Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 18
Posts: 18
The smoke costs 70muni and comes 2cp after you get rangers
IMO Rangers at 350 MIGHT be unbalanced, but at this time you should already have vet RE or rifles, and you still have to pay 90(?) Muni to get the Thompsons in the first place I highly doubt you could spam those. Not to mention the other muni abilitys in this commander you'll also want to us like the rifle nades, Molotovs and Grenades, ect
The thing im more worried about is the zero call down Wp shell, you can just keep hitting infantry with it over and over for only 20muni
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
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.
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2358
I'd take the cheaper HC smoke for Rangers only, rather than Cover to Cover 70 munitions cost, but I think that buff perished with the change right?
That's like, 160 munitions, on an army everyone keeps saying you need 600 worth of upgrades tocompetedominate.
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Posts: 3260
And if rangers are going to sit and stay at 350MP, panzergrenadiers MP needs to be looked at (340MP).
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
And if rangers are going to sit and stay at 350MP, panzergrenadiers MP needs to be looked at (340MP).
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.
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
I love this ranger talk. I think they'll be strong, probably too strong at 350MP, and it was one of my original concerns.
On open maps in 1v1 for example like crossroads, you can charge frontally and probably force a retreat on an LMG obersquad with thompson rangers but be forced to retreat yourself. But the problem lies I think in more CQC maps. Once you're into lategame, and both sides have lost maybe 2-3 infantry, you replace them with rangers, unless you need snares. OKW does the same with obers unless snares needed. On CQC maps, obers stand zero chance vs rangers without double grenade and a lot of luck. So on open maps and 1v1 it might be ok, in higher player gamemodes and CQC maps, rangers will crush with near zero counterplay.
And if rangers are going to sit and stay at 350MP, panzergrenadiers MP needs to be looked at (340MP).
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Wouldn't Rangers be more expensive in that scenario?
Even with the 50 less MP upfront, they would still be more expensive, outside of reinforcement cost. Unless you count 3 vs 4 in 1 man retreat circumstances where they would be more expensive too!
Rangers in larger modes means giving up the Priest, maybe Urban Defense can finally dispute Infantry throne in such modes, but I highly doubt it considering how many want to replace the Calliope with some other tank and make this Commander irrelevant in larger game modes.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
But the problem lies I think in more CQC maps. Once you're into lategame, and both sides have lost maybe 2-3 infantry, you replace them with rangers, unless you need snares. OKW does the same with obers unless snares needed. On CQC maps, obers stand zero chance vs rangers without double grenade and a lot of luck. So on open maps and 1v1 it might be ok, in higher player gamemodes and CQC maps, rangers will crush with near zero counterplay.
340MP (obers) vs 350MP (rangers), and 80 muni LMG vs 90 thompson, to win every CQC engagement and compete in open field charges. I would most definatley pay that little discrepancy for those results.
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
340MP (obers) vs 350MP (rangers), and 80 muni LMG vs 90 thompson, to win every CQC engagement and compete in open field charges. I would most definatley pay that little discrepancy for those results.
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Is this where I argue that's fine because they are doctrinal?
I am surprised though, that sounds really good (thanks to the buff), but if they are so good then how come people skipped on them entirely? Even when HC was meta, people rarely used Rangers, why is that if they can beat Obers?
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
Doctrinal arguement is fine, it just doesn't seem to work in other cases for some reason. Not you just.... other cases.... cough* panzerfusis cough*. Skipped probably because you had 3+ rifles running around along with free officers and you don't really need that much more infantry. No room for elites :/ Just bad design IMO, but who knows, I'm bad at the game too
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
It's just funny to see how that works, nowadays people sometimes go one Riflemen, because of cooldown nerfs on 0 CP call-in infantry.
What happened that everyone is avoiding them like the plague?
Panzerfusiliers at least now they will be cheaper Panzershreck squads than PGs.
Posts: 20
It's just funny to see how that works, nowadays people sometimes go one Riflemen, because of cooldown nerfs on 0 CP call-in infantry.
What happened that everyone is avoiding them like the plague?
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
Posts: 563
4 Posts: 550 | Subs: 1
 |
|
|
40 | ||
|
|
|
|
30 | ||
|
|
|
|
11 | ||
 |
|
|
148 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
