Profile of Hannibal

If they manage to get in range, they might luck their shots if they hit the rear armor.

Now i wonder if there are other similar bulletins like this.

CoH2 should definitely have weapon crew bulletins to make the clusterfuck complete.

snip

snip

Last warning for you two to learn how to properly use a PM. This is not turning into yet another Vipper vs Katitof thread.

fair point about the observation bias. and i also fully agree the aoe curve, in particular for such extreme cases, isn't very well implemented in-game. a linear damage drop-off to zero between far and max aoe would be much more logical.

Yes, the linear model would be better. But what I meant was actually that the far and max AoE should always be pushed below 80 for large caliber weapons. Most of these target infantry anyway, damage to vehicles can be solved via the close and mid range AoE.

very interesting! from the graph it seems the satchel/heavy gammon should be kind of binary: it either instagibs anything within its aoe (unless in heavy cover) or does no damage at all. still i could swear i've seen units limp away from a satchel with a sliver of health left. can't check myself atm but is it possible that there is some other sort of damage penalty (e.g. from target tables or such) that would bring the far aoe dmg below the 80 dmg threshold?

I don't know about special target tables.

But this observation could also simply be explained by small arms fire. The model did not get any damage by the gammon bomb/satchel but by the squad throwing it. I don't think I could tell it apart in the game.

Demolition charges and goliaths are similar, and we recently had a discussion about the AVRE that exhibits the same characteristic of having lethal AoE and then suddenly 0.

I don't like the design of those profiles. There's a huge explosion animation that tears apart the models, but then the guy that stood half a meter further away seems to be completely fine with his life choices. It's so counter intuitive to play and also to just look at.

Here you go, there is the graph:



So overall, shock nade is the same as a standard (Tommy) nade up to 2 meters, then becomes better. Bundle nade is pretty much just a straight upgrade from a normal grenade in terms of AoE profile.

I don't know about the exact fuse times (see OPs post for that), prices are 30 (Shock nade and normal) or 35 (bundle), respectively. I don't know what Vipper is talking about by saying it were cheaper than other grenades, because that is wrong.

In total though: There is no reason why the Shock nade should be better than a normal one apart from specific unit design. I have not made up my mind if this is necessary or not, but overall it's fair to say that the normal grenades usually come on units that have decent mid to long range DPS and therefore have a chance for a squad wipe after the grenade hit. The Shock nade has 20 range, however if you want to combine a grenade with small arms fire for a wipe you need to be within range 10-15 at least, otherwise the Axis squad will be long gone before you can do some damage.

So I can see a decent reason why the Shock grenade could be a bit stronger than a normal one despite the same price. If the current extend is fine is debatable. But if it needs to be changed I would say that the change should be minor.

I disagree with OP though that the Shock nade can be described as "roughly equally lethal" as the bundle nade. The Shock grenade is clearly closer to the normal standard nade than the bundle nade/light gammon bomb)