actual gameplay through watching replays.

By the way: Great appreciation to the Siphon X. for gathering the data. Incredible and meticulous work.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag |Zeva| The Angry Dutchman
  • U.S. Forces flag Nicko
uploaded by Stijndee

Board Info

230 users are online: 1 member and 229 guests
RoastinGhost
93 posts in the last 24h
629 posts in the last week
2994 posts in the last month
Registered members: 27808
Welcome our newest member, 4lydiac49100go4
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM