AI Grenade ratio usage per faction from GCS2 quali

Following the different topics about balance and stats around factions, I wanted to see what was the usage ratio of AI grenade between factions, for this I have use Siphon X data who generously provided me additional statistics about grenade command issued during each game of the GCS2 qualification tournaments.

I'll only focus on grenades used by mainline infantry (RM, GRN, VOLKS and IS). The question is to see how impactfull on the gameplay is the difference between Axis "free tech" grenades and Allied "pay to unlock grenade" mechanism.

 provide by Siphon X
 OKW :  168 games
 Sov :  175 games
 Ost :  145 games
 USF :  93 games
 UKF :  45 games

As mentioned by Siphon X it is only based on if the command as been triggered by could have been cancelled before the execution, I personaly don't believe this would change a lot the statistics shown below.

There are a lot to say about it, "freetech" nade are naturally more used then "Unlocktech" grenades, satchel and RGD-33 grenade is at almost same level than flamnade when they are assignated to non mainline infantry. OKW Infiltration grenade more used than any other allied grenades while being locked behind a unique commander etc...

And one question for the debate:
Does it exists a pattern between grenade usage and winrate?

What are your feeling about it?

 Rifle Grenade:                         840 / 145 = 5.79 (Ostheer)
 Bundled Model 24 Grenades:              32
 Throw Molotov Cocktail:                244 / 175 = 1.39 (Soviet)
 RGD-33 Fragmentation Grenade:          230 / 175 = 1.31 (soviet)
 RG-42 Anti-Personnel Grenade:           19
 RGD-1 Smoke Grenade:                    11
 Throw Satchel Charge:                  136 / 175 = 0.77 (Soviet)
 Grenade Assault:                         0
 Mk 2 Frag Grenade:                     193 / 93 = 2.07 (USF)
 Bundled Grenade:                        60
 Blendkörper:                            29
 Bundled Model 24 Grenade:              104
 Throw Model 24 Grenade:                  8
 Concussive Grenade:                     10
 'Cooked' Mk 2 Frag Grenade:              6
 Infiltration Grenade Assault:          438 / 168 = 2.6 (OKW)
 No. 36M 'Mills Bomb':                   61 / 45 =  1.35 (UKF)
 Light Gammon Bomb:                      62
 Gammon Bomb:                             5
 Throw Incendiary Grenade:             1029 / 168 = 6.12 (OKW)

Ok, here is how often a command to use a certain grenade type was used:

Code

 Rifle Grenade:                         840
 Bundled Model 24 Grenades:              32
 Throw Molotov Cocktail:                244
 RGD-33 Fragmentation Grenade:          230
 RG-42 Anti-Personnel Grenade:           19
 RGD-1 Smoke Grenade:                    11
 Throw Satchel Charge:                  136
 Grenade Assault:                         0
 Mk 2 Frag Grenade:                     193
 Bundled Grenade:                        60
 Blendkörper:                            29
 Bundled Model 24 Grenade:              104
 Throw Model 24 Grenade:                  8
 Concussive Grenade:                     10
 'Cooked' Mk 2 Frag Grenade:              6
 Infiltration Grenade Assault:          438
 No. 36M 'Mills Bomb':                   61
 Light Gammon Bomb:                      62
 Gammon Bomb:                             5
 Throw Incendiary Grenade:             1029

I might have missed certain types (they are coded basically as "use_ability" together with an ID of that ability, so, there might be other grenade-like abilities that I missed). Also, these are simply numbers of how often the command is issued, the grenade might not have been thrown because the throw might have been canceled.

A quick correction: The numbers on the grenade usage were pulled from the replay files that I used from for the GCS2 meta post. Yossarian I think counted the games for the actual qualifiers, whereas I used the data for the qualifier as well as the wildcard tournaments (minus one game for which I had no replay).


The number of games per faction for the replays in question (as noted in the newspost) are: 145 (OH), 175 (SOV), 168 (OKW), 93 (USF) and 45 (UKF).

A quick correction: The numbers on the grenade usage were pulled from the replay files that I used from for the GCS2 meta post. Yossarian I think counted the games for the actual qualifiers, whereas I used the data for the qualifier as well as the wildcard tournaments (minus one game for which I had no replay).


The number of games per faction for the replays in question (as noted in the newspost) are: 145 (OH), 175 (SOV), 168 (OKW), 93 (USF) and 45 (UKF).

oki, I'll correct the number asap. updated

Seems like OKW/OST need to continuously use grenades to stay in / win fights which is my personal experience as well. Usually leaves the Allies (especially the Russians) with a disproportionate amount of spare munitions to dump into weapon upgrades, mines, abilities and offmaps.

Personally i think its because OKW and OST have to win its (early) engagement fast and hard...

They cant allow firefight to last early because their infantery usualy cost more to reinforce and take longer to reinforce than the allies. They cant stay with a 2-3man squad in fear of being insta wiped so they need to push the ennemy back fast. german grenade also have the most interesting effect (long range, damage+fire effect.)

So they spam grenade way more...

Seems like OKW/OST need to continuously use grenades to stay in / win fights which is my personal experience as well. Usually leaves the Allies (especially the Russians) with a disproportionate amount of spare munitions to dump into weapon upgrades, mines, abilities and offmaps.

Soviet faction is the allied faction using the more grenades because 1/ molotov unlock Price is low 2/ guards/penal meta providing other source of grenade handling. If you look at Soviet meta, Cons is the less mainline infantry used, Soviet can use Penal and guard.

This is reflected in the table, Soviet players have used as much Guards grenades as Cons molotov, plus Penal satchels.
In fact if we addition molotovs to RD33 and Satchels, we are not far behind Axis average usage of grenade.

Now USF and UKF are behind, USF and UKF used less of their grenade than OKW infiltration grenade that is locked behind a unique commander.

So where I join your argument is promoting USF and UKF to use more their grenades would re-balance the early game and the late game: more grenades used during the match mean less munition for upgrades, delaying dual BAR and Bren.

It seem to me that you already have a theory and you are trying to support it by stats.

Connecting grenade use and winrate is a very very very long stretch, simply because the system has way too many variables.

OKW and OST use their grenades a lot because they're there.

USF, SOV and UKF have to buy them, so they'll only invest the fuel if they think grenades are going to be truly impactful.

Grenade Assault: 0

Seems like OKW/OST need to continuously use grenades to stay in / win fights which is my personal experience as well. Usually leaves the Allies (especially the Russians) with a disproportionate amount of spare munitions to dump into weapon upgrades, mines, abilities and offmaps.

Seems like Allies (especially the Russians) need to continuously use weapon upgrades, mines, abilities and offmaps to stay in / win fights which is my personal experience as well. Usually leaves the OKW/OST with a disproportionate amount of spare munitions to dump into grenades.

It seem to me that you already have a theory and you are trying to support it by stats.

Connecting grenade use and winrate is a very very very long stretch, simply because the system has way too many variables.

Nop, Sanders93 did. My opinion is if USF/UKF had a better Access to grenade, this could bring more balance in the fight between early and late game.

Nop, Sanders93 did. My opinion is if USF/UKF had a better Access to grenade, this could bring more balance in the fight between early and late game.

???

....
And one question for the debate:
Does it exists a pattern between grenade usage and winrate?
...

UKF have actually very cheap access to grenades.

In addition OKW and Ostheer grenades access is completely different. Ostheer need to spend allot in research even for doctrinal units.

Imo grenades should not be the determining factor in early engagements since they can be effected by RNG and Lag.

Finally OKW Flame grenade access was introduced as the "lesser evil" in countering Maxim spam and imo flame-grenades should not be available stock to mainline infantry. I would be tempted to swap Ostheer mortars (and mg42) with Leig (and mg34).

Let's remember guys: correlation does not equal causation.

Unless you think it does. But then I have a theory.

Most GCS2 qualifying players are English second language.

Therefore speaking English as your first language actual means you have a lesser chance for qualifying for GCS! Clearly the game is biased for non natives, as proven by win rates.

Let's remember guys: correlation does not equal causation.

Unless you think it does. But then I have a theory.

Most GCS2 qualifying players are English second language.

Therefore speaking English as your first language actual means you have a lesser chance for qualifying for GCS! Clearly the game is biased for non natives, as proven by win rates.

3 over 5 factions have the upper hand and it appears they all use free-tech nades (OKW and OS) or Meta (SOV with Penal/Guards). So there is a correlation, now my question has you didn't want to see is if the causation exists.

Grenade isn't a limited faction that have Little to 0 correlation with victory or defeat unlike speaking english or not. Grenade can wipe squads and more generally wins engagement. So the question is how much do they impact the actual meta.
Some time ago when the game was balanced around early/late game assymetrical balance, grenade design was making sens in the way to delay teching and force choices for the early game dominante factions. Today I think the question need to be evaluated.


So far, except being a true sarcastic heroe you didn't prove anything.

...
3 over 5 factions have the upper hand and it appears they all use free-tech nades (OKW and OS) or Meta (SOV with Penal/Guards)....

If you want to establish the connection of grenades, winrates and early access I would suggest you watch the first 5 minute of all games and see how much damage/casualties can be attributed to grenades.

3 over 5 factions have the upper hand and it appears they all use free-tech nades (OKW and OS) or Meta (SOV with Penal/Guards). So there is a correlation, now my question has you didn't want to see is if the causation exists.

Grenade isn't a limited faction that have Little to 0 correlation with victory or defeat unlike speaking english or not. Grenade can wipe squads and more generally wins engagement. So the question is how much do they impact the actual meta.
Some time ago when the game was balanced around early/late game assymetrical balance, grenade design was making sens in the way to delay teching and force choices for the early game dominante factions. Today I think the question need to be evaluated.


So far, except being a true sarcastic heroe you didn't prove anything.

Im confused what exactly your trying to prove with these stats. That OST, OKW, and SOV have the upper hand because of nades?

Ther are many things you also cant take into account, such as player choices as some players may purposely delay teching their nades (thus reducing the amount of nades they use per game).

IMO ther is VERY LITTLE to NO correlation between a faction performance and whether "free nades" has much of an impact compared to teching as your trying to prove.

Im confused what exactly your trying to prove with these stats. That OST, OKW, and SOV have the upper hand because of nades?

Ther are many things you also cant take into account, such as player choices as some players may purposely delay teching their nades (thus reducing the amount of nades they use per game).

IMO ther is VERY LITTLE to NO correlation between a faction performance and whether "free nades" has much of an impact compared to teching as your trying to prove.

Did I? nop, but agree with your second paragraph, still grenade is maybe something that can be looked at to continue to balance the game.

If you kept nades the same but made Volksgrenadier squads have 50% health, I'm sure you would see OKW winrates drop substantially, but see the same or even more grenade usage from them.

With CoH2 being such a complex game, and the fact that (as for as I remember), nades weren't touched in the last patch, the claim that winrates are attributed to grenades is in my opinion simply preposterous.

If you kept nades the same but made Volksgrenadier squads have 50% health, I'm sure you would see OKW winrates drop substantially, but see the same or even more grenade usage from them.

With CoH2 being such a complex game, and the fact that (as for as I remember), nades weren't touched in the last patch, the claim that winrates are attributed to grenades is in my opinion simply preposterous.

If you would stop to put stupid claim in my mouth, it would be easier no? Winate isn't associated to grenade the same way than Soviet winrate isn't associated to T70 alone. But that's a mix where maybe grenade has a bigger impact than expected.

Mobile Defense wasn't touched the last patchs as well, yet today the doctrine is seen as way too powerfull compared to others.

I'm surprised rifle grenade usage was that high.

I had no doubt OKW win in this competition.
Of coz free unlock is the key.
The Reason ? incendiary grenade are super effective and no brain vs cover , buildings , fighting position, and team weapons. Infiltration grenade coz they are cheap and do the same job.
Give them to allies you will see the usage presentable besides free unlock.