Login

russian armor

Are Rangers worth it?

8 Mar 2016, 23:11 PM
#1
avatar of GreenDevil

Posts: 394

Does anyone use Rangers, when Rifles perform quite well at the same thing, which is AI? 400MP and 100 Muni seems quite steep for such a fragile unit.

Is there any scope (hope) that they could come standard with zooks, then they might be a little more versatile?
8 Mar 2016, 23:17 PM
#2
avatar of TNrg

Posts: 640

They work better on maps which have a lot of close quarters combat. On those maps they murder everything. In long range maps, you're better off with M1919 paras if you want to use elite infantry or just BAR riflemen.
8 Mar 2016, 23:20 PM
#3
avatar of Nefer

Posts: 47

Did you know, Rangers can also get weapons from the rack, and can carry 3. Did you know I once destroyed 2 KT's and 1 JT in one go. with 3 rangers and a sergeant carrying in total of 11 bazookas. It was hilarous
8 Mar 2016, 23:23 PM
#4
avatar of GreenDevil

Posts: 394

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Mar 2016, 23:20 PMNefer
Did you know, Rangers can also get weapons from the rack, and can carry 3. Did you know I once destroyed 2 KT's and 1 JT in one go. with 3 rangers and a sergeant carrying in total of 11 bazookas. It was hilarous


How many weapons can they carry if upgraded with Thompsons?
8 Mar 2016, 23:24 PM
#5
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



How many weapons can they carry if upgraded with Thompsons?

I don't have em', but I'm pretty sure the Thompsons take up all of the slots.
8 Mar 2016, 23:27 PM
#6
avatar of Nefer

Posts: 47



How many weapons can they carry if upgraded with Thompsons?


Its a choice, its either 3 weapons from the rack, or 3 Thompsons. So far I noticed if you have 2 weapons from the rack you can still upgrade to Thompsons, but when having 3 weapons from rack Thompson upgrade is blocked. When you do have 2 weapons from the rack and do the Thompson upgrade. I dunno what will happen, never did it myself
8 Mar 2016, 23:35 PM
#7
avatar of Illenia

Posts: 19

I haven't tried rangers since they were on the free to play rotation but i think you can upgrade them to thompsons and still pick up 1 weapon from the ground/weapon racks
8 Mar 2016, 23:39 PM
#8
avatar of Slade

Posts: 8

I haven't tried rangers since they were on the free to play rotation but i think you can upgrade them to thompsons and still pick up 1 weapon from the ground/weapon racks


I play them frequently, and yes, this is true.
9 Mar 2016, 00:41 AM
#9
avatar of varunax

Posts: 210

Does anyone use Rangers, when Rifles perform quite well at the same thing, which is AI? 400MP and 100 Muni seems quite steep for such a fragile unit.

Is there any scope (hope) that they could come standard with zooks, then they might be a little more versatile?


Rifles are better at long range. Rangers are better at close range, obviously. Yes, they perform quite well for their cost. If you want a volk shreck blob wiped, just get a ranger squad. Rifle are good, but they will rarely ever wipe any squads if the opponent has good micro.

Rangers can just chew apart anything that doesn't hit retreat by the time they're in their face.
9 Mar 2016, 02:41 AM
#10
avatar of What Doth Life?!
Patrion 27

Posts: 1664

Riflemen have a target size of .97 while Ranger have .8 and they also regenerate health outside of combat at veterancy two.

Other than that I think they're a total bullshit unit. All they do is throw a standard grenade and get Thompsons... Wow Relic, you really went deep in the think tank coming up with this P2W commander :hansGASM:

They are totally generic and uninspired and their unit description labels them as "marksmanship experts" while they spawn with M1 Carbines and can get Thompsons.

I would say Paratroopers are strictly better, but they have a target size of one which can be rough.

9 Mar 2016, 02:45 AM
#11
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320

A squad of them can be really useful. If you get more then 1 you may be asking to get suppressed and shot down from long range. Using 1 as a flanker or a decap unit is strong.
AVA
9 Mar 2016, 03:00 AM
#12
avatar of AVA

Posts: 78

Riflemen have a target size of .97 while Ranger have .8 and they also regenerate health outside of combat at veterancy two.

Other than that I think they're a total bullshit unit. All they do is throw a standard grenade and get Thompsons... Wow Relic, you really went deep in the think tank coming up with this P2W commander :hansGASM:

They are totally generic and uninspired and their unit description labels them as "marksmanship experts" while they spawn with M1 Carbines and can get Thompsons.

I would say Paratroopers are strictly better, but they have a target size of one which can be rough.



The thing is, rangers are inside a good overall commander (pershing, bunkers, mines, rangers) and the para's are in an overall bad commander.. I would've used para's if there were other options beside Airborne.
9 Mar 2016, 03:03 AM
#13
avatar of Skabinsk

Posts: 238



How many weapons can they carry if upgraded with Thompsons?


with Thompsons there is 1 slot open left, for a BAR or ZOOK
9 Mar 2016, 03:07 AM
#14
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

They are good. Everyone stopped using them cuz of the calliope commander...
9 Mar 2016, 18:43 PM
#15
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

All they do is throw a standard grenade and get Thompsons

They are totally generic and uninspired and their unit description labels them as "marksmanship experts" while they spawn with M1 Carbines and can get Thompsons.

I would say Paratroopers are strictly better, but they have a target size of one which can be rough.


jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2016, 03:00 AMAVA

The thing is, rangers are inside a good overall commander (pershing, bunkers, mines, rangers) and the para's are in an overall bad commander.. I would've used para's if there were other options beside Airborne.


Both of this statements.
10 Mar 2016, 01:06 AM
#16
avatar of varunax

Posts: 210

Riflemen have a target size of .97 while Ranger have .8 and they also regenerate health outside of combat at veterancy two.

Other than that I think they're a total bullshit unit. All they do is throw a standard grenade and get Thompsons... Wow Relic, you really went deep in the think tank coming up with this P2W commander :hansGASM:

They are totally generic and uninspired and their unit description labels them as "marksmanship experts" while they spawn with M1 Carbines and can get Thompsons.

I would say Paratroopers are strictly better, but they have a target size of one which can be rough.



I used to think Para's were better than Rangers, but then I realized Rangers reinforce around 3 times faster than a Para squad.
10 Mar 2016, 02:14 AM
#17
avatar of What Doth Life?!
Patrion 27

Posts: 1664

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Mar 2016, 01:06 AMvarunax


I used to think Para's were better than Rangers, but then I realized Rangers reinforce around 3 times faster than a Para squad.


Paras can reinforce from beacons though. :luvDerp:

Paratroopers are to Panzerfusiliers as Fallschirmjäger are to Rangers. In fact, I find Breakthrough and Airborne quite similar in that they both have an awesome infantry unit to fill wholes in your composition and a strong late game ability... and nothing else. (Jagd Tiger aside :P )
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

765 users are online: 765 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48723
Welcome our newest member, zowinfans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM