Paratroopers are way better than Rangers.

Ultimate meme is x3 Vickers K rangers with a buddy playing "special weapons" regiment.

Maybe the should move Rangers to CP 2 AND reduce their pop to 9? They be like USF Fallschrimjagers that way, but still not as good.

I see many people using stats, very few understanding them

Maybe the should move Rangers to CP 2 AND reduce their pop to 9? They be like USF Fallschrimjagers that way, but still not as good.

Of course, let's buff rangers even more and let's compare them with a completely unrelated squad. What's next? Riflemen UP?

Rangers design is odd but it is what it is, let's not loose our minds because some people don't like it. 2cp rangers mean overkill squads on top of the best mainline infantry even easier and earlier. They're is no way to force a come back after such strong opening

My problem is with Thompson rangers, who needs to close in to deal damage and have many problems because of that ever since they lost their damage reduction

That is untrue, because when they lost the damage reduction they were compensated fully with lower received accuracy. Their durability versus small arms fire did not change (with only the exception of becoming a bit more susceptible to bad RNG rolls). Only their durability against explosives was affected.

Rangers

[…]
- 0.9 Damage reduction removed.
- Received Accuracy from 0.8 to 0.73
[…]

That is untrue, because when they lost the damage reduction they were compensated fully with lower received accuracy. Their durability versus small arms fire did not change (with only the exception of becoming a bit more susceptible to bad RNG rolls). Only their durability against explosives was affected.

While they were compensated, it doesn't mean that RA translates directly with receive damage modifiers. Even against small arm fire.
It's like the whole change with IS damage from 16 to 14.

While it's harder to gauge at that point in the game with plenty of damage sources other than Rifles, even if it was just against small arm fire, i would rather have damage modifier.

That been said, i think the example brought up is exaggerated.

Maybe the should move Rangers to CP 2 AND reduce their pop to 9? They be like USF Fallschrimjagers that way, but still not as good.

Except USF has better Fallschrimjaegers which you would know if you were any good with that faction.

While they were compensated, it doesn't mean that RA translates directly with receive damage modifiers. Even against small arm fire.
It's like the whole change with IS damage from 16 to 14.

The Lee Enfield change from 16 to 14 damage was significant because it actually increased the time to kill, for the rifle itself and also in conjunction with the Bren and the Sten. The damage reduction into lower RA change doesn't, or barely. The most common weapons, 16, 14, 12 and 4 damage ones, have the same BTK (Bullets To Kill) against 0.73RA Rangers (110 effective HP) as they did against 0.8RA/0.9DR Rangers (111 effective HP). There are very few weapons that actually have a lower BTK now, with 10 damage Panzerfusilier Kar 98K and 5 damage PGren STG 44 are the only ones I can think of (and to be honest the STG 44 needing 22 instead of 23 bullets is hardly noticeable).

The only real change is that damage reduction is a bit more reliable than received accuracy, so Rangers will now take a bit more damage if the enemy gets some good accuracy rolls compared to before, and they are probably a bit more vulnerable to high accuracy weapons like the Obers Kar 98K (that are likely to hit regardless of target size), but I think that difference is negligible.

There may be some rare instances where the damage of AOE adds up with small arms damage quite perfectly and kills a model that would've otherwise survived one more shot with the damage reduction, but I think that's also insignificant enough to dismiss. I'm aware that the RA technically didn't absolutely fully compensate the DR, but I believe the difference is so small that for arguments' sake we can quite safely assume there is basically no difference. In the vast majority of cases, Rangers did not lose durability against small arms fire. Unless of course tests prove that the difference actually is significant enough, in which case I'd be happy to look into further compensation.

Except USF has better Fallschrimjaegers which you would know if you were any good with that faction.

Could you point me towards these cloaking elite infantry with snares?

All the USF cloaking infantry I can find have non-stupid designs instead.

Could you point me towards these cloaking elite infantry with snares?

All the USF cloaking infantry I can find have non-stupid designs instead.

Paratroopers with LMGs have better combat performance and a suppression ability. They both beat Falls squads 1v1 and function better with an army around them.

Unless you wanna argue that falls are better due to snares, in which case I have no interest in debating this for the 20th time.

Rangers ulike other cc oriented units dobt exactly have way of closing in by themselves. They dont have armour or sheer 6 man durability, smokes or sprint. They must use abilities commanders have and im personally fine eith it. I only dislike the lack of choice when it comes to upgrades, only reliable choice being thompsons.

Its simple to picture. Falls are a grenadier concept adapted for OKW, meanwhile rangers are more like a penal concept for riflemen if they were conscripts.

Of course falls are more useful for OKW than rangers for USF, but both have absolutly different perspectives and designs. Its like comparing HMGs to AA guns

Paratroopers with LMGs have better combat performance and a suppression ability. They both beat Falls squads 1v1 and function better with an army around them.

Unless you wanna argue that falls are better due to snares, in which case I have no interest in debating this for the 20th time.

You're comparing a dedicated anti-infantry squad to a cloaking squad. That's like claiming Shocks are 'better' than Commandos. The comparison breaks down long before you add snares.

But while we're here, imagine Commandos with snares.

Rangers ulike other cc oriented units dobt exactly have way of closing in by themselves. They dont have armour or sheer 6 man durability, smokes or sprint. They must use abilities commanders have and im personally fine eith it. I only dislike the lack of choice when it comes to upgrades, only reliable choice being thompsons.

Except rangers are not cqb infantry. They are good out to medium ranges even with the Thompson. Ass grens and ass engies are cqb infantry as they lack dps out at range. Ass engies ALSO lack smoke, armour or sprint because it's easier to list the units in the usf roster that DON'T have smoke. Try combined arms, the game is actually built around it.

Except rangers are not cqb infantry. They are good out to medium ranges even with the Thompson. Ass grens and ass engies are cqb infantry as they lack dps out at range. Ass engies ALSO lack smoke, armour or sprint because it's easier to list the units in the usf roster that DON'T have smoke. Try combined arms, the game is actually built around it.

When did i say that rangers lacking smoke was issue to me? I said i was fine with it

When did i say that rangers lacking smoke was issue to me? I said i was fine with it

Apologies, I misinterpreted. At any rate, they don't only have thompsons, they also have BARs and zooks as well as enough slots to scavanage.

What if rangers could put their zook away just like sturm sweeper? give rangers an alternative upgrade that gives them 2 zooks(and lock away 3rd slot) and ability to take away so they can use carbines (since they are quite good).

What if rangers could put their zook away just like sturm sweeper? give rangers an alternative upgrade that gives them 2 zooks(and lock away 3rd slot) and ability to take away so they can use carbines (since they are quite good).

Couldn't be elite zooks then. That would be too much I think.

Apologies, I misinterpreted. At any rate, they don't only have thompsons, they also have BARs and zooks as well as enough slots to scavanage.

Bars are certainly an options, however they are somewhat ineffective for their cost. they could get some passive boost with rangers and paras like bren cmd, but triple bar would be then particurally broken.

Bars are certainly an options, however they are somewhat ineffective for their cost. they could get some passive boost with rangers and paras like bren cmd, but triple bar would be then particurally broken.

I consider BARs trash as far as upgrades go. You have to have 2 of them to really see any difference in the combat preformace of the sqaud using them but they're all you get unless going with Paras or Rangers. Brens are trash too but they don't cost that much so it's not as big a deal. At 90 munitions for two it's not so bad. Individually, one BAR for 60 munis and one Bren for 45 munis, they are utter trash compared to an LMG42s, Stgs, LMG34s ect.