USF Rangers

With the british forces coming into the fray they will have commandos and probably suspected Airborne paratroopers in their arsenal. and of course soviets have their guard rifles. Yet USF is still bereft of a "true" elite unit in their inventory excluding their paras because they are not exactly up to par with OKW's super duper soldiers (obers) i am hoping that relic will add USF rangers into MP after or during the brits release so that USF can have an elite unit of their own since each of the other 4 factions get elite units in their stock.

this thread spam tho

I'd love to see rangers ♡♡

USF still need new units, rangers the lists goes on regardless and there can be no more hand-me-downs

I'd love to see rangers ♡♡

same here they were in CoH1 so i see no harm in them being in CoH2

USF can have an elite unit of their own since each of the other 4 factions get elite units in their stock.

USF does have an Elite Unit, they have the Paratroopers.

USF does have an Elite Unit, they have the Paratroopers.

they are not exactly up to scale with OKW's super duper soldiers (obers) are they? i prefer rangers over paras all the way

they are not exactly up to scale with OKW's super duper soldiers (obers) are they?

Neither do Guards or Shocks?

Neither do Guards or Shocks?

ouch...thats not good

ouch...thats not good

That's why Obers cost 400MP + 70MU to be fully effective. They're the most expensive Elite Infantry.

That's why Obers cost 400MP + 70MU to be fully effective. They're the most expensive Elite Infantry.

based off your details they also sound very cost effective for the its price of MP and MU

USF need more new units and rangers will be excellent thing.

That's why Obers cost 400MP + 70MU to be fully effective. They're the most expensive Elite Infantry.

They also don't hit their stride until their very strong(probably over the top) vet bonuses kick in.

If Ranger were ever added, make them a unit that starts with the M1 Garand and to make them different from Riflemen, make them better at range, but worse up close as USF, aside from Pathfinder, don't have a combat infantry unit meant for long-range. Doesn't make sense given that these guys are leading the way, but they shouldn't overshadow rifles, but also should not be para clones by having two specialized weapon upgrades. Ripping the current Rangers out of the files would just be broken. Maybe make them an ability focused unit such as having a different version of volley fire that reduces the hostile target's effectiveness for a period of time that does not make them easier to hit, but it does reduce accuracy and must be channeled on the particular unit meaning you need other units to be around to take advantage of the fact the enemy squad is debuffed.

Just throwing random ideas, but rather than just killy elite troops (they'd still do very well at fighting at range) that just get more and more firepower, make them a unit that relies heavily on abilities to shift a battle, but needs other units to take advantage of it, sort of like using the Stuart's Stun Shot on heavier vehicles.

I mainly play USF, so maybe I am somewhat biased here...but I am seriously curious how someone can argue against and/or be entirely opposed to the USF getting an extra infantry unit to mess around with. It's actually hilarious to me. But then again, I laugh a lot - so who knows.

Anyways, all we have is riflemen! That's it! Every other faction has variety and different units with different abilities - and we get riflemen (and paras/pathfinders) but with that, you're basically telling me I have to strictly play ONE commander (airborne) everytime if I want a single ounce of variety in the units I can build? Come on, man.

We aren't asking for much here. Lol. We aren't asking for a unit that can go invisible and launch rockets out of their ass. We are just asking for an elite infantry squad that can go toe to toe with German infantry and not bleed manpower like a severed artery.

/end rant. Lol.

I mainly play USF, so maybe I am somewhat biased here...but I am seriously curious how someone can argue against and/or be entirely opposed to the USF getting an extra infantry unit to mess around with. It's actually hilarious to me. But then again, I laugh a lot - so who knows.

Anyways, all we have is riflemen! That's it! Every other faction has variety and different units with different abilities - and we get riflemen (and paras/pathfinders) but with that, you're basically telling me I have to strictly play ONE commander (airborne) everytime if I want a single ounce of variety in the units I can build? Come on, man.

We aren't asking for much here. Lol. We aren't asking for a unit that can go invisible and launch rockets out of their ass. We are just asking for an elite infantry squad that can go toe to toe with German infantry and not bleed manpower like a severed artery.

/end rant. Lol.

If we're talking about doctrinal, that's fine. If we're talking about non-doctrinal, well, fix the issues of Riflemen and their scaling into the late-game before deciding to add things non-doctrinal troops aside from a possible T0 mortar that people want simply for smoke.

Ostheer can generally forget the fact they have PGs simply because Grenadiers can carry them to the end of the game which should be the same for US where the Riflemen carries the majority of the US Army through the game's infantry war and not all these elite troops.

Some valid points. But some things to consider:

-What do we (or should we) expect out of a Ranger squad unit? An uber version of paratroopers or a specialized unit with different roles and expectations? SHould they be geared more for anti-tank duties or just a Ober clone?

-Doctrinal or non-doc? I personally think it being doctrinal is more or less a no-brainer, given CoH1, Fox Company and the fact that adding new non-doctrinal units would quite obviously cause a balance nightmare.

-Unit roles: IMO anti-tank and scouting capability of USF is a bit lean, so I think Rangers ought to fill one or more roles that expand on these.

-Combat roles: More or less ideal for short-ranged, seeing as every other short-ranged option is both doctrinal and restricted to specific units (vehicle crews, paratroopers). We already have Riflemen for the long-medium range fighting, so it's hardly outrageous to suggest a unit call-in with short-range firepower as their forte.

-USF was (originally) designed without a unit like Rangers in mind, so trying to design such a unit into the faction in any way would be difficult. AT stunning (re buttoning) for example risks making Stuart obsolete, and making them spawn with bazookas makes the bazooka rack nearly obsolete.

-Because of the above, you may need to tweak other units like Paratroopers in order to accommodate Ranger, which opens up a can of worms in regards to people's preferences (re "dont touch my paratroopers you entitled nub") and balance.

based off your details they also sound very cost effective for the its price of MP and MU

You are speaking about the past. Obers WERE a cost effective unit. Today, I don't think you see to much people using them which says enough about their cost effectiveness. If I want elite, I better spend MP (without amo costs) on Fallshirms to be honest. Or, even better, for smaller amount of MP I better buy some Jagers because I can spam more of them, and have some of important abilities that Obers have like for instance boby trapping.

Take this from an OKW player who loves the faction and has all commanders: Obers DO NOT feel like a cost effective unit and I don't build them any more. The strongest and cost-wise infantry combo right now is a mixture of volks and Jagers. Volks + Pzfusiliers means to much amo spent, Volks + Fallshirms means to much manpower bleed and requires extra atention and baby sitting for your expensive fallshirms.

Using Obers may put you in disadvantage because: 1. eats your amo through upgrades 2. causes you manpower bleed while they will lose models. In short, if you target efficiency from cost together with fire power point of view, obers should not be considered.

Some valid points. But some things to consider:

-What do we (or should we) expect out of a Ranger squad unit? An uber version of paratroopers or a specialized unit with different roles and expectations? SHould they be geared more for anti-tank duties or just a Ober clone?

-Doctrinal or non-doc? I personally think it being doctrinal is more or less a no-brainer, given CoH1, Fox Company and the fact that adding new non-doctrinal units would quite obviously cause a balance nightmare.

-Unit roles: IMO anti-tank and scouting capability of USF is a bit lean, so I think Rangers ought to fill one or more roles that expand on these.

-Combat roles: More or less ideal for short-ranged, seeing as every other short-ranged option is both doctrinal and restricted to specific units (vehicle crews, paratroopers). We already have Riflemen for the long-medium range fighting, so it's hardly outrageous to suggest a unit call-in with short-range firepower as their forte.

Stock Thompsons and have the ability to upgrade to recoiless rifles for an anti tank capablity. Think of them like a panzergren squad...almost. Also, give them a hand grenade that isn't worth shit like the normal riflemen grenade. Maybe give them a satchel, or something. I didn't put much thought into this (lol); i don't make games nor do I handle balancing of said games. But with that being said, I find what I just said (or something similar) to be incredibly reasonable to ask for.

I don't think you can give any unit Thompsons off the bat unless they're really expensive MP-wise or toned down as they deal a ton of damage within their intended range. I don't even think the Ober STG does that much, probably wrong though as there are two variants of the weapon in the files, the one I'm looking at assumes it has the _mp label.

Stock Thompsons and have the ability to upgrade to recoiless rifles for an anti tank capablity. Think of them like a panzergren squad...almost. Also, give them a hand grenade that isn't worth shit like the normal riflemen grenade. Maybe give them a satchel, or something. I didn't put much thought into this (lol); i don't make games nor do I handle balancing of said games. But with that being said, I find what I just said (or something similar) to be incredibly reasonable to ask for.

RRs were less effective against armour, and in any case it just replaces bazooka rack even if the Ranger unit is expensive: at least Paratroopers don't upgrade to BARs and in any case the upgrades themselves cost more. That said I don't mind Rangers being an AT squad+SMG squad, at least this means they're still no match for Obers at long range and still need to close distance to rip Volksblobs apart. Having tried Rangers in Ardennes Assault, they weren't exactly powerful given their characteristics.

I also don't think Rangers being a tad similar to units like Paratroopers would be THAT much of a bad idea. I mean you got Panzerfusiliers being quite similar to Volksgrenadiers, except for G43s/ flares/ AT rifle grenade. Factor these out and all you get are slightly more expensive Volks with no panzerschreck. And they as a unit seem just fine, they still get grenades.