Shock Troop Nades, Guard Nades, Bundlenades

Pulling stats from here:

Guard Nade
Guard grenade is 45 munis.
Bundle Grenade
Bundle grenade is 45 munis.
Shock Troop Grenade
Shock grenade is either 30 or 35 munis, 30, I think.

(warning: in the topic I pulled these from some people had trouble with the links going to the wrong things for some reason)

There was a thread recently on guard grenades, which had a little comparing with the Pgren bundle grenade. Anyway, the basic difference as far as I can see (please correct me if I've missed something important) is that Guard grenades have half the windup time (.125 as opposed to .25) and 1.5 as opposed to 1.0 'accuracy' in open terrain for some reason. I don't know if that has any effect on things or why there's a discrepancy *just* in open terrain.

When you go over to Shock Nades, the RG 42 has a radius of 4 as opposed to 6, has a near and far range of 1 and 2 as opposed to 1.5 and 3. Windup is .25 like the bundlenade. Otherwise target tables for the three grenades look pretty similar for all real occasions.

So, of the three units, the most AT unit has the best anti-infantry nade (not a big difference in the raw stats from the bundlenade aside from the weird open 'accuracy' difference which looks like a mistake to me, but as it's against smaller squads I'd say it's way better in practice). The most AI unit has far and away the weakest grenade.

So, leading question time. Is this maybe part of the reason Shocks are kind of underused right now (the stat difference definitely explains how underwhelming Shock nades are)? I mean, Guards as a useful multipurpose AT unit will often win an engagement with P-grens through a grenade, whereas shocks as a dedicated AI unit will often lose one after taking a grenade.

Hm, interesting numbers! Though, I think the Guards are more a... Hum. An force amplifyig unit? Yeah, that sounds cool. By that I mean, they simply increase the effectiveness of whatever it is you've already got. Their DPs add some nice firepower, and the grenades grant them an ability to turn some tides, while the PTRSs give them some handy anti-vehcile power, and the pin-vehicle ability gives a little more control.

Eh, now that I talk this over. It makes them sound incredibly OP. Please tell me it isn't so. Please?

What turns me off most about Shock Troops isn't their grenades, or a feel that they aren't effective as anti-infantry - which I don't think they strictly are. To me, Shock Troops are like this harden bullet-sponge that increases the durability of an infantry-push, with a nice bit of utility to turn some tides (smoke, nade). So, I don't reckon Shock Troops would strictly need to have grenades as effective as the guards, since that doesn't seem to be their purpose. The worst thing about them is the doctrines they come with. I just don't feel so confident in delving into those doctrines, when the others feel so more flexible, and well, easier to use. And 460man powah? Holy hell, I believe's the term!

As for the Guards? I'm not nearly good enough to really say whether they deserve to have such useful grenades. If they don't deserve them grenades, I'd honestly be pretty happy if they still just got smoke grenades, since that would add another useful way to deal with MG42-spam without being terribly tech-path-forced.

It's also worth taking all my opinions with a very large grain of salt. Like, a big rock. A boulder of salt, even. I have barely reach 90 hours of gameplay.

So, leading question time. Is this maybe part of the reason Shocks are kind of underused right now (the stat difference definitely explains how underwhelming Shock nades are)? I mean, Guards as a useful multipurpose AT unit will often win an engagement with P-grens through a grenade, whereas shocks as a dedicated AI unit will often lose one after taking a grenade.

Shocks are too expensive and kill too slowly. The 6 man, 480MP shock squad has less DPS than the 4man, 360MP PG squad. It has more durability thanks to increased armor and 2 extra models, but this really isn't what a soviet player generally needs at any point in the game, especially not in exchange for guards. You are already bleeding tons of MP through your conscripts (assuming you're just not spamming snipers like everyone), you don't need another MP sink that can't do that much damage itself. The slightly more random grenades really don't play into the equation much if you ask me. They'd pretty much have to be immune to suppression (hello KCH!) for me to feel they'd actually be worth the trade in some situations.

TBH I still think soviet play would be improved if guards were weakened a bit (in an anti-infantry role) and made non-doctrinal, because it's plain stupid not to have any anti-tank infantry option with half the commanders.

I could agree with swapping Penals to Doctrine and Guard to T2.

DPS:
Pgrens: 45.392 / 25.984 / 6.576
Shocks: 41.076 / 22.842 / 4.614

Add to that the PGrens 1.5 Armor vs Shocks 2.25 Armor, and the outcome is clear.
Stop making false claims, please.

I could agree with swapping Penals to Doctrine and Guard to T2.

DPS:
Pgrens: 45.392 / 25.984 / 6.576
Shocks: 41.076 / 22.842 / 4.614

Add to that the PGrens 1.5 Armor vs Shocks 2.25 Armor, and the outcome is clear.
Stop making false claims, please.

I think you mean T1, but I would love this. It's kind of rediculous that soviet can't build a infantry based at. It's not even as if guards are all that great at AT anyway.

I think you mean T1, but I would love this. It's kind of rediculous that soviet can't build a infantry based at. It's not even as if guards are all that great at AT anyway.

It's just that you end up comparing them to shreks, which are on a different level. But the PTRS actually has decent penetration (better than t34 ), though fairly low damage per shot. And there's button...against people who don't use vehicle smoke, anyway. If you could stop them from dancing around like monkeys under fire and actually use the firing rate of the PTRS fully, they'd do pretty good damage to PIV and lighter vehicles (you can experience this by stuffing them in a halftrack or m3, which significantly increases their at damage because they're actually shooting rather than derping around.

DPS:
Pgrens: 45.392 / 25.984 / 6.576
Shocks: 41.076 / 22.842 / 4.614

Add to that the PGrens 1.5 Armor vs Shocks 2.25 Armor, and the outcome is clear.
Stop making false claims, please.

Pretty sure PGrens get a large DPS boost from their vet, shocks mostly get extra armor. That said, who has been making false claims? They have lower damage than PGs despite being a doctrine unit and more expensive and having more models which usually means they'll tend to focus on the same target less.

Pretty sure PGrens get a large DPS boost from their vet, shocks mostly get extra armor. That said, who has been making false claims? They have lower damage than PGs despite being a doctrine unit and more expensive and having more models which usually means they'll tend to focus on the same target less.

Panzergrenadier, Vet2: *2.25 armor; Vet3: *1.78 accuracy
Shock Troops, Vet2: *1.78 accuracy and *1.25 armor; Vet3: *1.8 armor (exclusive? Not sure if I read the files correctly?)

So no, their DPS boost (accuracy multiplier) is the same. Also remember that the Shock Trooper squad have 2.25 base armor and the Panzergrenadiers 1.5 base armor. This, combined with their higher squad health (6 instead of 4 soldiers, so 480 instead of 320 health) lets them survive a lot longer under small arms fire.

So yeah, they're not as excellent DPS-wise as Panzergrenadiers but they'll be able to keep their DPS up a lot longer. The impression some people mentioned about them being massive bullet sponges is true... kill them with fire or explosions if possible

Shocks Vet 3 vs PGrens Vet 3 have about the same DPS.
Shocks Vet 3 have 4.05 armor PER MODEL vs PGren Vet 3 have 3.375 armor PER MODEL.

The fact each individual model has so high armor makes them extremely resilient.
Add to that the larger hp pool from 2 extra models.
At Vet 3, its the equivalent of 6xArtillery Officers for survival, with PGren Vet 3 level DPS.

The argument that they are doctrinal, and therefore, somehow impliedly, should be "better", is false. Doctrine does not mean "better", it means "different from norm".

Their DPS is "as excellent" as Pgrens, but their survival is MUCH better.

The argument that they are doctrinal, and therefore, somehow impliedly, should be "better", is false. Doctrine does not mean "better", it means "different from norm".

Their DPS is "as excellent" as Pgrens, but their survival is MUCH better.

Their absolute dps is lower (especially with the 5% accuracy bulletin on PGs, none of such for shocks) and they have the dps problem of large squads (less focus, more stragglers). When the design of the soviets places so much weight on what commander you are (compared to germans anyway), units have to be worth that tradeoff. Shocks ain't.

If armor wasn't so limited on infantry maybe I'd think better of them. But it's only small arms resistance without even helping suppression. If they were an equal MP cost to PGs I'd think better of them, but no, they usually bleed more manpower than they kill against PGs even ignoring the grenade imbalance.

Their absolute dps is lower (especially with the 5% accuracy bulletin on PGs, none of such for shocks) and they have the dps problem of large squads (less focus, more stragglers).

False. As was shown above implicitly, their absolute DPS is roughly equivalent to PGrens.

Another false and incorrect premise you make, is trying to claim larger squads have less focus. This is categorically WRONG. The more weapons a unit has, the more likely it is for those units to focus fire a specific enemy model. This is just flat out wrong what you say.

When the design of the soviets places so much weight on what commander you are (compared to germans anyway), units have to be worth that tradeoff. Shocks ain't.

False implication. This is completely your own imaginary perception of "design". Shocks are an option, not mandatory. At their armor, DPS and +2 model count, they are most certainly worth the "tradeoff" (though I have idea what you think they are trading off against, they are simply one additional strategic option).

If armor wasn't so limited on infantry maybe I'd think better of them.

What? What do you think armor should do? Nothing wrong with infantry armor in this game. And your attempt to imply there is, is ridiculous.

But it's only small arms resistance without even helping suppression.

What is this. From where did you pull the preconception that armor should somehow work against suppression?

If they were an equal MP cost to PGs I'd think better of them, but no, they usually bleed more manpower than they kill against PGs even ignoring the grenade imbalance.

This is just flat out false. Shocks will most certainly bleed more MP vs PGrens.
Their armor and +2 model HP pool categorically ensures this. False statement. Do you have some numbers to back up this imaginary claim?

So far you have backed up absolutely nothing you have said, and been proven repeatedly wrong in your factual knowledge of the game on the respective DPS, the respective survival, and the actual effects of Veterancy on these two units. On all of these points, you have been SHOWN to be WRONG.

In addition, you have pulled some completely unfounded false implications out of thin air, as if they where warranted. Such as the ridiculous and unprecedented claim that infantry armor should somehow work vs Suppression, or that Shocks as a choice are somehow more limiting than PGrens as a choice.

Start backing your claims up. So far you are just being repeatedly shown to be wrong and lacking in factual knowledge of the games mechanics, as well as making completely imaginary claims based on nothing about "how" infantry armor should work, or that Doctrinal choices are "limiting", whereas in pragmatic and real terms, they are un-limiting. To not have a choice, is limiting. To have a choice, is un-limiting. This should be immediately obvious to any rational person.

I suspect part of the reason Shocks have not been that popular in high level play is that a Tier 1 to Tier 4 player has snipers for anti-infantry and needs guards as a way of protecting them from the Flamer Half Track or Scout Car. Now that no longer seems to be an easy go-to strat for high-level players, shocks might make a comeback.

Additionally, the grenade situation does seem to me to make guards often able to fill the role of Shocks against p-grens and actually somewhat better at filling the role of Shocks against MGs, just because the grenade's likely enough to decrew an MG to prompt a retreat.

Without grenades, shocks basically always beat pgrens.

When they were 360MP people did just spam Shocks. I'm still seeing quite a lot of people at lowish level play going for the Shocks -> KV-8 commander. More because lowish level players love the KV-8 baserush than anything else but y'know.

Shocks destroy PG's in almost every engagement where they have equal health. The PG's only come out ahead if they get a good grenade in. Provided your grenade dodging skills are up to par, small arms fire based infantry struggle to beat Shocks.

The major threat for Shocks stems from area of effect weapons and MG42 suppresion. For this reason I commonly go T2 when I play with Shocks inorder to use a vet1 mortar to dislodge all MG42's with precision strike or use recon run (Anti-Infantry Commander). Having a 480MP unit means this must execute a flank, not be pinned/retreated otherwise the engagement will most likely be lost considering it frees up roughly 2 of your opponents squads to deal with your other units.

In regards to the Shock grenade I actually wasn't aware of the differences between them and Guards. Thank you for that. To be honest though up against a good player I will always prefer a good small arms fighting unit over a good nade. Part of the fact I always prefered 4 rifle BAR over 4 rifle nades.

I suspect part of the reason Shocks have not been that popular in high level play is that a Tier 1 to Tier 4 player has snipers for anti-infantry and needs guards as a way of protecting them from the Flamer Half Track or Scout Car.

From my 2v2 experience it is almost always T1-T4 with guards and the other guy goes T2-T3(4) with shocks (very good commander in that regard is Terror cuz he has propaganda, KV8, howitzer against Pak43 and Elephant). In 1v1 T2 opening is not that strong cuz there is no hard counter to MG42 besides mortar and you have to play more stationary (kinda similar to WSC opening from vCOH which was hard to execute).

Pulling stats from here:

Guard Nade
Guard grenade is 45 munis.
Bundle Grenade
Bundle grenade is 45 munis.
Shock Troop Grenade
Shock grenade is either 30 or 35 munis, 30, I think.

The site's great I was tried to calculate this myself.