Profile of Protos Angelus

Best and only non doctrinal way to deal with the pak43 that is set up in a more defensive position overlooking a VP and a bit beyond (remember, pak43 has 80 range) is to use major arty on it.
Another way is to use double pak howis but that's really only for offensive pak43s. The agility and movement on pak howi is really low and they drop models like flies (not to mention that every time a model is dropped, pak howi stops moving) so using it against a more defensive pak43 is not advised as you will most likely lose double pak howis (single pak howi won't kill it in any way, not with HE nor normal nor WP).
Scott can't be used as the barrage is in range of pak43. Can't use smoke as barraging units are seen through FoW so even if you carpet bomb the pak43 with smoke, it will still fire on the Scotts. That's it for stock options.
Non stock are I&R paths, but that commander is beyond shit so you're better of using major.
Arty commanders are also possible, basically any commander that has some sort of good indirect or offmap.

There is a general rule on how to use the M-42 AT gun.

You don't.
Seriously, don't. 80 dmg with 117 far pen means that you should just throw a satchel on it after the 8 minute mark. And the 2CP means that it doesn't come out much sooner. So just invest in a ZiS, or one penal ptsr battalion

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

Don't IR Obers ignore most of the RA cover bonusses?

If that is the case: why do you base half your argument on that? IR Obers are doing their job as intended: Shred infantry in cover and close range. Almost every unit would lose against them when moving in. That's not an issue with rangers, but the general abundancy of cover in team games due to late game arty. Alternatively, that's an issue with the IR StGs, but I'd highly doubt that.

Reading comprehension over 9000.

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).

I fixed it for you. That and it has an awful tendency to hit the slightest elevation and thus a med tank can get closer without fearing about snares.

It has to be played aggressively because it has a shorter range lol.

Grenades and light artillery do full damage instead of half due to the heavy cover of the gun shield iirc. But that's not a real issue by itself. Someone even looks at you with small arms however....

If by survivable, you mean press T when you need it to shoot then yes. You wouldn't do a shootout with a regular AT gun with a med because you'll just die 90%+ of the time. But I see it all the time with raks.

Well let's just agree to disagree. I seldom see wiped raketen, by rockets or tank dives. Never even seen a dead raketen by medium dives as it's usually supported. Heck last game a 2 man raketen retreated past 6 bars through yellow cover craters and survived and even though when I play OKW, I play for fun, I've seldom lost a super aggressive raketen to anything. Well maybe nades if clumped up.