Profile of MilkaCow

Now announce that you'll take me as your official troll and fire Peter and I'm even more happy!

I'll provide information on a couple of grenades, then I'll present my opinion. I really don't want anyone to chip in false information in this thread since it's really demotivational to always post the stats and then have them being ignored.


Shock grenade: 30 munition 4 radius
Guards grenade: 45 munition 4.5 radius

Riflemen: 30 munition 4 radius
Paratrooper: 35 munition 4 radius

Volks/Fuselier: 30 munition 3.5 radius
Fallschirm/Ober: 45 munition 5 radius

PGrens: 45 munition 5 radius


Besides those a couple of other stats are important (throwing time, fuse time etc, but I'm really not motivated to get all those).


Opinion:
I think in general the balance between the grenades is fine. Besides the actual cost of the grenade and their strength the usual targets and the throwing squad is important. Fallschirm/Obers/PGrens get the best grenades, but are also 4 men squads which lose a lot of DPS for throwing it, so a dodge by the enemy can be a major loss. Others like Volks have a pretty weak grenade, but since they are 5 men and have a short fuse time in the actual gameplay it still feels rather strong. Riflemen and paras have stats wise a really nice grenade, but their throwing animation is so long it feels rather useless (especially if you teched to it). Guards have a strong grenade, but also rather expensive. Shocks have a really good grenade per cost (pretty much the same as riflemen) what makes it excellent on them is their squad size and shorter animation.

Might need some minor readjustment since Shocks recently got a major buff. I personally would like to keep their strength, but increase cost maybe to 35 or such.

High difference in the search in matchmaking still means that both sides are almost equally split, since it does not count players already searching. Besides that I wouldn't give much for most written balance wise on these forums. A lot of people come to them after they lost a game to vent their anger. Besides that I wouldn't even mind it that much. Relic reads the forums, but they do not magically obey to whatever is written there. I myself also take a lot of this with a huge grain of salt, which is getting mined by a nice fellow.

LMGs certainly need some changing, but I am not sure which is the best. I guess just test all

There are many possibilities to change them. I'd keep them long range focused or at least similar at all ranges, as the short range focus of the old ones was just too lethal. Other possibilities for changes would be:
- Incremental accuracy combined with lower base accuracy
- Split damage between all entities in the target squad (so you do not drop models so fast)
- Low performance in the open, bonus performance (similar to Osttruppen) when in cover
- Increasing performance depending on how long the squad is standing still (Similar to Kubel, but might be hard due to squad reaction / cover seeking)
- Slower movement for the squad (Carry LMG + Ammo) allowing it to be evaded easier
- Lower DPS, but higher penetration to make it a better soft light vehicle counter
...

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious. Flanking is not rewarded? Most of the tanks have half the rear armor compared to their frontal armor, so you have almost always a 100% chance to penetrate. There are a few exceptions in both directions.
The heavy assault guns / tank destroyers tend to have far more frontal armor compared to their rear armor, examples would be:
Jagdtiger: 525 front, 150 rear (29%)
Panther: 290 / 110 (38%)
Elefant: 400 / 150 (38%)
...
There are like I said also exceptions in the other direction, units that have more than 50% of their frontal armor as rear armor. Those ones are they heavy tanks:
King Tiger: 425 / 225 (53%)
Tiger: 300 / 180 (60%)
IS-2: 375 / 205 (55)

Why is that? Because these tanks are extremely slow and easy to flank, but also need to be directly in the center of the action. The support guns listed previously need to stay at range and their armor reinforces that role - flanking is super efficient vs those since it's hard to do and creates an interesting gameplay where a player needs to protect those. Flanking against something like a Tiger on the other hand is far easier to do - it can't stay on range and it is not really mobile (less mobile than IS-2 unless it's blitzing, FYI). So I'm fine with the concept and I honestly don't think that rear armor would change that much. If you fight a heavy tank and you can flank in most cases you drive right behind him to block his escape route. Even with side+rear armor that would make those tanks too susceptible to flanks and too punishing, so the design in the end would stay similar I guess.