I think Rangers are waaay too cheap now, but I never had a problem with their live cost. They're really, really good troops.
Just to clarify, my comments are about Ranger cost about the MOD, not about live.
USF Urban Assault -Feedback
4 Apr 2019, 14:50 PM
#161
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Just to clarify, my comments are about Ranger cost about the MOD, not about live.
4 Apr 2019, 15:03 PM
#162
Posts: 810
Compare them with PGs and you will see that they are more cost efficient.
QCQ units have proven difficult to balance and they seem to perform either OP or UP.
Timed abilities would allow QCQ to be balance since it would allow them to perform adequately but for a sort duration.
Why do you compare the Ranger to the PG?
PG is basical unit and Ranger is doctrinal infantry
[Timed abilities would allow QCQ to be balance since it would allow them to perform adequately but for a sort duration]
-> OMGF
Don't make the Ranger fool
No one will use the unit
Ranger is just expensive "walking Target" who can easily be counted
And Ranger has less utility skills and can only be used for limited use
P.S)PG also needs a price buff like Ranger
4 Apr 2019, 15:10 PM
#163
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
I think Rangers are waaay too cheap now, but I never had a problem with their live cost. They're really, really good troops.
90 Munitions is cheap now?
Manpower wise they are now where they should be, given their main competition is Paratroopers, which have one more man and more damage (as well as 2x LMG upgrades)
4 Apr 2019, 17:12 PM
#164
Posts: 59
add the panzerfusiler flare ability to rear echo after they get rifle nade
4 Apr 2019, 17:27 PM
#165
Posts: 261
90 Munitions is cheap now?
Manpower wise they are now where they should be, given their main competition is Paratroopers, which have one more man and more damage (as well as 2x LMG upgrades)
But rangers are much more durable, they have smaller target size (0.8 to 1.0) and damage reduction (10%).
开弓没有回头箭。
4 Apr 2019, 17:31 PM
#166
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
But rangers are much more durable, they have smaller target size (0.8 to 1.0) and damage reduction (10%).
They also have completely zero ways to close in on the target except literally walking up to it and rely purely on that durability.
Even 1.5 armor shocks have smoke and shocks too got a price decrease.
And lastly, you're paying separately for firepower and separately for durability in their case as they are the only assault troops who do not start with SMGs(arguable so are paras, but no one sane considers thompson paras assault troops as they have no tools for that at all and no additional durability).
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Apr 2019, 17:35 PM
#167
Posts: 3260
90 Munitions is cheap now?
Manpower wise they are now where they should be, given their main competition is Paratroopers, which have one more man and more damage (as well as 2x LMG upgrades)
I think Rangers are good on live, and 350 manpower is very good value. Whether it's too good remains to be seen.
Paratroopers have an extra man, but they also have poor received accuracy. Rangers have 0.9 received damage.
Paratroopers have Tactical Assault going for them and that's about it.
4 Apr 2019, 17:49 PM
#168
Posts: 261
They also have completely zero ways to close in on the target except literally walking up to it and rely purely on that durability.
Even 1.5 armor shocks have smoke and shocks too got a price decrease.
No off-map smoke? Rangers will have a difficult time...
I have mentioned this problem a few days ago. Rangers are fine in Heavy Cavalry Doctrine.
We could compare Rangers with Obers here:
Rangers have 0.8 RA and 10% damage reduction.
Obers have 0.7 but no damage reduction.
Rangers' M1A1 performs better at close range.
Obers' Kar98k performs better at long range.
They should have similar cost per model. But Rangers cost much less per model in this MOD now.
开弓没有回头箭。
4 Apr 2019, 18:04 PM
#169
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
They should have similar cost per model. But Rangers cost much less per model in this MOD now.
They should have similar cost per model ONLY if the price AND MODEL COUNT is similar.
Obers are not 5 man squad.
Obers also bleed less because they can just sit behind green cover at far range and don't ever have to come close, even with STGs, they'll just ignore opponents cover and their STGs are only slightly worse then LMG at long range, at realistic ranges(aka less then 35), obers with STG will dominate any other infantry in cover or trying to approach them and even if the other infantry did manages to get close, they have nuclear grenade to defend themselves.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Apr 2019, 18:30 PM
#170
Posts: 261
They should have similar cost per model ONLY if the price AND MODEL COUNT is similar.
Obers are not 5 man squad.
Obers also bleed less because they can just sit behind green cover at far range and don't ever have to come close, even with STGs, they'll just ignore opponents cover and their STGs are only slightly worse then LMG at long range, at realistic ranges(aka less then 35), obers with STG will dominate any other infantry in cover or trying to approach them and even if the other infantry did manages to get close, they have nuclear grenade to defend themselves.
Since Obers have less models than Rangers, every Ranger model should not be more durable than every Ober model. But they have same durability right now, and Obers have higher reinforcement cost.
Why do you assume that all encounters happened in open map? If all encounters happened in open map, Infantry Section with two Brens should be the most expensive infantry in this game.
Why do you assume both units should perform defensively? For offensive scenarios, Rangers are much better since you want to get into pinpoint range (less than 10) which nullify cover bonus totally.
开弓没有回头箭。
4 Apr 2019, 18:36 PM
#171
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Since Obers have less models than Rangers, every Ranger model should not be more durable than every Ober model. But they have same durability right now, and Obers have higher reinforcement cost.
Obers are NOT rangers.
Obers are NOT close range assault infantry.
Obers do NOT need to expose themselves to direct fire to do their job.
Why do you assume that all encounters happened in open map? If all encounters happened in open map, Infantry Section with two Brens should be the most expensive infantry in this game.
Why do you assume long range LMG infantry bleeds the same as CQC specialist squad with no mobility skills?
Why do you assume 4 man squads should reinforce for similar cost of 5 model squads, when one squad reinforces only up to 3 models and another up to 4?
Why do you assume both units should perform defensively? For offensive scenarios, Rangers are much better since you want to get into pinpoint range (less than 10) which nullify cover bonus totally.
Why do you assume rangers will not lose models by the time they are at that range?
Why do you assume obers will lose even a single model despite sitting behind green cover as they have zero reason to close in?
You're right, Obers do not deserve the durability they have.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Apr 2019, 18:40 PM
#172
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
Boyos please consider the following, when HC was the only USF Commander, how often people did go for the almighty Rangers?
They are just too expensive, even if they can be really good, it's not really worth it over just getting another Riflesquad.
400MP up front is just too much.
They are just too expensive, even if they can be really good, it's not really worth it over just getting another Riflesquad.
400MP up front is just too much.
4 Apr 2019, 18:55 PM
#173
Posts: 261
Obers are NOT rangers.
Obers are NOT close range assault infantry.
Obers do NOT need to expose themselves to direct fire to do their job.
Why do you assume long range LMG infantry bleeds the same as CQC specialist squad with no mobility skills?
Why do you assume they bleed the same?
Why do you assume 4 man squads should reinforce for similar cost of 5 model squads, when one squad reinforces only up to 3 models and another up to 4?
Why do you assume rangers will not lose models by the time they are at that range?
Why do you assume obers will lose even a single model despite sitting behind green cover as they have zero reason to close in?
You're right, Obers do not deserve the durability they have.
Aren't we are comparing STG Obers with Rangers here? Because you mentioned a lot about STG.
If I want my Obers to sit behind green cover instead of assault, why should I pick STG at the first place? The reason that I pick STG is I want to wipe enemy's team weapons as soon as possible so my other units could advance along with Obers. And Rangers perform much better at wiping team weapons.
Yes, I assume that Obers bleed as much as Rangers during these assaulting scenarios.
开弓没有回头箭。
4 Apr 2019, 19:12 PM
#174
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Aren't we are comparing STG Obers with Rangers here? Because you mentioned a lot about STG.
If I want my Obers to sit behind green cover instead of assault, why should I pick STG at the first place? The reason that I pick STG is I want to wipe enemy's team weapons as soon as possible so my other units could advance along with Obers. And Rangers perform much better at wiping team weapons.
Yes, I assume that Obers bleed as much as Rangers during these assaulting scenarios.
That applies to STGs as well.
They have very decent long range DPS and ignore cover partly.
STG obers are NOT assault troops, they are "I'll hurt you from long range and I'll fucking MURDERFUCK you from mid and close range".
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Apr 2019, 20:05 PM
#175
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Since Obers have less models than Rangers, every Ranger model should not be more durable than every Ober model. But they have same durability right now, and Obers have higher reinforcement cost.
Rangers do not have the same durability. They are the only squad in the game to get a 0.9 damage modifier (on top of their received accuracy).
4 Apr 2019, 21:17 PM
#176
Posts: 563
Im somewhat worried that incendiary grenade will give usf simular "just deny cover" that can be used instead of normal nades. And compared to volks, double bar wielding rifles getting on the spitting distance with ability to completely deny previous cover might cause issues.
"Pain is almost euphoric sam!"
4 Apr 2019, 21:46 PM
#177
Posts: 3053
They also have completely zero ways to close in on the target except literally walking up to it and rely purely on that durability.
Even 1.5 armor shocks have smoke and shocks too got a price decrease.
And lastly, you're paying separately for firepower and separately for durability in their case as they are the only assault troops who do not start with SMGs(arguable so are paras, but no one sane considers thompson paras assault troops as they have no tools for that at all and no additional durability).
They can benefit from other units' smoke, but by themselves they're the only elite infantry with literally zero utility type abilities other than grenades. As you said, no smoke or camo or anything to help them close (on their own) so they do have to be pretty tough.
I think Rangers are good on live, and 350 manpower is very good value. Whether it's too good remains to be seen.
Paratroopers have an extra man, but they also have poor received accuracy. Rangers have 0.9 received damage.
Paratroopers have Tactical Assault going for them and that's about it.
I think 350 is fine given that they have to upgrade thompsons for muni. I was more or less fine with their reinforce cost though, and I don't really see why it was reduced but I don't think it's ridiculous either.
Don't forget about paradrop reinforce from beacons. Super useful and it lets them win fights they'd normal have no chance at, but if you're not careful it turns into a huge manpower sink.
 | Playercard of LoopDloop | |||||||||||||||||||
|
4 Apr 2019, 22:24 PM
#178
Posts: 919
So where is the problem? If games will reveal that 350 is too cheap they will be adjusted to 360 or 370. Either way they will not be spammed, because they come at 3CPs, have high reinforce costs, have to buy the Thompsons on top (SU shock troopers in comparison come right out of the box and have a good performance too) have no AT capabilities and get f...ed at long range or by AI vehicles/tanks. They are even missing a smoke grenade on their own (relying on other US smoke options). They are no 250 manpower early game unit that can be build into almighty allround troopers. Just relax, everything will be fine with them.
4 Apr 2019, 23:15 PM
#179
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The unit itself might not have smoke but that does not mean that they do not have access to smoke.
Both commander with rangers have doctrinal smoke for them and one even allow them to sprint.
In addition R.E. and officers can provide smoke among other things.
Both commander with rangers have doctrinal smoke for them and one even allow them to sprint.
In addition R.E. and officers can provide smoke among other things.
4 Apr 2019, 23:45 PM
#180
Posts: 3053
The unit itself might not have smoke but that does not mean that they do not have access to smoke.
Both commander with rangers have doctrinal smoke for them and one even allow them to sprint.
In addition R.E. and officers can provide smoke among other things.
Yes. Point being, you will have to have other infantry squads to support it. That's generally considered balanced and they probably won't be spammed or anything and won't be 100% independent. Maybe even increase the cooldown if you're really worried. They do also come at 3cp so they won't exactly be replacing mainline infantry like old jaegers did.
| Playercard of LoopDloop | |||||||||||||||||||
|
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
59 | ||
 |
|
|
40 | ||
 |
|
|
13 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
200 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.261137.656+2
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235
Board Info
763 users are online:
763 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM