Are rangers overpriced?

Snip

Sounds like we just need to nerf Obers.

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

Rifles win against volks always except during the power creep upgrade on volks. I don't know where you're going with here. Obers are a natural upgrade to volks and they shred pretty much everything. The usual 3x rifles + officer needs to be blobbed to be effective once obers hit the field as they will usually support volks and laser down from long range BAR rifles. So I still don't get the stupid whataboutism of your post

EDIT: And I didn't compare them in a vacuum. I didn't do any long range 3 minute engagements like they are the only units in the field. I rushed them to each other, something you will see often in teamgames. All of the engagements lasted for <10 seconds. So please stop with the usual BS that comes out of you and think for a second. You can go with whataboutism in a circle.
But rangers have a sherman. But okw has an aggressive raketen. But USF has this, but OKW has that.... fuc* me some people are dense

Rifles win against volks always except during the power creep upgrade on volks. I don't know where you're going with here. Obers are a natural upgrade to volks and they shred pretty much everything. The usual 3x rifles + officer needs to be blobbed to be effective once obers hit the field as they will usually support volks and laser down from long range BAR rifles. So I still don't get the stupid whataboutism of your post

EDIT: And I didn't compare them in a vacuum. I didn't do any long range 3 minute engagements like they are the only units in the field. I rushed them to each other, something you will see often in teamgames. All of the engagements lasted for <10 seconds. So please stop with the usual BS that comes out of you and think for a second. You can go with whataboutism in a circle.
But rangers have a sherman. But okw has an aggressive raketen. But USF has this, but OKW has that.... fuc* me some people are dense

That's the problem here. Now apply it to the thread. USF have better starters, OKW have more accessible elites, it's really not that hard. Arguments can be made for matching ober popcap or getting a bit more utility. Arguing my 3x bar rangers lose while closing in to IR StG obers is like asking why do rifles lose on the close to pgrens. They're supposed to lose.

That's the problem here. Now apply it to the thread. USF have better starters, OKW have more accessible elites, it's really not that hard. Arguments can be made for matching ober popcap or getting a bit more utility. Arguing my 3x bar rangers lose while closing in to IR StG obers is like asking why do rifles lose on the close to pgrens. They're supposed to lose.

F*** me you're dense. You're arguing a point that has nothing to do with this thread. I'd report it for offtopic but you're the moderator, so...

USF have better starters. Well sure. That's why OKW gets sturmpios which wipe echelons and rifles alike in close range. And if they charge in and drop only one model, they still win vs rifles. Volks are weaker but that has nothing to do with the fu***** topic you dense bread.

Read the following slowly:
The point is that rangers for the price are in my opinion underperforming overall. They are quite decent in combat but lack any sort of utility as a doctrinal elite option. Even PGrens have more options with certain commanders.

I compared the combat to point out the power of obers. I could have easily used penals or rifles or guards or w/e against obers. I decided to use rangers so that there is more merit to the point you Swiss cheese.
And I specified modes used. 3v3+. I specifically said I won't comment on 1v1.
Should rangers be priced at 350 MP and 10 pop cap locked behind 3 CP? That's the whole question. Why you keep derealing the thread with your nonesense comparing volks or whatnot I do not know, but you are the moderator so I guess I can't criticize you, you pillock.

One can always say that if you go for a double spios and a kubel you will get the upper hand over USF early game but your mid game will suffer in return.

Now to say it again.

I used << RANGERS >> against << OBERS >> to show that elite to elite combat, Obers are much more favourable. Now that is all fine. However, my question now stands why are Rangers priced more than Obers? I won't use rifles to tackle obers. I won't use echelons. I will use vehicles and elites. I'm not talking about a Sherman vs Obers (+ raketen) matchup.

I'm talking about whether the price on Rangers is justified, all things considered. From combat to utilty

Speaking of CQC inf, litterary all of them are kinda messed up to begin with. Unless you are using them early or in the enviroment which favors them.

Even shocktroops sometimes struggle to properly get into the range or get closer to the enemy. At least in teamgamemodes.

The only thing I dont understand is why rangers are 10 pop-cap while all other elites are 9 pop-cap, they are not that much better anyway. Even when you compare them to paras (8 pop-cap(?) and 10 more MP), ranges actually requre more investement via unlocking weapon raks, while paras can just be upgraded with lmgs\zooks\tommis without any side investments.

3CP is somewhat justified because USF of the rifles, having rangers early might increase USF snowballing.

Also rangers are a bit of a misleading unit. You have tompsons on them, but at the same time their standart rifles are doing really nice damage at all ranges after buff, their zooks are extrimely usefull and with Bars they are really good aswell.

So as a platform, you have 4 potentual ways of how to use them they are flexable elite unit.

On a side note, I woudnt really even bring Obersts into a considiration and treat them as a benchmark elite in a vacuum to begin with. Obersts are really dumb unit powerwise, which existance is justified solely because of how shitty Volks are past mid game. And if they are vetted, well shit, bring some indirect fire, dont let your inf get close to them. And ofcouse all LMGs in CoH2 are OP as hell, because they are just sniping models which only adds to Obersts power.

F*** me you're dense. You're arguing a point that has nothing to do with this thread. I'd report it for offtopic but you're the moderator, so...

USF have better starters. Well sure. That's why OKW gets sturmpios which wipe echelons and rifles alike in close range. And if they charge in and drop only one model, they still win vs rifles. Volks are weaker but that has nothing to do with the fu***** topic you dense bread.

Read the following slowly:
The point is that rangers for the price are in my opinion underperforming overall. They are quite decent in combat but lack any sort of utility as a doctrinal elite option. Even PGrens have more options with certain commanders.

I compared the combat to point out the power of obers. I could have easily used penals or rifles or guards or w/e against obers. I decided to use rangers so that there is more merit to the point you Swiss cheese.
And I specified modes used. 3v3+. I specifically said I won't comment on 1v1.
Should rangers be priced at 350 MP and 10 pop cap locked behind 3 CP? That's the whole question. Why you keep derealing the thread with your nonesense comparing volks or whatnot I do not know, but you are the moderator so I guess I can't criticize you, you pillock.

One can always say that if you go for a double spios and a kubel you will get the upper hand over USF early game but your mid game will suffer in return.

Now to say it again.

I used << RANGERS >> against << OBERS >> to show that elite to elite combat, Obers are much more favourable. Now that is all fine. However, my question now stands why are Rangers priced more than Obers? I won't use rifles to tackle obers. I won't use echelons. I will use vehicles and elites. I'm not talking about a Sherman vs Obers (+ raketen) matchup.

I'm talking about whether the price on Rangers is justified, all things considered. From combat to utilty

Since I play every single faction and coming up on 8,000 hours of COH 2 I have an unbiased opinion of each faction. Which can't be said about most people on these forums.

In any case, I do agree with you. Rangers are nice but are more of a luxury item for USF and not really a part of a core build. For example as Soviets, T2 into Shock Troops/Guards are viable as they provide invaluable in their usefulness while Rangers are essentially Rifleman with 3 weapon slots and lack anything that Rifle's don't already do.

Sure the Thompson upgrade is great but by the time they come into play is right when light vehicles start coming into play so the window of opportunity to use them is much smaller than say Shock Troops. Also USF is extremely Ammo Starved. Having to pay 120 Ammo for each rifleman just so they can compete is extremely steep so trying to fit in an additional unit like the Ranger becomes harder.

Now if Rangers either had damage reduction returned, or they didn't have to pay for the Thompson (imagine if Shock Troops came with rifles and you had upgrade to the SMGs) then it would be ok if they are weaker than Obers. They are not only more expensive but doctrinal, and weaker and bleed your MP to death. Compared to paratroopers which can sit behind green cover with dual LMGs and are more cost effective (by bleeding less MP) and they can also beat almost every other infantry once they gain veterancy.

You have tompsons on them, but at the same time their standart rifles are doing really nice damage at all ranges after buff, their zooks are extrimely usefull and with Bars they are really good aswell.

So as a platform, you have 4 potentual ways of how to use them they are flexable elite unit.

Bars are not really good on them. There's almost no reason to get Bars on rangers. If you get 3x they will drop them like crazy. Thompsons is better in them in almost every way

Thompsons or zooks are the only "good" ways to use them, but even zooks can be bad. The droprate is a problem whenever you triple up on anything

Bars are not really good on them. There's almost no reason to get Bars on rangers. If you get 3x they will drop them like crazy. Thompsons is better in them in almost every way

Thompsons or zooks are the only "good" ways to use them, but even zooks can be bad. The droprate is a problem whenever you triple up on anything

Well Bars are still better then nothing if you picked rangers on open maps where you cant really get close without being noticed, but they would have been alright if not the drop rate which is crazy indeed.

But again, if rangers was able to get weapons without racks, x3 bars for a lowered price (like 100mun), zooks for a small discount aswell and their pop-cap was lowered to be 9. Then they would have been alright elite, right now they are just fall flat on their asses when compared to paras, especially considering that paras comms are one of the best.

If Rangers could get weapons that they wont drop like a pinata, that would be a massive improvement.

Well Bars are still better then nothing if you picked rangers on open maps where you cant really get close without being noticed, but they would have been alright if not the drop rate which is crazy indeed.

But again, if rangers was able to get weapons without racks, x3 bars for a lowered price (like 100mun), zooks for a small discount aswell and their pop-cap was lowered to be 9. Then they would have been alright elite, right now they are just fall flat on their asses when compared to paras, especially considering that paras comms are one of the best.

That's my point. They need something. Not anything extra large or game changing, but something that would justify the price. Even a thing as small as the DMG reduction would go a long way in lategame. Drop rates, utility... you name it. Rangers are too pricy for what they bring to the table imho. Their combat prowess is fine, but overall they are lackluster

Reading comprehension over 9000.

90% of your text are combat comparisons, no reason to wonder why it could be understood as the main point.

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).

If something is stock or doctrinal does not matter for overall balance decisions.

Ranger's 'utility' are the weapon racks. CQC specialist? Check. Mid specialist? Check. AT specialist? Check. Other factions get these as upgrade buttons. PGrens also have next to no utility stock while having even poorer damage retention. But in the end, if you use these unit by unit comparisons to support your argument (which you obviously try to do), you can't neglect faction context.

I am fully with you regarding the pop cap decrease since this one has always been a bit too much. I also agree that Rangers are just a boring squad overall. Beefed up Rifles, but not interesting? UP? I personally don't think so.
To be honest, after this post I don't get why you really started this thread in the first place if you 'don't bother analyzing potential problems' with your most favourite solution. Why discuss a balance topic if your stance in the first place is that you want that buff and don't care about potential issues?

But as I said: I agree on POP reduction, would prefer a squad rework as well although this won't come anymore, and slightly pff topic regarding Obers, I'd like to have theor booby trap stripped away as well.

At least Ranger should reduce population to 8 or 9 like other factions elite infantry

Make rangers get weapons through upgrades, rather than from racks. Each weapon upgrade should provide the Rangers with a special ability to make the squad less boring.

1) Thompsons - As now, but add a "fire up" ability that is more expensive than sprint and makes the squad immune to suppression, but take extra damage while active.

2) 3x Bazooka - As now, but also provides the rangers the ability to fire an "aimed shot" rocket that functions like the Puma's ability of the same name. (A white phosphorus rocket could work too instead, if it could be made to work right.)

3) 3x BAR - Provides the squad with 3x BARs with reduced drop chance and slightly better stats than standard BARs. Provides the squad with a suppressive fire ability.

Make rangers get weapons through upgrades, rather than from racks. Each weapon upgrade should provide the Rangers with a special ability to make the squad less boring.

1) Thompsons - As now, but add a "fire up" ability that is more expensive than sprint and makes the squad immune to suppression, but take extra damage while active.

2) 3x Bazooka - As now, but also provides the rangers the ability to fire an "aimed shot" rocket that functions like the Puma's ability of the same name. (A white phosphorus rocket could work too instead, if it could be made to work right.)

3) 3x BAR - Provides the squad with 3x BARs with reduced drop chance and slightly better stats than standard BARs. Provides the squad with a suppressive fire ability.

I agree mostly. The third option isn't necessary though. Upgraded Rifleman and Paras are very good at medium/long range. No need for another elite squad in the same direction.