Are rangers overpriced?

USF weakest faction confirmed

I bet obers won't say that when those guys will flank then with 4 thompsons lol. It straight up has better DPS then BAR at ranges close 18ish meters, while costing fraction of it.

Also 1 Ranger has better RA characteristics then 1 Stormtrooper.

You should not expect them to easily beat infantry that come later than them and have a gift basket for you.

I didn't see anyone saying they should easily beat Obers...

And 3x bar rangers is a significantly larger investment and risk than either Ober upgrade. Obers will only drop the mg34 if they get wiped and the StGs can't get dropped at all. For 180 muni it seems like they should do a little better

Not a fan of either triple upgrade on rangers because of the droprate. I don't even get 1 bar with the thompsons for the same reason

Here are the original patch notes that changed everything:

Rangers

Rangers are being more accessible, while their defensive stats are being adjusted to match all other infantry. Previously, they were the only ones to take less damage from all sources.

- Reinforce cost from 33 to 32
- Cost from 400 to 350
- 0.9 Damage reduction removed.
- Received Accuracy from 0.8 to 0.73.
- Now have access to Paratrooper Bazookas from Weapon Racks or drops. UI indicator added to inform the player of this change.


-------

They were even more pricy before. But of the course the gamechanger for them as a CQC unit was that they would nerver get wiped by a single standard AoE. And there is a lot of AoE in lategame, especially the multiplayer ones that were talked about here. I do think unless equipped with triple zook they scale poorly in lategame. CQC units overall tend to get less useful in lategame unless they have some sort of "defensive" buff like Commandos Camouflage or maybe Shocktroopers combination of six man + body armor + smoke grenade which makes them still somehow viable to use. CQC rangers just tend to bleed you too much. Airbornes with M1919A6 are much better for example because they deal their main damage at long range already and get less counter fire by doing so (preferable from a green cover position).

No problem.
And I never said "easily beat obers". I expect them to lose vs obers generally. But they do not just lose most engagements. They get shat upon by infrared's and you need to charge MG34. You will lose models but Obers will lose (if they don't use nades). Problem with charging is, Obers won't be alone, and a decent OKW player will always focus down the charging infantry, leaving the BAR rifles that supported the rangers, easy pickings for the obers + volks. BARs ofc being only good close to medium range, static.

I thought that was the general expectation of the testing but alright, I take it back. Well, as you've seen, you just need to run up to LMG Obers with Thompson Rangers to beat them. IR StG 44 is a strictly doctrinal weapon and means you get shredded by M1919A6s iirc, also a doctrinal weapon. Diving them is one of the worst things you could do vs them.

I didn't see anyone saying they should easily beat Obers...

And 3x bar rangers is a significantly larger investment and risk than either Ober upgrade. Obers will only drop the mg34 if they get wiped and the StGs can't get dropped at all. For 180 muni it seems like they should do a little better

Not a fan of either triple upgrade on rangers because of the droprate. I don't even get 1 bar with the thompsons for the same reason

People getting triple BAR Rangers imho is highly unlikely, esp when Thompson is a superior upgrade overall and cannot be dropped. Realistically it's 80 vs 100 muni iirc for LMG34 to Thompsons? I see those guys coming and they get treated like shocktroops. They don't really need a BAR because you'll lose someone on approach typically, then it's 4 Thompsons vs whatever's unlucky enough to be that close.

People getting triple BAR Rangers imho is highly unlikely, esp when Thompson is a superior upgrade overall and cannot be dropped. Realistically it's 80 vs 100 muni iirc for LMG34 to Thompsons? I see those guys coming and they get treated like shocktroops. They don't really need a BAR because you'll lose someone on approach typically, then it's 4 Thompsons vs whatever's unlucky enough to be that close.

Yeah I think that's OPs point though. Their 3rd weapon slot is useless for anything other than zooks. Which imo is also overrated. The 3rd weapon slot just isn't that great of bonus, because of the dropping

Thompsons are 90 muni on Rangers and Paras. The tommy upgrade is fine

I think their popcost is too high atm, but idk if I would change anything else

Yeah I think that's OPs point though. Their 3rd weapon slot is useless for anything other than zooks. Which imo is also overrated. The 3rd weapon slot just isn't that great of bonus, because of the dropping

Thompsons are 90 muni on Rangers and Paras. The tommy upgrade is fine

I think their popcost is too high atm, but idk if I would change anything else

Righto. Yeah it's prob too high.

The Thompson unlike other SMG remain good at mid ranges.

It's actually fucking disgusting that they have higher dps at mid range than stg 44 which are actual fucking assault rifles.
Is a display of the dev and balance teams biases towards USF.

It's actually fucking disgusting that they have higher dps at mid range than stg 44 which are actual fucking assault rifles.

This meaningless nonsense, its a video game. Balance matters more. I assume you have no problem with g43s having .8 moving accuracy lol

Btw Pgren stg has more dps than thompson from range 17-35. Literally half of their firing range. Not sure what you expect bro, seems pretty fair for everyone

Is a display of the dev and balance teams biases towards USF.

LMAO

...
Btw Pgren stg has more dps than thompson from range 17-35. Literally half of their firing range. Not sure what you expect bro, seems pretty fair for everyone
...

A) A assault rifle having better DPS long range than an SMG is consistent with weapons profiles concept.

B) Direct weapon comparison from squad with different entity count can be misleading. For instance ST MP-40 is better than commandos Sten but commandos but there total DPS is about the same.

C)"Elite" Thompson has a different DPS profile than other smg (although some SMG did get better mid DPS recently ) than other SMG.

Rangers with calliope is already a common cheese strat

Why people always bring that argument ? Panzergarandier and werfer spam is way more potent, cheaper and available without doc.

Why people always bring that argument ? Panzergarandier and werfer spam is way more potent, cheaper and available without doc.

Panzergren spam (with schrecks) is only viable in the 4-digit ranks

Panzergren spam (with schrecks) is only viable in the 4-digit ranks

The point was cheese not viability, so that point is irrelevant

The point was cheese not viability, so that point is irrelevant

Okay so it's way more potent but you can't vouch for it's viability

A) A assault rifle having better DPS long range than an SMG is consistent with weapons profiles concept.

B) Direct weapon comparison from squad with different entity count can be misleading. For instance ST MP-40 is better than commandos Sten but commandos but there total DPS is about the same.

C)"Elite" Thompson has a different DPS profile than other smg (although some SMG did get better mid DPS recently ) than other SMG.

A) Okay dude tell that to zero. I said seems fair for everyone, have no problem with it having bettr long range
B)You can also tell that to the guy hating on relic. He is the one who compared them, i just brought in the #s. I didnt say anything about commandos or stens
C)What other smgs? He was only talking about tommy vs mp44

Here are the original patch notes that changed everything:

Rangers

Rangers are being more accessible, while their defensive stats are being adjusted to match all other infantry. Previously, they were the only ones to take less damage from all sources.

- Reinforce cost from 33 to 32
- Cost from 400 to 350
- 0.9 Damage reduction removed.
- Received Accuracy from 0.8 to 0.73.
- Now have access to Paratrooper Bazookas from Weapon Racks or drops. UI indicator added to inform the player of this change.


-------

They were even more pricy before. But of the course the gamechanger for them as a CQC unit was that they would nerver get wiped by a single standard AoE. And there is a lot of AoE in lategame, especially the multiplayer ones that were talked about here. I do think unless equipped with triple zook they scale poorly in lategame. CQC units overall tend to get less useful in lategame unless they have some sort of "defensive" buff like Commandos Camouflage or maybe Shocktroopers combination of six man + body armor + smoke grenade which makes them still somehow viable to use. CQC rangers just tend to bleed you too much. Airbornes with M1919A6 are much better for example because they deal their main damage at long range already and get less counter fire by doing so (preferable from a green cover position).

This change should be reverted. While the initial cost was made to be cheaper, it ends up costing you more manpower over the cost of the game due to the lack of damage reduction. Especially as you mentioned due to the massive amount of AOE in the game. Previously a direct mortar strike may have dropped the squad to half health in which you would retreat to heal up while currently they lose half the squad to random RNG which is terrible for a CQC unit.

I think they should get something little extra. Whatever that is. I highly doubt the balance team would introduce it into consideration, but who knows. Maybe there is some logic in them

Don't IR Obers ignore most of the RA cover bonusses?

If that is the case: why do you base half your argument on that? IR Obers are doing their job as intended: Shred infantry in cover and close range. Almost every unit would lose against them when moving in. That's not an issue with rangers, but the general abundancy of cover in team games due to late game arty. Alternatively, that's an issue with the IR StGs, but I'd highly doubt that.

Don't IR Obers ignore most of the RA cover bonusses?

If that is the case: why do you base half your argument on that? IR Obers are doing their job as intended: Shred infantry in cover and close range. Almost every unit would lose against them when moving in. That's not an issue with rangers, but the general abundancy of cover in team games due to late game arty. Alternatively, that's an issue with the IR StGs, but I'd highly doubt that.

Reading comprehension over 9000.

My point is not Rangers vs Obers. My point is:
Rangers are doctrinal (2 doctrines)
Similarly priced Obers are stock.
Obers need less muni investing, have 2 types of nades, cost less, have suppressing fire and booby trap.
Comparing the combat is not the point. I used the combat to just give a general insight how two elite squads duel it out in possible teamgame scenarios. One point could be that obers with IR are OP in close to medium range but that's not something I'd want to argue now because I don't think they are (maybe, really don't know or care).

Rangers cost more MP, pop whilst having poorer combat and utility skills. Only real use for them is on CQC maps with lots of sight blockers because tommy rangers need to run in.
So I'm arguing that rangers need something. Anything. The DMG reduction would be preferable, as some say, but won't bother analyzing potential problems as I don't care enough. Just pointed out how Obers win most of the engagements (and how the IR obers are the strongest ones in any scenario, but they are also doctrinal so it's fine).

I think they should get something little extra. Whatever that is. I highly doubt the balance team would introduce it into consideration, but who knows. Maybe there is some logic in them

Maybe just add smoke.

Reading comprehension over 9000.

Now compare rifles to volks and see the faction as a whole instead of comparing 2 units in a vacuum.