Shock grenade

A lot of things don't function as they were designed. What's important is their current design doesn't alter faction design and they remain a unique and fun unit for both sides of the VP.

I simply responded to an argument that shock troops are meant to have better grenades by design. That is is not simply the case.

As for smg paras being the closest thing, if o recall smg paras also have tactical advance to make them more spooky, self healing, a timed demo, forward reinforcement and sprint with vet. The closest thing isn't so close really....

Imo Shocks are the strongest QCQ and they are more powerful than rangers or paras, regardless how close that is they are the remain the closest thing at least imo.

(as for sprint paras do not get it.)

In any case, OP has a point about the grenades.

I simply responded to an argument that shock troops are meant to have better grenades by design. That is is not simply the case.

"Because I said so" is the apparent reason?
You don't know that, you're just presenting personal opinion as a fact.

Believe me, there was no random intern hopping on PQs logged in account and quickly changing random values before PQ comes back from lunch break.

Devs have decided shocks need stronger nades and they gave them stronger nades.

Imo Shocks are the strongest QCQ and they are more powerful than rangers or paras, regardless how close that is they are the remain the closest thing at least imo.

Well, that is your personal opinion you are fully entitled to.
Does not change the fact that most powerful CQC unit are paras with shocks having advantage exclusively on survavibility, but then again as mentioned already, paras don't lose DPS until they lost basically half of the squad and if haven't suffered losses, will just self heal back to full.

To me a unit that can pull well over 180 DPS at close range seems stronger then unit that does ~100(approximately and at vet3)

In any case, OP has a point about the grenades.

Yes, and that point has already been refuted.

Imo Shocks are the strongest QCQ and they are more powerful than rangers or paras, regardless how close that is they are the remain the closest thing at least imo.

But 4 thompson.

I simply responded to an argument that shock troops are meant to have better grenades by design. That is is not simply the case.


Imo Shocks are the strongest QCQ and they are more powerful than rangers or paras, regardless how close that is they are the remain the closest thing at least imo.

(as for sprint paras do not get it.)

In any case, OP has a point about the grenades.

But their nades are not the way they are by accident. They were specifically tuned to that so their nade IS better by design. It may not be by their initial design but hardly anything in the soviet faction still is. They had to adapt with the times.

As for shocks being the strongest CQB unit... That's literally the point I'm making. They do less than paras and rangers so they are better at what they do. Including but not limited to their grenade.

I thought paras got sprint via vet no? I could be wrong. Happens more than I'd like to admit...

But their nades are not the way they are by accident. They were specifically tuned to that so their nade IS better by design. It may not be by their initial design but hardly anything in the soviet faction still is. They had to adapt with the times.

As for shocks being the strongest CQB unit... That's literally the point I'm making. They do less than paras and rangers so they are better at what they do. Including but not limited to their grenade.

I thought paras got sprint via vet no? I could be wrong. Happens more than I'd like to admit...

And? They're really strong for what they are, and come on a unit that is also really strong. Better than normal nades is fine, but they're kind of insane and it's not like shocks need any help beating reasonable amounts of axis infantry in CQC.

How do they do less than rangers? Rangers literally have 1 ability, and it's just a worse nade. Paras have a couple weapon upgrades but they're not exactly any less of a specialist anti infantry elite infantry unit.

And no, paras never had sprint. That'd be OP as fuck.

I fail to understand the point of OP’s post.
OP states a fact about the stats of an ability in the game, and request a change of these stats, but I don’t see any argument as to how this change would improve coh2’s balance or gameplay.

Nowhere in the post does OP explain why this change is necessary or why it would be a positive change. The grenade may be better stats wise than other grenades, but when combined with the Soviet faction it may well be balanced. If OP believes that shocks are making the Soviet faction over perform, and that nerfing them would be best accomplished by nerfing their grenade, it is not mentioned.

If OP believes that the grenade should be changed to be similar to other grenades for gameplay reasons, such as it causing random wipes or it’s power being poorly explained to the payer, it is not also mentioned.

If the the grenade should be changed has been feverenty argued in this thread, but few of the posts have addressed why, if at all, it should be changed, and neither did OP’s post.

So ,I think we should discuss why a change might be necessary before proposing the changes themselves

And? They're really strong for what they are, and come on a unit that is also really strong. Better than normal nades is fine, but they're kind of insane and it's not like shocks need any help beating reasonable amounts of axis infantry in CQC.

How do they do less than rangers? Rangers literally have 1 ability, and it's just a worse nade. Paras have a couple weapon upgrades but they're not exactly any less of a specialist anti infantry elite infantry unit.

And no, paras never had sprint. That'd be OP as fuck.

it was added specifically to give shocks some sort of burst which they lack. ots a ranged ability on a bayonet ranged infantry.

last checked rangers had the ability to use weapon racks, including carrying 3 super zooks making them the best AT infantry in the game, or getting thompsons making them comparable to shocks but alos retaining a weapon slot allowing them to scavenge or slap a bar on them.

as for para being specialist AI infantry... thats the point. they are not. they can be speced for long or short range (or AT) and all sorts of other goodies. they dont need a better nade as they have a number of other cool things going for them.

noted on the sprint, thats my error.

But their nades are not the way they are by accident. They were specifically tuned to that so their nade IS better by design. It may not be by their initial design but hardly anything in the soviet faction still is. They had to adapt with the times.

As for shocks being the strongest CQB unit... That's literally the point I'm making. They do less than paras and rangers so they are better at what they do. Including but not limited to their grenade.

I thought paras got sprint via vet no? I could be wrong. Happens more than I'd like to admit...

Imo Shock troops are already stronger than SMG Ranger/Smgs Paras and they already have smoke available allowing them to be better in their role and still come one CP earlier.

Ranger and Paras do have more option but we are talking about utility on shocks but brute force.

Having a grenade with around 3 times more mid damage and about the same fuse has little justification.

Also imo sorter fuse grenades allow easier wipes on retreating squads.

Anyway imo SMG unit would be allot better if they where designed to cheaper to reinforce and all had abilities like Ostheer officer making them powerful but for a limited time.

As for sprint we all make mistakes, more important is what we do after .

Imo Shock troops are already stronger than SMG Ranger/Smgs Paras and they already have smoke available allowing them to be better in their role and still come one CP earlier.

Ranger and Paras do have more option but we are talking about utility on shocks but brute force.

We've established already that shocks PPSH have nothing on paras tactical advance thompsons, its not even close, its a stomp from paras in that regard.

The only thing shocks have over paras and rangers is durability and its not even far off against rangers.

Having a grenade with around 3 times more mid damage and about the same fuse has little justification.

Having a nuclear nade like PG and Ober bundle nades as stock nades also has little justification, yet here we are.
Some units have better abilities then others, there is nothing wrong with that, but if you really are so adamant on normalizing shocks nade, I'm welcoming normalization to bundle nades.

Also imo sorter fuse grenades allow easier wipes on retreating squads.

No, what allows that is knowledge of unit speeds, throw speeds, fuse timing and retreat paths.

You can wipe on retreat just as easily with rifle nade as you can with satchel charge if you know all the above.

Anyway imo SMG unit would be allot better if they where designed to cheaper to reinforce and all had abilities like Ostheer officer making them powerful but for a limited time.

Well then, I guess we're extremely lucky its not up to you.

You can wipe on retreat just as easily with rifle nade as you can with satchel charge if you know all the above.

I think the rest of your post would be way more impactful if that part weren't just a straight up lie.

Also bundle nades are already standardized - to light gammon bombs.

I can occasionally wipe on retreat with my nades, but there's too many variables to take into account into a split second.

I think the rest of your post would be way more impactful if that part weren't just a straight up lie.

1) I'm basing that on what I see people on streams do with nades.
2) I didn't mean that squad that fights the other squad is the same one that retreat wipes it, in fact, that almost never happens, its always squad on retreat behind them.

Also bundle nades are already standardized - to light gammon bombs.

Yes, they used to be even stronger at 120dmg for a time.
There is little to no reason why such a powerful nade should be available stock to non limited troops.

1) I'm basing that on what I see people on streams do with nades.
2) I didn't mean that squad that fights the other squad is the same one that retreat wipes it, in fact, that almost never happens, its always squad on retreat behind them.

I don't know what streams you watch, but I recommend to probably look a little closer next time. Even at high level, not all players manage to pull off those long delay wipes, especially with the rifle grenade.

But regardless of that, the statement is still objectively wrong.

Yes, they used to be even stronger.
There is little to no reason why such a powerful nade should be available stock to non limited troops.

The availability of Obers and PGrens is effectively limited by their high costs and bleed.
I am also not sure what the train of thought here is because for the last page you argued that squads with less DPS are fine with stronger nades, but I think this whole discussion would lead too far off this thread because it would involve the complete design of Obers/PGrens.

So back to topic:
I think Shocks are probably fine with their nade. It does not hit you out of the blue since it usually is very obvious when they throw it and it fits their theme as breachers. If I had problems with Shocks it was actually never their grenade but that they just chew threw everything if you fail to stop them as soon as you unveil them. But overall they are fine, it's just that they are crazy good on urban areas where Axis lack proper counters at the time Shocks show up. Maybe they could do with a 1 sec fuse, but overall Shock balance is probably more depending on the weapon profile and RA than on the grenade.

snip

Mostly Hans, he is pretty damn adept at retreat wiping with rnades.

Regarding the other point, I'm perfectly fine with bundle nades, I'm simply saying that just because something is different or not "in line" with imaginary "benchmark" does not mean its wrong or imbalanced.

Bundle nades are fine and so are shock nades.
I see nothing wrong with 2cp+ elite CQC squad having better nades, especially if it has lowest CQC DPS in comparison to other CQC elites.

Mostly Hans, he is pretty damn adept at retreat wiping with rnades.

Yes, he is the (almost?) only player known to pull it off somewhat reliably but even he fails regularly. But this just reinforces the point that your statement was wrong.

Regarding the other point, I'm perfectly fine with bundle nades, I'm simply saying that just because something is different or not "in line" with imaginary "benchmark" does not mean its wrong or imbalanced.

Bundle nades are fine and so are shock nades.
I see nothing wrong with 2cp+ elite CQC squad having better nades, especially if it has lowest CQC DPS in comparison to other CQC elites.

You just made two posts about saying bundle nade were not fine on stock units without further reasoning, just after saying that different factions and units have different abilities to then state that Shock grenade is fine.

I don't agree with Vipper's conclusion or actually ShadowLinks initial assessment of Shock nade being OP, but I can see the point that if two abilities cost the same and are functionally the same, but one is straight up better than the other, then this ability deserves a closer look. It might not always be the best option design wise, but standardizing it to some form of benchmark makes balancing the whole game much easier (and the game more dull unfortunately). CoH2 has seen other approaches as well, but turns out that this creates a monstrosity to balance, more than this community can handle with the few people working on it and the few patches we get every once in a while. Benchmarking stuff is the most effective way for CoH2 to make the game balanced, so a deviation from that should have a good reason.

The discussion should include the fact that bundle nades are used against larger squads. You sort of need a better nade to inflict similar manpower bleed against larger squads. If an allied squad loses 3-4 models it may transfer to similar manpower drain as 2 lost models in an axis squad.

Comparing nades between allied factions (or elite infantry squads) is risky as will lead to power creep when one allied infantry squad is racing against other allied infantry squads instead of comparing such stuff to axis elite infantry.

Coming back to nades. Shocks have a cheap grenade used against often 4 men squads. To inflict similar manpower bleed axis will often need a more expensive bundle with longer timer (requires both more skill and more munitions to use). IMO shock's grenade should be a bit more expensive to make sure a receiving player "accepts" the fact that they were hit by sth bigger and more expensive. There will be less/no frustration because they will know that the grenade was more expensive than the regular nade (if if the difference in price isn't too big) and won't get frustrated.

Bold of you to assume the kind of people that complain about the shock nade know the price or have even played allies before. They need to be coddled to accept that a CQB AI only squad got closed and blew up their infantry? If they didn't see it coming they should rejoice the enemy even bothered to spend muni because if they are that inept the allied player could have just walked up to them anyways.

The discussion should include the fact that bundle nades are used against larger squads. You sort of need a better nade to inflict similar manpower bleed against larger squads. If an allied squad loses 3-4 models it may transfer to similar manpower drain as 2 lost models in an axis squad.

Bundle nades are also udes against smaller squads too.
Commandos have carbon copy of bundle nades and are perfectly fine balance-wise and bundle nades are STRONGER then shock nades.

Comparing nades between allied factions (or elite infantry squads) is risky

This is 1st non stupid thing you have said since you joined .org, but we have to disregard remainer of that paragraph to keep it that way.

You don't compare these costs between factions.
You set them up internally, to work WITHIN faction they are placed and within context and specialization of the unit.

Coming back to nades. Shocks have a cheap grenade used against often 4 men squads. To inflict similar manpower bleed axis will often need a more expensive bundle with longer timer (requires both more skill and more munitions to use). IMO shock's grenade should be a bit more expensive to make sure a receiving player "accepts" the fact that they were hit by sth bigger and more expensive. There will be less/no frustration because they will know that the grenade was more expensive than the regular nade (if if the difference in price isn't too big) and won't get frustrated.

If that's the logic you want to use, PG bundle nades are also used against 4 men squads and are way too good.

Shocks fight against 5 and 6 men squads just as often as PGs do, since osttruppen and AGs are 1v1 meta and PFs are team game meta.

This is not an argument that holds any value, because its no longer vanila sov vs ost exclusively.

Bundle nades are also udes against smaller squads too.
Commandos have carbon copy of bundle nades and are perfectly fine balance-wise and bundle nades are STRONGER then shock nades.

Bundle nades are usually used against very large squads because of the design difference. Don't manipulate.

This is 1st non stupid thing you have said since you joined .org, but we have to disregard remainer of that paragraph to keep it that way.

You don't compare these costs between factions.
You set them up internally, to work WITHIN faction they are placed and within context and specialization of the unit.

Please don't lecture me. It is not related to the topic.

If that's the logic you want to use, PG bundle nades are also used against 4 men squads and are way too good.

There are very few such squads, and most of them get more men as the game progresses. You are manipulating. Allied nades are used mostly against 4 men squads and that is why they usually will inflict more manpower bleed. Axis will have to use "bigger" and more expensive nades to have similar results. Those bigger nades will have longer explosion times, which often requires more skill to use.

Shocks fight against 5 and 6 men squads just as often as PGs do, since osttruppen and AGs are 1v1 meta and PFs are team game meta.

It is not true. PGs fight larger squads more often. Shocks don't really need grenades to kill osttruppen. PFs are only a threat to them after an expensive munition upgrade. Still shocks can use smoke, use shotblockers, etc, to close the distance and annihilate them. The whole point is to make a tiny adjustment to a grenade pricing to reflect its better than standard nade performance. I don't really understand why you are so frustrated about it. Such change will probably make the gameplay experience better. It won't affect balance that much as the price should probably be sth between the bundle a a standard nade.

This is not an argument that holds any value, because its no longer vanila sov vs ost exclusively.

This comment is again not related in any way to adequate pricing of things to avoid in game frustrations.

Tommies and sappers are 4 man unless upgraded, CE are 4 men, partisans are4 men, RE are 4 men, major is 3 men, Pathfinders are 4 men non soviet weapon teams are 4 men.... Allies have small squads as well.... Which the larger bundled nade does extremely well against. I think it too should be normalized against the cooked pineaple because unit context is OP.