I' be perfectly willing to vote for anything else that reduces their cost. But that same cost of manufacturing will apply to grenades using the same source. They might be VE Grenades, equipped to only a small number of soldiers. Not very cost-effective.
I am fully willing to support a design to make manufacturing the ammo easier and/or cheaper. That's the base of my vote and the revision I proposed. Red Shells are also stated to be a level cheaper, so if we get VE bullets, that's E Red Shells. (At this point I am repeating myself. Do you see the math involved in my logic? Cause that's my reasoning. Grenades don't affect production cost, and a lower range.)
Also.... in wide open plains a grenade is deadlier than a single bullet because there's no cover to stop a single grenade from sending shrapnel in every direction killing an entire squad than just a single soldier?
This is also.. I suppose misconstruction of an argument? Grenades are deadly in enclosed spaces. They're deadly in open spaces. If you're right next to them, they are deadly. The explosion will cause more damage than the fragments. At farther ranges, effectiveness tends to drop off, with the only death-dealing being fragmentation. Which is still deadly. The deadliness of grenades is not in question. I just find Expensive Red Shells to be a more effective add to our arsenal, when combined with VE "war crime" exploding bullets equipped to our forces. It's a morale hitter when that gunman you're closing in on could just blast off a leg, arm, or kill you messily. Grenade launchers are effective, but also generic. They're effective, deadly, and common in the military. They don't provide anything surprising.