We have them in Tunisia already, we have them in Normandy, but not in Berlin, which is the latter part of the war itself, so technically they should have all the weapon options.
I get it may be balance, but honestly ate they that good, I hardly equip them tbh
What do you think, should devs add them?
New progression may mean soldiers equipped with them may appear in Berlin soon anyway…
I don’t think the Soviets have these grenades iirc. So it was probably just balance.
Post merge Soviet mains will be furious.
No paras, no WP, no IP…
Well the merge is coming so, you will have them in Berlin soon.
As far im known, USSR never had any contact grenades on military service
Unless you count molotovs…
seeing as i have maxed out campaigns for all sides (#yesallsides) i don’t think i main the soviets, but do think that this is some tremendously lopsided and bad planning from the dev side.
You give germans 3 (!) things which the russians wont have before the merge, create a tech tree where all the fun stuff for them is level 8+ and way less content than the germans for most early levels. 
They should at least communicate a plan on how they will balance it out, seeing as they decided to give the ussr-unique ampulomet to germans too.
soviets have ampulemots instead (no one else has them except for axis). which unlike impact grenades are actually useful.
Remind me again pls, who exactly are the soviets fighting against? 
The soviets didn’t have an anti tank launcher either but they get the panzerfaust
The mass-use of captured panzerfausts by soviet troops exactly for that reason is however well documented and perfectly historical.
So they did have them, they just didn’t make them.
Ampulomets are definitely useful, but so are impact grenades. Just because most players prefer carrying the OP explosive pack doesn’t mean that impacts are worthless.
They are great for assaulter squads especially. When time and speed is of importance, using an impact grenade means you don’t have to cook the grenade, and they can’t throw it back. You can rapidly clear rooms with them, without setting the area ablaze like a molotov and making it so you can’t go in either.
frag grenades are significantly stronger. i made a grenade guide weeks ago and impact grenades are together with smoke grenades the weakest in the game.
The biggest joke is:
Rip for soviet balance.
Then I will be the first one to tell you that your grenade guide is quite flawed.
Both impact grenades and smoke have their own unique reasons to be used.
Sure, frag grenades have a bigger blast radius, but they also require a bit of time to cook or the enemy has a chance to throw it back or take cover. Also during that time you are cooking it, your gun is put away and you cannot defend yourself. Impact grenades don’t have those problems. An accurate throw without the enemy having time to take cover is just as lethal and sometimes more than a large radius frag grenade.
As far as smoke, the amount of smoke put off may be rather low, but used in the right situations can make a massive difference. Instead of being used like smoke shells or smoke artillery, smoke grenades are better used in hallways, alleys, or in front of the window that the enemy is shooting from.
Additionally, smoke grenades have a fairly long duration, so you can throw it, move forward, pick it up and toss it further. Making it more useful than you may think.
I use them in this manner when digging trenches to very good effect.
my statement is they are the 2 worst, your whole text doesnt adress any type of hierarchy. post a ranked list with all grenade types here and then your argument can make sense.
Because a “Hierarchy” of grenades is being ignorant to their unique uses. You are only comparing them in direct stats and not addressing situational variance. Just because one has a “bigger blast radius” doesn’t immediately make it better.
In a wide open field where there is no cover, and enemies are just charging across, then yes a frag grenade is your better option.
However, if there is cover involved, and you only have a moment to deal with multiple enemies at once before they take cover, impact grenades are the better option.
If the enemy has a fortified MG nest in a window and decimating an approach, a frag, explosive pack, etc will likely not be effective. However, tossing a smoke grenade in front of his line-of-sight will make his accuracy extremely poor for its duration, allowing you to push up while sustaining considerably less casualties.
Molotovs can act as area denial.
WP works decently to clear areas with light cover.
Explosive packs (which personally I believe need to be nerfed or removed contrary to people complaining otherwise), can take out both tanks and infantry, but (supposedly) have a smaller blast radius and still have to be cooked.
So instead of going off of a generalized “hierarchy” which can be extremely misleading and ultimately wrong, a good grenade list should be which grenades are good for which types of infantry and their uses in different situations.
There is probably some room to explore older WW1 era impact grenades if factional disparity becomes too great of an issue, but I suspect for the time being we’ll likely just see no effective mirror for content, and so long as the asymmetry in this area isn’t too great an issue, it wouldn’t manifest any Soviet impact grenades.
I would be shocked if the Soviets/Russians lacked such a weapon between both wars, as the nominal technology of an impact grenade is probably one of the most primitive forms of the weapon, and we do have some WW1 era grenades already present in-game such as the Mills grenade from 1915.
I do know of at least one case of a purported Japanese WW1 impact grenade should that become a gameplay concern there as well, but again, as stated above, I’d wager that it’d only really be worth investigating if this manifests as an actual gameplay concern.
the only ww1 example I can think of is Lishin grenade, and even then its pre-ww1, designed back in 1904
Fair enough, in that case, its addition would technically be a new form of content (pre-WW1/Russo-Japanese war), so I’d wager there’d be a more significant burden for consideration on if the asymmetry is unacceptably significant.